Spanish – There is a very particular issue that makes me especially indignant among people who consider themselves left-wing, especially within Argentine Kirchnerism. It is the idea of the “combo,” the conceptual “happy box” that they decided to buy politically, abandoning all vestiges of individuality and coherence.
The average socialist has his theoretical and moral decalogue, but when the reality, especially the policies implemented by governments of the same political persuasion, show him the obvious contradictions, he looks the other way.
Then, they no longer analyze the facts based on their own premises, such as the welfare of the workers or the reduction of poverty. Their hypocrisy leads them to defend a prefabricated package because that is what the Maduros or the Cristinas of the world claim.
It doesn’t even matter if the positions have to change from one day to the next. If for the organs of communication of Kirchnerism, Pope Francis stops being the accomplice of the dictatorship to be the example to follow, so be it.
If you don’t defend the whole combo, you play to the right. It doesn’t matter if you have to look the other way when a nefarious policy like Alberto Fernandez’s quarantine ruins the lives of the most deprived workers. We must keep silent so as not to be accomplices of the ghost of “neoliberalism.”
This is how they all are: unpresentable. Intellectually weak, conceptually incoherent, and sometimes pretty much sons of bitches. It is not possible to overlook several cases of serious allegations of sexual abuse and harassment that have been silenced by the feminist Kirchnerists because they are leaders “allied” with their nefarious causes.
In international politics, all this is more unfettered. As long as they do not criticize a country in conflict with the United States or Israel, progressives justify as “cultural customs” the ablation of the clitoris of girls and the submission of women throughout their lives or even the execution of gay people if the Islamic butchers are “anti-imperialists” like them.
But since the left is practically all rotten, in the space that calls itself right-wing, some examples are not characterized by their intellectual aptitudes, their critical thinking, or their mental lucidity.
Francis’ statements on the rights of gay couples in a recent documentary released in Rome today provoked many energetic people who believe themselves to be more civilized than the childish socialists. They are not, of course. They are not saved even by the defense of pure capitalism.
“Homosexual people have a right to be in a family. They are children of God and have a right to a family. Nobody should be thrown out or be made miserable over it,” Jorge Bergoglio would have said in the film “Francesco.” According to the chronicles of several publications that covered the launch of the disruptive documentary, the pope would have even declared that he was in favor of civil unions within the law for same-sex couples.
Now, since progressives defend the ideas ordered by the populist authorities, it seems that in various conservative spaces, they criticize what is manifested on the opposite side without the slightest justification- almost as a question of sides. The basic ones and the limited ones are definitely in the whole ideological arc.
As regrettable as it is, many have used social media against the populist pope for his absolutely exceptional sayings. Many voices spoke out, criticizing the supposed coherence of the progressive pontiff. For these self-styled “right-wingers,” Bergoglio manifests himself in favor of the right of gays because he is “communist.”
This superficial criticism only reveals two things: a stale and intolerant conservatism and a herd mentality that seeks to maintain membership in a reactionary space.
A clue to trace those in the second group: they use the term “homosexualism” curiously as if it were a doctrine like “communism” or “liberalism.”
The critique that the critically acclaimed Bergoglio deserves is not that of “coherence” in the thought of evil. Quite the contrary. If there is anything to be said for these recent manifestations, it is the accusation of incoherence. Beyond the questions of the sexual orientation of the members, if the Pope of the Catholic Church is concerned about the well-being of the families, the first thing he should do is to throw away his entire conceptual framework, both in the political and in the economic field.
His naive ideas about “popular democracies” only encourage models that generate the concentration of power, which inevitably leads to totalitarian governments. And those political processes only exterminate dissent within countries and eliminate the discussion of ideas, such as the one he courageously seeks to create within Catholicism on these issues. Not to speak of his economic model, which is both interventionist and statist.
One can recognize Francis’ intentions and his pain for the dispossessed and the most deprived. But the truth is that his ideas are the most efficient multipliers of poverty in the world. Taking into account his place of influence, although he does not even suspect it, Bergoglio is one of the main responsible for the tragedy he constantly denounces.
Furthermore, it seems that it is not enough to confuse bad things with good. The pope also thinks that successful recipes, such as economic freedom and market deregulation, are negative. If one reads between the lines in his writings and opinions, one can find pens and influences directly from Marxism. In short, the Pope has serious conceptual problems and must be severely criticized every time he says something stupid.
Now, with one rare exception, he was right. Surely, the more conservative sectors of the Church will now start harassing Francis for his statements. His courage in this cause is indeed consistent with the Christian principle of love of neighbor.
In this present context, much less daring than this would be to learn a little about economics and abandon his ideological prejudices. Beyond the fact that the debate on civil unions for the church is positive, if the Pope continues to be the main standard-bearer of the economic ideas of backwardness, couples in the poorest countries, regardless of gender or sexual orientation, will continue to have a hard time.
As long as the economic plans endorsed by the Pope persist, humble families in the poorest countries would have no work, nor a plate of food on the table or a roof over their heads. And this, it must be said, is more urgent than his recent valuable reflection, which should be celebrated by the entire civilized world.