Silvio Berlusconi, a Showman Who Upended Italian Politics and Culture Dies at 86
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
I mean, it might well by the end he was been pretty aged in his mind and was being used or fooled or had lost the plot : his comments about Ukraine were staggering, appalling aberrations you never want to hear from someone with considerable public stature in any country.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2017/04/the-similarities...
He revealed the flaw of the democratic process in that it relies on people who are inherently honest and not there merely to further their goals of power and influence.
A negative force with significant power and influence can effectively become untouchable by law, since they can corrupt the processes which are used to control such behaviour, and use their media influence to whitewash their image.
We saw time and time again a familiar pattern: Berlusconi convicted of a serious crime, only to be acquitted on appeal, then years-later further charges of witness tampering being brought raising questions of a corrupted appeals process.
For 100s of millions, I'd rather look at us politicians ("Democrats") that trade stock and receive large paychecks from corporations... In exchange of what exactly?
Could you elaborate?
Literally lol.
most of them ended because the limitation period expired, thanks to his lawyers being elected in Parliament to fix his trials.
His TV empire did start as small local TV channel for Milano 2, a residential neighbourhood he built in the "70.
Berlusconi was the pioneer of modern populism, of all of it. Corruption, embezzlement, buying up or otherwise controlling media for manipulating or influencing coverage, being involved in so many scandals that it became completely impossible to track their progress or to discuss/demand consequences... you name it, Berlusconi invented it.
(Presumably) having sex with (close to) underage women and girls and having extramarital affairs in general was just the cherry on the cake (the Bunga Bunga affair).
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silvio_Berlusconi_prostitution...
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jun/12/berlusconi-dea...
What is the problem here? The law being complicit? Extremely effective charisma and propaganda?
Politics is full of these characters, and it seems that the more awful they are, the higher up the ranks they go. It's like humans are conditioned to celebrate the worst in people, and the pessimistic concern that this will never change is quite powerful.
The answer is quite simple: as rotten as the likes of Berlusconi and Trump may be, the folks on the opposite side (e.g. Hillary) are simply just as rotten and despicable.
As a voter you are then left with a choice of rotten or rotten ... their despicability sort of cancels out, and your choice then hinges on their secondary characteristics such as : are they right or left leaning.
I'd like to understand why this is such a foolproof road for many politicians. It must be ingrained in us as a species. This comedy sketch comes to mind: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3zNLfmDm-0 (warning: crude humor)
Being in charge of making the law helps, but charisma and propaganda gets you in that position in the first place.
His party was essentially founded upon him and his personality, and is currently one of the parties in the government coalition, with a relatively minor share, I expect voted by older people nostalgic of his era. We will not miss him -- but in hindsight we have seen even worse characters in the last 10 years.
Italy had a looong period (that arguably hasn't ended yet) in which there were no good choices to vote for: either corrupt Berlusconi or Communists (who were also corrupt).
Meloni has so far been a pleasant surprise. I didn't have any positive expectations when she became PM but she seems to be doing ok.
That's a pretty bad description of the situation in Italy.
First of all we (I am from Italy, I voted in 1994 when Berlusconi bootstrapped his political career) have a large number of parties.
In 1994 there were at least 20 symbols grouped in 2 main coalitions.
Secondly, the communist were already a thing of the past, they dissolved in 3 different groups in 1992, but communists in Italy have a strong tradition and have been the backbone of our democracy.
Last but not least, the left in Italy is divided in an infinite number of movements and parties, communists were historically the largest one but Italy has a Socialist party that is separated from the Communists.
p.s. corruption of the Communists (as a political party) has never been proved anywhere.
This is the perfect definition of a politician. And sadly it applies to 99% of them in a "democracy".
It wasn't really a purge, anyway not so many, just those that were on the Bettino Craxi's side, who was close friend with Berlusconi, who was best man in the second Berlusconi's marriage, a man who's considered the one who ruined the Italian Socialist Party beyond recover.
Proof is the two Craxi's sons: Stefania ended up with the center-right coalition, Bobo with the center left and he's still member of the PSI (Italian Socialist Party)
> Berlusconi was really a man of equal opportunities
That's a bit romantic.
He had a lot of help from corrupted politicians and organized crime.
He simply escaped justice for enough time to make the narrative of the political victim stick.
>That's a bit romantic.
To be clear, my description was very much tongue in cheek. The man had no discernable sense of morals. He very brazenly allied to whomever he needed to further his interests. For example he was always very friendly with Putin and I wouldn't be surprised if a Russian exile was always an open option if things went south at home.
This government like any other has failed to address the big themes and is concentrating on stupid, more media-friendly stuff. Zero addressing themes of tax evasion, public health, public school, work reform... the list goes on.
This statement sounds like criticism, not an endorsement of such state of affairs. But I was unable to find a source for it, so context or a citation would be welcome.
And you forgot the knee-jerk reactions from the left, which reduced itself to a role of a spectator with the index finger raised and perpetually shouting "no, you can't do that"- applied to just anything he said or did [1]. I have seen the same with Trump. Some part of the population (including me) can't really stand the perpetually scandalised, self-appointed guardians of good manners, and will become disgusted by both sides equally.
