Better to change the analyst | THE VIEWER

In the great Woody Allen movie, Manhattan, the main character confronts his ex-wife, who is a lesbian. You knew my story before we got married, says the woman, played by Meryl Streep. Yes, admits Woody Allen. My analyst warned me. But you were so beautiful that I preferred to change my analyst.

We laugh. However, how many people do not act like this in daily life? How many wouldn’t rather change fonts than accept that their hero is flawed or admit that they were wrong? How many admit that what their enemies told them was true, that their political or religious idol was imperfect? Very few. It is better to hear what is convenient to continue believing. Better change the analyst.

This is what happened in the US with Trump. His followers betrayed their own party ideology and even justified a bloody assault, so abhorrent and so contrary to the laws and the rule of law, as the one on January 6 to the Capitol, before accepting that they had supported a maniacal charlatan . And they continue to support him.

In Colombia this reaction is typical in politics. How many uribistas do not insist on denying any error of their supreme boss? Before accepting the false positives or the abuses of power committed by Álvaro Uribe, including re-election, political yididis, following magistrates or turning the DAS into a criminal outpost, they allege that they are communist insults and conspiracies, whatever before Accept faults in your leader. His ostrich reaction is equivalent to changing the analyst.

Petrism is not far behind. How many times do Petro’s supporters admit that his candidate (and therefore them) was wrong? Petro can propose something suicidal, like his anti-oil thesis, and they applaud him without hesitation and regardless of the fact that 55% of exports depend on fuel. He can say that the bills in plastic bags were donated by the architect Simón Vélez, and although Simón himself denies it, his host defends him offended, saying that they are lies from the right. So the candidate is filmed. In audio and video.

Another good example is the social forgiveness of Iván Moreno. The inmate was not a poor wretch imprisoned for stealing stale bread. That was an embarrassing meeting in prison between the candidate’s brother and one of the greatest symbols of national corruption. But, instead of admitting the error, many faithful to Petro did everything to morally justify the immoral and the unjustifiable. They searched for compassionate theses and offered quasi-religious explanations, although none would have ever celebrated something similar in a rival. But, for being his candidate, they applauded him. I do not judge that they support Petro. My objection is to the unthinking support, that due to the fervor they give up their critical capacity and do not dare to question even the most obvious errors. Before admitting a fault, they go to what is best for them. They prefer to change analyst.

What’s wrong with saying I was wrong? That you were right? Even when the evidence is undeniable, when the facts show that the one in whom one believes has made a mistake, at that moment the Petrista and the Uribista go on to self-deception, to the offensive and to indignation. Whatever, as long as they continue to believe in the purity of their idol.

Rather, they prefer to change their analyst.


Source link

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Back to top button

Adblock Detected

Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker