Interesting column by Anne Applebaum about Slovakia's new president and how she overcame divisions in her country similar to those seen here and elsewhere. Hope the Democratic candidates take heed of her lessons.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...ulist-quagmire/#click=https://t.co/guMvf2WFNC
How did she do it? Caputova was in New York a couple of weeks ago, and I had the chance to ask. She told me that she began her political career by trying to understand why people were voting for a ruling party that had used anti-immigrant and anti-foreigner rhetoric as well as attacks on the media and “elites” to justify its hold on power. “People are afraid of the unknown, of changes," she said. "This fear is used by populists to come with very simple, very clear solutions.” But Caputova also noticed opinion polls showing that the politics of fear had another effect: “People are tired of conflict.” She resolved to “avoid heating up the discussions,” to offer not just her views but also the moral reasoning behind them. In televised debates, while the other candidates bickered, she came off as calm and measured.
Instead of feeding the enmity, she “tried to build bridges between people who have common values. ... I was very careful to try to find language that unites people and doesn’t divide them.” She also seemed different. Politics in Slovakia had long been a battle between egotistical men. Caputova sought to be the anti-ego alternative. She tried not to take politics personally, not to get angry and always remember, “it’s not about me.” She thinks that this distance, plus her lack of professional marketing — “young people are suspicious of it” — made her seem authentic.
Her timing was also right. In the aftermath of the Kuciak murder, the topic of “justice” — meaning corruption and politicized courts — was at the center of concern in Slovakia. Environmental issues, a legacy of Slovakia’s heavy-industry past, have also been in the forefront of people’s minds. As it happened, Caputova had been talking both about judicial reform and environmental regulation for a long time.
Are there lessons here for reformers in other places polarized by angry politics? In the debate between those who argue “fight back and mobilize your supporters” and those who argue “use slogans that unite,” Caputova’s experience argues for the latter. Her particular form of self-discipline, her refusal to allow herself to be angry or provoked, could help other candidates, too. Politicians, nowadays, are the focus of streams of invective, massive trolling campaigns, false accusations. If they can appear calm and poised, some of that anger might just bounce off.