Leggi in ItalianoLately, I have been coming across more and more political discussions in which disagreement seems to have become little more than an excuse for trading insults. What strikes me most is how easily criticism of a political position turns into contempt for the person expressing it. I have the impression that we are gradually becoming accustomed to a way of doing politics in which ridiculing opponents, attributing the worst possible intentions to them, and treating them as people unworthy of being heard is considered perfectly normal.
I certainly don’t believe that politics should be conducted through carefully measured words and endless displays of courtesy. Some decisions deserve the harshest criticism, and there are circumstances in which indignation is entirely justified. Democracy thrives on passion and conflict as well. What I find difficult to accept is the shift from challenging ideas to systematically demeaning the people who hold them. Once that happens, the substance of the debate fades into the background, and attention turns to whoever can deliver the hardest blow.
I also have the feeling that, in many cases, these are no longer occasional excesses. Aggressiveness is deliberately cultivated because it provokes reactions, strengthens group identity, and makes it immediately clear who should be the target of people’s anger. Political success can even come to be measured by the irritation or humiliation inflicted on opponents. After being exposed to this kind of language long enough, we begin to find it familiar, while a reasoned discussion risks appearing weak or ineffective.
Political science has long studied a phenomenon known as affective polarization. It occurs when differences in political opinion are accompanied by growing hostility towards those who belong to the opposing camp. Political affiliations increasingly become emotional identities as well. People are judged according to the group to which they are thought to belong, and intentions are attributed to them without anyone necessarily making an effort to understand what they actually think. This dynamic can develop on both sides of a political conflict, although that does not mean that everyone bears the same responsibility.
Digital platforms have given these tendencies a visibility that would once have been difficult to imagine. An offensive remark is far easier to share, comment on, and circulate than an argument that requires a few minutes of attention. This is certainly not an absolute rule, and social media can also encourage valuable exchanges. Still, it is hard to ignore how much space is now occupied by provocations designed to elicit an immediate reaction. The pursuit of attention risks shaping even the language of those who ought to help the public understand complex political and social questions.
The issue becomes considerably more serious when this hostility accompanies the exercise of political power. Those who govern have instruments at their disposal that directly affect people’s lives, and they are expected to exercise those powers in accordance with the law and with respect for everyone’s rights, including the rights of those who criticize the government. When political opposition is repeatedly portrayed as disloyal or dangerous, it becomes easier to justify pressure and punitive measures against opponents, at least in the eyes of one’s own supporters. This is where the problem extends beyond political language and begins to affect constitutional safeguards, pluralism, and the impartiality of public institutions. Of course, identifying an abuse of power requires examining the facts and the measures adopted in each case. The illegality of a government decision cannot simply be inferred from the aggressive rhetoric surrounding it.
Not all political controversies are alike, and neither are the responsibilities of those involved. It would be a mistake to suggest that people should refrain from severe criticism for fear of deepening divisions, since exposing serious misconduct is itself an essential part of democratic life. Yet I have the impression that we are losing the habit of distinguishing between judging someone’s conduct and dismissing that person altogether, between opposing a political decision and denying those responsible for it the right to take part in public debate.
Perhaps what concerns me most is precisely how accustomed we are becoming to all this. We get used to insults, public humiliation, and the idea that the value of a political position somehow depends on the aggressiveness with which it is defended. Eventually, it becomes harder to listen to someone without immediately wondering which side they are on. I would like to continue believing that we can disagree profoundly, even fiercely, without feeling the need to despise the person standing opposite us. This is not simply a matter of good manners. It concerns how we choose to live together in a society in which, fortunately, we will never all agree.