The problem is that, seeking to maintain an authentic identity, the camp of the left is divided and that of the right is unified, with political consequences that do not seem the most desirable in the short term. Others argue, instead, that it is better to cut the blue cable: unify dissimilar progressivisms and even add to the center and the moderate right (which oppose equality in an economic sense, but clearly remain within the democratic game), a democratic cordon. In this case, it is placed at the center of the concerns to defend an institutional and coexistence framework in which the camp of the left can act and produce changes that, even if they do not necessarily imply the desired order, allow progress in aspects that They are relevant to citizens.
The problem here is persisting in the "extreme center" trap, which sterilizes reformist projects. It is always possible to find another way out, to take other paths that are not the ones that south africa phone number list now seem obvious. But the metaphor of the bomb about to explode just adds urgency. Beyond what can be done in the medium term, what is done now? The Tolerance Debate Suppose that, as proposed by several Latin American leaders (the most notable case is that of Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva in Brazil), it is decided to cut the blue cable. Even in this case, we still have to figure out how to deal with the extreme right that attacks memorial sites, beats up immigrants or attempts on the lives of political leaders.
At this point, a variant of the phrase that we mentioned at the beginning appears. No longer "the right is not studied, it is fought", but "with fascism there is no dialogue, it is confronted". Here what matters (beyond the correctness or incorrectness of the use of the term "fascism" for these movements) is that the sectors that exercise physical violence must and can be confronted, and generally are, although with varying efficacy, by institutional means.