Merit and Meritocracy, God, Country and Family: the Left faces the challenge of words

Are merit and meritocracy right-wing words? The left, a prisoner of the categories of the past, struggles to pronounce them and when it does it subordinates them to many premises, almost ashamed. Before the “68” meritocracy served to legitimize the brutal school discrimination between rich and poor. The latter managed to emerge and continue their studies only rarely. Fighting that system was right and proper. Just to break down that wall of senseless discrimination; necessary to offer opportunities to the most deserving and not give up the contribution they would have made to the growth and development of our country.

The suicide of the political vote

The “68-year-olds” wanted a better school, but many of them, betraying the affirmation of “Che” Guevara: “El nino que no estudia no es un buen revolucionario” chose the suicidal shortcut of the political vote. That choice paved the way for the downgrading of the school, gradually transforming it into an automatic distributor of educational qualifications, unsuitable for entering the world of work in which, instead, the selection is brutally based on real knowledge of one’s subject.

The public sector is an exception, where the selection criteria are often of a different type. After decades of laxity and strategic errors, it becomes decisive today, indeed revolutionary, to restore the concept of merit, in the absence of which many of our young people, often the best, continue to leave Italy to “enrich” the countries with their intelligence in which skills are recognized and valued.

The flattening of the left

Why doesn’t the left want to take this flag in hand, leaving it to be only the right to talk about merit and meritocracy? The left continues to follow the path of an egalitarianism which does not mean identical possibilities for everyone, but only equal results for everyone, regardless of merit. In this the left-wing parties are also conditioned by the trade unions, their “armed wing” in the world of work, which, in order to obtain easy consensus among the workers, do not want to indulge in recognition of the merit and commitment of those who work seriously, ending up favoring the leveling down, both in school and in the world of work. It is time for the left, which can still boast a ruling class up to the task, to aim to represent the best part of society, the one capable of truly changing Italy for the better.

The taboo of dismissal

In the union the conviction still prevails that the dismissal of a worker is always the result of political discrimination and not of the sacrosanct need to send home an incompetent or a slacker. But with the disqualification that afflicts many companies, which entrepreneur would be foolish enough to fire an employee who works with seriousness and competence today for political reasons? The left is also awaiting an epochal challenge on this front: turning the page by adhering to the new reality, without, however, passively submitting to it but rather being the architect of a positive change that no longer ensures privileged positions for those who do not want to improve themselves and the company, whether public or private, for which you work. A theme that should also be addressed in the public sector where the taboo is even more deeply rooted.

God, Country and Family

Are the original and founding values ​​of our society: God, country and family really right? They certainly are if they are used to discriminate against those with a different orientation. But our founding fathers, who were certainly not right-wingers, wrote our Constitution with a completely different vision.

Religious faith does not represent a danger if it does not claim to interfere with the freedom of individuals. The Christian religion, which Jesus based on love and equality among men, is not dangerous. Vision that St. Francis, in the “Canticle of the Creatures”, wanted to extend to all living beings and to nature. Christianity has been the religion of our people for centuries and it makes no sense to obscure these roots to perhaps respect those who, obtusely following their religious culture, declined to the masculine, discriminate against the female members of their family, imposing on them sentimental, sexual, culture and even clothing.

Does it make sense to remove the cross from schools so as not to offend the sensibilities of those who, coming from other cultures, have a different religious belief? Many of us grew up with the cross behind the chair and the hour of religion, however optional, but no one has ever experienced it as an imposition that could condition their future life choices.

Family and families

The same goes for the traditional family: father, mother, children, still prevalent in our society. Other family models have established themselves in recent years and we know that they are equally valid when they are a place of love and sincere affection. However, we know just as well that the traditional family does not automatically guarantee the happy and balanced growth of children, as demonstrated by the many young people forced to flee from violent and oppressive parents. Nor is the traditional family a guarantee of concord or respect between spouses, as demonstrated by the feminicide newspapers at the hands of the spouse. But does it make sense to downsize or subordinate the value of the traditional family to give dignity and recognition to other types of family? Isn’t it perhaps more important to offer all families the same conditions without implementing reverse discrimination?

LGBT and everyone’s rights

Freedom and respect for the sexual orientation of individuals is enshrined in our Constitution and any discrimination in this matter is hateful and unacceptable. Today many public and private television programs, always attentive to changes in society, are full of protagonists who do not hide, sometimes even flaunt, their homosexual or transsexual orientation. In some cases even with a commendable pedagogical intent. But can this sensitivity, which also recognizes the freedom not to declare one’s sexual “choice”, go so far as to ostracize the trivial differentiation of the color of aprons in primary schools, to affirm a sexual indistinction that no one felt the need for?

Does it make sense to intervene on the natural and vague moments of sexual disorientation (which we could also define as curiosity) typical of the developmental phase of children, immediately trying to stimulate or favor the opposite orientation? I don’t know how much this can really support the free development of sexual orientation in the youngest.

Respecting women in words?

In our society, despite all the efforts of the institutions, in advertising, in “social media” and in many television programmes, the image of the woman object prevails. Are we sure that respect for women passes through the feminization of words such as Mayor, President or Architect? And why should not accepting it, keeping the masculine ending or article for itself, be right? Just because it’s a choice of Giorgia Meloni? Does anyone seriously think that Carla Capponi, Tina Anselmi and Nilde Iotti, just to mention the most famous, who have never considered this problem in carrying out their public role, were right-wing in the slightest?

Homeland of the Left

Finally, the topic of patriotism. Defined in dictionaries as the “feeling of love and devotion to the homeland” is something very different from nationalism, which is instead defined as “ideology inspired by the exaltation of the concept of nation, authoritarian affirmation of values ​​that transcend the needs of political reality and society of foreign countries”.

Defining yourself as a patriot, loving your country and, if necessary, defending it from attempts by other countries to limit its freedom of political and economic action is it right-wing? Nothing more wrong. The fighters of the Resistance, who with the sacrifice of their lives contributed in a decisive way to the liberation of Italy from Nazi-fascism, defined themselves as patriots. Sandro Pertini, to whom no one would dare to attribute right-wing values, convinced supporter of socialist internationalism, considered patriotism an essential element of being left-wing.

Dear comrades, while you are preparing to redefine the objectives and references of the future policy of the Italian left, meditate, meditate well.

© Reproduction reserved

Merit and Meritocracy, God, Country and Family: the Left faces the challenge of words – RomaIT