I highly urge Yesterday's lyrics by Karolina Lewicka on the theme. Not that he's peculiarly important, or highly customs. Lewicka is reliable and I think she is 1 of the more lucid and honest commentators of what is customaryly called a political scene, although it would be more appropriate to item 1 of the features of phase performances and to call it a alternatively political lie. Lewicka writes about the political task Holownia burned down in her opinion, and lists errors. I agree with almost everyone. The Levite conclusion is besides true: "The 3rd Way must either come up again or fall." Yet the text is as false as the full Polish policy. Reading, I wondered what the origin was and what the consequence was. Is this, by any chance, the consequence of specified media presentations? I urge this text to practice in reasoning about the sources of swamp in which we are stuck to our ears.
When writing “all Polish politics” I do not mean what the Law and Justice do. It's out of the norm, below all reasonable criticism, and there's no point in doing that. This is besides beyond politics, which is simply a separate problem – an interesting one, and the socio-cultural dimension of this phenomenon remains unrecognized in my opinion. But let's leave it at a quieter time. erstwhile I compose “Polish politics” I mean only what happens on the opposition side of “political deception” – to stay consistent with describing reality.
And don't let it be that I'm complaining and accusing again. It was Lewicka who wrote in her own text, and I'm just repeating – a disaster in politics occurs erstwhile politicians believe their own slogans and diagnoses. Is it interesting what diagnosis does Lewick believe? Or, for example, Donald Tusk, who, unlike Holownia, does not drown in the polls and doesn't gotta come up again? What is it and what matters really, since publically declared diagnoses are just as apparent a lie as passwords are nothing but lies? It's no shame to lie. It's the very nature of politics. No, not written – everyone. Democratic, opposition, too. I didn't compose it. This was written by a reasonable and honest Carolina Lewick.
Review of Lewick's legitimate remarks about Holown's mistakes. He starts with the celebrated consultation of the Future + task with the people of Nzarnka. He notes Koboski's message that written ministers heard many hard words of truth. He asks rhetorically and rightly, so what? Nothing, of course. Meanwhile, Tusk wrote about the same consultations that Polish patriots will talk about the future of Poland. Lewicka likes it more – but the question is, what does not fall out of her mouth this time. It is apparent that calling the camp of power traitors of the good of Poland is simply a more powerful motto than complaining about breaking the Polish war, especially during the period of electoral mobilization. It's little apparent how it pays off. The exclusion of politicians and supporters of the 3rd Way from the patriots alongside the Law and Justice reduces the polling consequence of the opposition. Supporters of a hard course will say "it's hard not to talk to traitors." The only infidelity in the Levite text is that questions about the rightness and effectiveness of specified a policy do not fall here at all, and should accompany all the situations it describes.
With Holovnia it has always been so, writes Lewicka and reminds of breaking Pl2050 out of the solidarity vote of the opposition behind the dud draft law on SN. “The Holovnia did not score,” he says, “as ‘the sole defender of the Constitution’, but fastened the splitter’s patch.” The opposition – no longer written – scored as pragmatists willing to vote with the Law and Justice to get EU money. The hoarding home and the remainder of the organization did the other as in the last case of "consultation", but this time in connection with this "smart" attitude of the PO it would be appropriate to ask "what of it". There is no EU money, and so it could not be, which the opposition politicians had to know, although they said otherwise, and political commentators constantly and completely pointlessly repeat on this occasion that Brussels will sale Polish regulation in the name of specified or another interests. So far, Brussels has not sold anything and the weapons of the principle. The opposition politicians... There is neither EU money nor the defence of the regulation of law. But, yes, talking about it a lot. We know at least adequate from Lewicki that neither any diagnosis of the anticipation of unlocking EU money nor slogans about the needs of Polish families, nor those about the unlawful tyranny of the Law and Justice Union should be taken seriously. What has been achieved in these games? I have no thought and Lewicka doesn't explain it. He most likely feels that all of this is better served by the polls before the election. Well, polls don't precisely justify that, either.
Finally, Lewick goes on to estimation the electoral possibilities and analyse possible electorates. That's what I've been talking about, and I've written a lot, and it's all about the discussion of a common list. Lewicka does not supply any fresh observations or analysis. It states, among another things, that it is impossible to number on "anti-system" voters, as they are managed by the Confederation. He says it's nonsense to number on the unvoted and the indecisive, and it's not clear why it must be nonsense. Neither this nor any another text on electoral forecasts refers to the problem of low electoral attendance, tries to analyse where the 3rd power in Polish politics comes from, which does not vote at all. No 1 – Karolina Lewicka besides – is considering the hypothesis that this is all the consequence of unbelief in this policy, in which no 1 can take publically proclaimed diagnosis and slogans seriously.
But he writes Lewick in vain something that is undoubtedly actual and worth paying attention to. About the maneuvers and volts to date Pl 2050 states that they were due to “the disappointed hopes of Simon Holownia to be the main force of opposition, which the plan collapsed upon returning to the Polish political scene of Tusk. That was a mediocre forecast for the future." The full value of Pl2050 was due to the fact that it is not a Platform, although software from the Platform does not disagree in any way (as we know from Lewicka, the program is just bullshit). The value of Hołownia was that it was not Schetina, Budka, and then it came to him not to be Trzaskowski, which was worse for him and yet Tuski, which is already bad for him.
Describing the fall of the dream of the power of Simon Holownia Karolina Lewicka describes our fall. It's not just the 3rd Road that might be lost at the threshold. This full democratic camp is truly bad. The fact that Holowna went badly does not change the fact that the first diagnosis that Lewicka mentions marginally was correct and crucial – we request something far different from the politicians known for years with their glass ceilings of impenetrable support and something another than the belief that politics are just PR bullshit. If it remains, the Confederacy will vote “anti-system” and the more sensible of the disillusioned electoral policies will return to their homes. The opposition will vote for you – there are quite a few them, I know – who think politics is fake and they don't mind.
Anecdote for conclusion. erstwhile I was moving in 2019, a friend organized a focus survey for me. Of course, they do not supply any quantitative analysis and they cannot be the basis of forecasts (although these studies have been and sometimes have been) – this is mainly a qualitative assessment of the effectiveness of, for example, various “threads of narrative”. Although I am incapable to “think narration”, which condemns me to disasters according to the concept of Karolina Lewicka – but I think it is better to know than not to know, so I looked at investigation with curiosity and in any moments with fascination. And so it happened that the group of respondents divided by sex and each of these groups formulated their conclusions separately – and at the same time they were unanimous and different for men and women.
Women looked at my “authentism” and saw it in my “non-violence”, in direct language, in apparent passion. It was a immense asset for them, but of course at the same time a certain weakness in the planet of politics, which they knew promotes force (just symbolic), cynicism and a tough game of business. It was large to look at it – although I was a bit embarrassed to talk about it, due to the fact that it might sound sexist – almost maternal instincts in them started. You could virtually see them getting closer to each another and let me know how to aid a man.
Meanwhile, for men, everything that was an advantage for women was absolutely disqualifying. You must not part with a tie, but you must not part with a lie. It is essential to lie whether it is essential or not, due to the fact that that is what politics is about. There's no point in wasting time and attention on individual so reckless that he doesn't know it. “Narration” matching both groups cannot be folded, it is clear. The choice between 1 and the another is apparent to me. However, my destiny is evident. And anyone who chooses to. How did this happen? Who shapes specified a image of politics? Who describes her like that? For me, too, it is more clear – media and people specified as otherwise decent and wise Karolina Lewicka. The tongue thinks for us. We can't think otherwise about politics. We deficiency basic concepts.
