Occasionally people, myself included, we ask: but how do they actually completely incompatible as those of the League (Federalist, at least in words ) and AN (centralized) to live within the same grid? I do not say much for the politicians in this case that has obvious attractions for himself to this forced cohabitation, but common for voters (voters among other things, such as the League, which will attach themselves to a kind of ideology - mythology , so the God Po and then more so should see how the wool over the eyes to a neighbor or simply centralist Southerner). In short, what kind of mental mechanism snaps the head of a voter who supports the League because they somehow believe it, hate Berlusconi, but gives his vote to the League even though this vote is CLEARLY a vote of support for Berlusconi?
left - maybe wrong, but I do not think - I think the mechanism was different, and because of its inability proverbial cohesion. If I Left vote and Freedom clearly I do just to mark my grip away from the PD, and this distancing is transformed into an actual result: My votes went to the Left and freedom and not have supported the Democratic Party. Sure, there's Peter, but his situation is a bit 'abnormal. I always felt that in reality the voters of Di Pietro are simply disaffected voters PD. Di Pietro vote because it takes the position that took the PD. But it is not just a wall away. If those positions had the PD, the PD would vote. In a sense, is a rod encouragement. As if to say: "I know that Peter will never win a majority in politics, but the vote to send a signal to the PD, why must understand the direction in which the preferences of citizens who favor the left."
short, because the voters vote for parties like the League and AN PDL and feel no contradiction, no qualms indirectly support positions antithetical to those that often are - should be - their own, personal ones? I have a feeling that there is a strange sort of mechanism, almost invisible, never openly expressed an understanding between the politicians of these parties and their supporters. Calderoli Montecitorio to look at whether to give itself an attitude, then returns to his feud e subito riesplode in un rutto liberatorio la sua vera natura, torna a parlare di musulmani fetidi e di terroni e la gente applaude. Ma appunto, c'è una sorta di intesa invisibile, quasi mafiosa, fra il politico e i suoi elettori. Come se dicesse: non preoccupatevi, anche se sono a Roma, anche se mi comporto in modo diverso dal Calderoli che conoscete, resto sempre io; sapete che sto con Berlusconi solo per portare avanti i miei interessi; lui non è che un mezzo per arrivare al mio - al nostro - fine personale. Quando e se non dovesse servire più, lo scarico.
Che fra politici ci sia un machiavellismo egoistico che porta ad alleanze anche improbabili è un'ovvietà. Ma forse non è del tutto un'ovvietà that the fact that the particular policies pursued ulterior motives is one thing absolutely known to all his constituents although he does not ever speak openly. Perhaps it is that Italians are fools, maybe I'm just cynical. When Berlusconi and Bossi go hand in hand, to clearly demonstrate an understanding that they are actually ready to break if it proves to be counterproductive, because they do it? Those who seek to deceive? Why do I doubt that, for example, a Northern League really say that kind Berlusconi is not so bad after all. Probably say that yes, Bossi does so for pro on the project of federalism, Padania and so on, but in reality Berlusconi is a shady type, you know he knows Bossi and they know the voters, and you can leave when you will be well exploited the situation. With all due respect to those who fill their mouths with the importance of stability in the country. A sort of comedy made for the use and consumption do not really know who and where the actors are not only politicians but also voters. In this sense, some attempts to bring the voters the right to reason, and advise them that, for example, the positions of a boss have nothing to do with those of Berlusconi, and then logic would dictate that gave a vote of fact also supports Berlusconi, are destined to fail miserably. The voters know very well : vote however Bossi directly (and indirectly Berlusconi) because it will also continue their projects (and is understood to take your support for Berlusconi if \u200b\u200bthey see that there is more to gain from them personally.
On the one hand this is almost admirable self-denial of the case probably is also the basis of strict discipline (although the facade, but there is not one on the left) that allows the strength of the PDL. devastating cynicism that is the other show I'm not saying politicians, but its individual citizens, including the fact that all this does not reveal virtually nothing in words. A little 'the same mechanism that underlies a curious phenomenon that I believe to be all Italian: There has never happened, for example regional roads along certain to receive the signals (flashes or something similar) from the machines that pass in the opposite direction, only to find a couple of hundred yards ahead, the inevitable police patrol? Because of total strangers feel the need to report the matter to police presence? Why not surprise us that they do and indeed we are approaching a vague sense of camaraderie and friendship, for this report? Why, once past the patrol of the police, we almost feel compelled to return the favor by making in turn reported to the cars going in reverse? We are a country genetically mafia.
