It all started with Silvio Berlusconi. Despite being accused of tax evasion, abuse of power, money laundering and rape of minors, Berlusconi was elected three times as Italy’s prime minister. He was also president of AC Milan, owner of a television media empire and leader of the Forza Italia party: positions that generated fertile ground to cultivate millions of followers and captivate voters. Thus, through democratic means, “badism” infiltrated politics.
There are multiple parallels that we can draw between Berlusconi and some authoritarian presidents of our days, such as Trump, Milei, Bukele and, of course, Chaves. Variations on the same theme. Creatures from the same swamp. Berlusconi insulted the judiciary, changed laws to his advantage and promised to turn the country into a successful company. He showed that it didn’t matter if he was rude and a criminal, a grotesque freak and the profoundly unpleasant human being who covered Italians with a cloak of lies. He was openly bad. So what?
In an article published in 2008 in the newspaper El País, the philosopher Rafael Argullol described Berlusconi as a contemporary buffoon king. The first of many to come. According to Argullol, Berlusconi’s strategic move consisted of usurping and exchanging the roles of the king and the buffoon: “On the one hand, the absolute king who seizes most of the levers of power; on the other side, the buffoon who grotesquely distorts the landscape, although not to proclaim the truth, as medieval or baroque buffoon would do, but to reinforce the lie”. In addition to reinforcing the lie, I would add: spreading hatred.
Hate speech and sad affections
Frequently, the buffoonery of our populist rulers is accompanied by hate speech that aims to polarize, generate discord and annul dialogue. Discourses that focus on contrasting some “others” of an “us”. Today we often talk about hate speech, but what is it and what characterizes it? How do they relate to authoritarian populism? What is the relevance of the media in its proliferation? Is there an antidote to these discourses?
These questions are addressed in the most recent episode of the podcast La Telaraña, in which Fabián Coto, César Rendueles and Jurgen Ureña, host of the program, talked. Fabián is a writer and radio producer. He has written, among other books, El conejo de la quebrada (2019) and Aves extremos (2024). César is a Spanish philosopher and sociologist, who has published essays such as Rogue Capitalism (2015) and Against Equal Opportunities. An egalitarian pamphlet (2020). On February 6, César inaugurated, with a talk entitled The Hatred of Inequality, the International Seminar Tribes of Hate, organized by the Cultural Center of Spain, which will run during 2025.
According to the guests of this episode of La Telaraña, hate speech are political, social or cultural interventions that contract us, that make us less and promote sad affections such as mistrust, fear and resentment. In addition, they appear when we do not have answers to challenges, real or fictitious, that generate disappointment or disenchantment. Hatred is often fostered by charismatic figures of authority, who know how to exploit this sentiment to consolidate their power.