PM Personality And French Elections
I am not a morning person. I have a PM personality. I don’t wake up unless I am awoken, or … I am really excited about something. Only on vacations I change from night-owl to being a morning person. 🙂
On Wednesdays, at 8:30 AM there was a class about aesthetics by a French philosopher, which was not even held at the university I was attending! 🙂
A friend of mine mentioned that it might interest me. After the first session I attented I became addicted. The course consisted of informal discussions between the teacher and students. The theme, as I mentioned, was aesthetics but would naturally glide in all directions. Believe it or not what amazed me the most was that it was the first time I saw someone “thinking” before speaking! Whenever a question was raised, our professor, who with his long hair and beard looked like a Greek philosopher, would think in an undisturbed silence and would respond after about a minute. At that time, to me, his answers were magical. No clichés or fast ready-made ones. Each one was like opening a window in a direction unknown to me…
1981 was the year of the French elections. In my ignorant eyes it was akin to mass hysteria. When the election was won by the Socialist Party people celebrated in the streets as though Bastille was liberated once again.
The last Wednesday before the elections someone asked the professor for whom he was going to cast his vote.
To everyone’s surprise he said he was not going to vote at all. He considered both parties liars, giving false promises and manipulating voters’ fears. It was against his principles to vote for liars.
Almost the whole class reacted: “how come? This is an historic moment for the country, how can you refuse to participate… to lie is considered normal for politicians because their adversaries also lie, it is part of the game of politics etc..”
The professor looked at the main cheerleader and told her that she was like the spokeswoman for the Liar’s Syndicate. He did not believe that people were stupid. If a politician spoke honestly, avoided promising miracles, did not invent imaginary enemies, did not simplify the problems by blaming them on his adversaries, and just talked about what he can improve and what he cannot … people would understand. He would vote for someone who tried this form of campaign.
Naïve? Maybe, but it still sounds right to me.