1) for example, once he dared to say "it would be better to consult a second doctor before undergoing a risky or debilitating surgical procedure"- that apparently was a scandal, too.
This had me nodding along.
> and will become disgusted by both sides equally.
This is the part that makes you, or perhaps just that part of you, a bad person.
You are equating somebody who actually abused power and brought the world closer to an authoritarian strongman dystopia to people who, by your own description, are mostly ineffective and don't actually do anything.
(I can sometimes feel a knee jerk reaction that feels a bit like what you're describing, but I would never be proud of it, and I think it's important to be clear on that point.)
I didn't say that they were ineffective: they were actually eroding the trust on their side by exaggerating and misinterpreting as much as they could, mixing up good and bad reasons; also, I feel that there is a germ of authoritarianism in people who are constantly complaining of others violating rules, including the unwritten ones and the plainly made up ones.
As for the other side, from one hand I think that Berlusconi was not as bad or dangerous as Trump (aside from completely different relevance for the world); otoh, I have seen enough demonization in Italy during the Berlusconi years to understand that at least some of what Trump was accused of had to be an exaggeration.
> once he dared to say "it would be better to consult a second doctor before undergoing a risky or debilitating surgical procedure"
Do you suppose you could supply the context for this? I mean, I can guess, it's obvious, but I think it also matters for the discussion?
"Italy breathed a sigh of relief today upon learning that the country's highest court of appeal had ruled that influence-peddling is not a crime. The only punishable offense, the judges decided, is overstating one's power to exert influence.
''Essentially, the judges are saying what everybody in Italy believes: It is not a crime, as long as you do it well,'' Franco Ferrarotti, an Italian sociologist said of the Wednesday ruling on ''raccomandazione,'' the Italian custom of seeking and receiving special treatment from people in power, or close to it.
''This is our version of the Protestant ethic,'' Mr. Ferrarotti said. ''When a favor works successfully, it ceases to be a crime and becomes a work of art.'' In 2001, British author and physician Theodore Dalrymple argued that corruption is actually the "one saving grace" of Italian public administration. Dalrymple explained his view that Italy's government was overburdened with an inefficient bureaucracy that slows down any progress but that corruption and bribery to bypass roadblocks allows for some progress to be made.[31]
Dalrymple further maintained that the open display of corruption on the part of government officials causes Italian citizens to view the government as the 'enemy', an attitude that Dalrymple considered sensible and healthy, as compared with the misguided British belief that the state is purely good. This belief, Dalrymple charged, "has completely eroded the proud and sturdy independence of the British population."
I have a friend who grew up in Italy, he emigrated for university and worked abroad. He came back in his late 30s, bought house. The usual deal when 'coming back'.
He hates the corruption. Its happening at every level of public interaction, starting from local communities, all the way up. He made a decision that after 3 years he is sick and tiered of it and will be moving out of Italy for good.
Corruption is always bad as it propagates and rewards the people who are most of the time most ill-suited for the position of trust they are holding.
Saying corruption is a blessing for over-bureaucratic and inefficient systems is like saying that cutting of a hand that is broken is a good solutions because hospitals overcrowded and underfunded.
I am not a Berlusconi fan, and am disgusted by politics in general, but this guy was basically a JFK who got to live till 86 years old.
Corruption and ties with the organized crime? Those were the bread and butter for the Kennedy family, that's how he stole Illinois , how his dad made money with the contraband etc. and yet given that he took the bullet in Dallas and signed off the Apollo program everybody should get on their knees and genuflect and pay respects to the big man.
Airports and roads and everything entitled to the memory of the dude, but hey Berlusconi is an olive oil drinking devil and so we ought to celebrate his death, right?
The American melting-pot is an extraordinary feat but as long as Americans will keep treating other countries who made up the same melting pot with a different set of standards there will always be tensions. It is a melting pot but most people don't like insults to their country of origin and double standards for 2 identical political leaders just because one was born within the limits of the invisible border and has the Bald Eagle on the Passport.
More of this type to come. Tucker Carlson for President? Jake Paul? Wouldn't bet against either or worse
Grillo wasn't particularly rich and bootstrapped a new party through his internet reach. Although it is possible that Casaleggio was the real mastermind behind it.
I mean sorta? He didn't have any particular allegiance to one or the other, and famously ran as a Democrat before. He clearly has nothing but distain for either party and is mostly there out of his own ego, or because foreign intelligence was goading him (one way or the other) to.
Tucker C is too compromised from his emails getting leaked and already has the reputation of being a spineless mouthpiece. He'll need more than (foreign) money to run the cursus honorum enough to get legitimacy, i.e. what happened to Sarah Palin.
To quote an opinion article[0], "he faced prosecution more than 30 times on charges including embezzlement, false accounting and bribing a judge. Many cases failed to go to trial, sometimes because Berlusconi changed the law under which he had been charged."
0 - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jun/12/berlusconi-dea...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silvio_Berlusconi_prostitution...
He didn't really get to know the joys of adventure or a loving relationship. By all accounts, his life was actually pretty empty, a hole he tried to fill with material objects and anonymous sex.