Unfortunately, in recent years, accusing the other of having done the same thing that one does has become a weighty argument in the political speech . Since the PP began to govern, this has been a constant argument in the speech related to the crisis, as a justification for any measure or cutback. So far this year, we have seen how the government has used it in the abortion topic (defending its reform as a return to the 1985 socialist law), in the immigration issue and the actions of the forces of order at the border (where the Minister of the Interior of the previous socialist government was quoted verbatim) and, recently, in the issue of oil prospecting in the Mediterranean (where the Minister of Industry argued, in the face of protests, that the prospecting was approved by the previous government).

With this rhetoric of excusing oneself in someone else's fault, our politicians contribute to the fact that more and more the parliamentary discussion looks like the playground of a high school, where pupils fight, insult and disrespect each other, fall asleep at class or play truant. Of course, when they are held accountable before adults, the children offer lame explanations, naively expecting the adults to believe them, and point the finger at each other as the ones responsible for their fights: "He started it." In these cases, my mother, an expert like all mothers in conflict resolution, used to tell us that the important thing was not who had started it, but who was going to finish it (or, in this case, who was going to provide a valid solution).

Far from being merely anecdotal and despite the halo of innocence that could be derived from the comparison, what this status demonstrates is an electoral argumentative strategy to wear down the opponent, where it is not important to get to the bottom of the issues, but to appear less guilty, more electable. The strategy is effective, since it shows that the civil service examination is opposed to what it previously approved only to oppose it; but the cost for the government is also very high, since it sample lacks its own initiative and its decisions are not supported by solid arguments.

Basically, this status reflects a deep crisis in the politics of our country, which we have been dragging since our democracy was constituted, in the internship, in bipartisan. Governments are born with an expiration date stamped on them. Each party assumes the role of government or civil service examination and dedicates itself to making and unmaking laws (a clear example is that of the laws of Education) and criticizing the opposite party, whatever measures it adopts. They know that after a couple of legislatures it will be time to take over and change seats.

In the end, the Public discourse is full of contradictions: the socialists, who advocated in their government for the intervention of the State with paternalistic attributions in the moral training of the citizen (with the polemic subject of "Education for citizenship") accuse the populars of trying to impose a moral and of appealing to charity and Christian humanity for their abortion reform; to the same charity to which they appeal before the immigration conflict, raising the metaphorical banners left by the populars in which the right to life was proclaimed. For their part, the Popular Party, who claim to legislate for life in the topic of abortion, recognize that their reform is a return to the law that they criticized so much at the time for maintaining assumptions that threaten the life of the fetus. And the socialists, faced with the resurgence of the law they defended, now adopt the maxim of progress: as long as it is progress, it is good; it does not matter in which direction.

But this empty and thoughtless speech is not new. purpose Already in ancient Rome, students were trained in the art of oratory with the sole purpose of gaining the support of the audience and thus defeating the opponent. In our fast-paced society, a catchy slogan is enough, because there is no time to read the fine print. Today's politics is a politics of banners and demonstrations, of press headlines and shocking phrases to share on Facebook, so that someone will raise his thumb, increasing the list of likes while he finishes laughing at the last joke read and starts looking at the photos uploaded by the neighbor. It is about reducing political principles to a tweet, about doing politics in 140 characters. There is neither space nor time to get to the bottom of the issues, and it is more productive the populist and demagogic politics of mobilizing the people to the demonstration and the banner, preventing them from thinking. This is what allows that, with almost programmed regularity, politicians call demonstrations against what they did or defended a few years before.