(by Roberta Preziosa) The moral question invests in rotation the various western, oriental, Middle Eastern, ... countries, with a cyclicity established almost as an unwritten rule.
No country seems to be free from this phenomenon that degrades the reputation of individual government men and institutions.
The latest in terms of time is the content of the book "Fire and Fury" where the author Wolff, traces many episodes reporting negative opinions on the American President.
The book has aroused so much clamor for some concepts that tended to give the president of the USA his inability to lead a great nation.
"For Bannon, the president's political thinking had been obtuse at best" (pag.194), here is one of the critical references to the president: to the best of considerations, the President is to be considered an obtuse being.
“Standing on the Breitbart steps that October morning, Bannon smiled and said: It's going to be wild as shit” (page 199): non-literal translation: it will be terrible.
Her daughter Ivanka Trump is also described as "dump as a brick": "empty as a brick".
The book can be read as the divorce between two very closely related individuals, followed, as usual, by so much acrimony, made public by the media, because not everyone will read the book by Wolff that will bring home the notoriety and a bit of money.
The President reacted by saying that the author of the book is not reliable (a totally discredited author) and also Bannon made it clear that the son of Donald Trump, discredited in the book is a patriot and a good person.
Did this serve the United States?
Probably not.
Even in the US today it is no longer fashionable to think, as it was once, right or wrong is my country.
Who made a sounding board for the book?
Surely the media since not everyone has had the opportunity to read the book.
The media, unfortunately, do not always report the truth, they sometimes report a very biased thought.
To discredit your president in this way is the worst way to discredit yourself.
The book is not a sentence of the supreme court, it is the story of an author without the counterprovinces and the third party to approach the truth.
When in a context the individual becomes relevant with respect to the fact, it means that we have lost all sense of things.
This once again brings up the moral question that undermines politics.
President Trump is different from other well-known and very divisive personalities, he has had very lively enemies since the beginning of the mandate and has not been spared much from protecting himself from the attacks that rained down on him, indeed with his twitter he also wanted to change the way to carry on international relations: his thought, right or wrong, comes to the interested party, without mediation.
He attacked the American press, the fourth power, stating that they are a source of fake news and is dragging behind this internal battle.
His is a new way of doing politics, not shared by his opponents.
He does not want to use the old instruments of diplomacy with verbal notes in foreign policy or with personal speakers, domestic politics, he did it with everyone, with North Korea, with Pakistan, and he does so continuously for internal political aspects.
The message should not be translated by intermediaries: for the president: translating may also mean betraying.
Looking around us, surely we do not miss other countries with lively presidents, presented by the press in particular world.
The president of North Korea was recently quoted by many newspapers for his nuclear ambitions, his statements against Trump defined: "dotard" - mentally retarded, have been around the world, with the consequent American response.
For Putin's Russia, Lombardozzi in Repubblica reports: "The situation of human rights in these parts is very serious, ... .. Because the spirit that gradually led to the restrictions of civil liberties, ... ... and his personal nightmare that sees always in his regime the threat of a "color revolution" ".
For Egypt by Al Sisi, for the Arab countries in general and for many other states, the problem of leadership remains the same as the other countries mentioned.
For Italy, the books written on the last two important Presidents of the Council, do not differ much from "Fire and Fury", they seem photocopies.
The problem not touched within individual countries is the moral issue that affects our societies.
"Until the three public spheres of values and norms - Ethics, Law, Politics," will not be interconnected, we will continue to tell stories of ethical miseries that will continue to be dust for the boots of history (Roberta De Monticelli - The Moral Question).
The moral question touches the renewal of our habits of life that still eludes us even today.
We all study but we do not yet feel this renewal starting from our country, before taking positions on other events.
Guicciardini in his "Memories" wrote: "Always deny what you do not want to know, or say what you want to believe, ......, to affirm or deny it boldly often puts to party the brain of those who hears you": the lies repeated then become truth.
What has changed in the last 600 years?
Nothing or little on the ethical and moral side, Guicciardini, with all his memories is very current (jump on the wagon of the winner and come down in time to reposition, etc. ..), but only on technological progress.
Moral renewal is central to limiting institutional and political damage and it is only possible if there is an individual basis for research, discovery, growth of conscience and critical capacity, beyond the media surface in which disinformation and distortion of reality prevail.
Trump, like Putin and others are phenomena of the moment, we must give more importance to the boots and less to the dust that occasionally settles on them.