Asymmetrical Information

From who spent January - early June in Rome:

Italy is a mess and its politics entirely occult to outsiders. Indeed, they're pretty occult to insiders.

If you're curious about Italian politics and have a LOT of time on your hands (like I did, nights in Rome), read both volumes of Paul Ginsborg's history of modern Italy. His politics are annoying but obvious enough to avoid.

A History of Contemporary Italy: Society and Politics, 1943-1988
Italy and Its Discontents: Family, Civil Society, State (post 1985).

After reading all that AND a bunch of other stuff I have no opinion on Berlusconi at all other than that he's the kind of man you don't like to have on your side.

The Economist, however, has it in for him -- whether justifably or not. The Financial Times' reporter in Italy wrote a blistering book about the Berlusconi years called The Dark Heart of Italy to which I don't feel like linking. I recommend the Ginsborg books.

It's interesting that such commentary appeared in an international publication, but makes no mention of other heads of state to whom the same circumstances apply. This seems rather odd given the rather well known inquiry into Chirac's affairs. France isn't exactly Montenegro: I would think its status as the second largest country in Europe would draw at least a thought from someone at the Economist.

Of course the obvious conclusion is that the true objection relates to Berlusconi's policies. Especially given that they didn't just publish an editorial but appear to have devoted half the issue to the matter.

I'm shocked...SHOCKED, I tell you...to hear that a Euro leader is involved in shady dealings.

Berlusconi's no different than the rest of the Euro "intelligentsia". There was a WSJ op-ed to this effect...the difference is that Berlusconi is being vilified because of his pro-US stance on Iraq.

I am so glad that my great-great grandparents put little 9 year old Michelangelo Marchese on a boat to Ellis Island and waved goodbye.

May I point out that, based on the fact that Italy has had something like 60 prime ministers since WWII I suspect that if we blink, SIlvio will be out of office and back on trial.

"May I point out that, based on the fact that Italy has had something like 60 prime ministers since WWII I suspect that if we blink, SIlvio will be out of office and back on trial."

Actually, the revolving-door system of Italian prime ministers is largely a thing of the past: since the total meltdown of the political party system in the early 1990s, the formerly myriad parties are settling down into more stable left-right blocs. There have been five prime ministers in the last ten years, but that's better than having ten or twelve. And Berlusconi has a large majority in parliament, which is why he's able to pass egregious laws covering his own backside.

The Economist does have it out for him, but given the magazine's almost raving support for the war, it seems fairly obvious that Berlusconi is not "being villified for his pro-US stance on Iraq".

What! Silvio can't be hauled into court while he's in office?!? Who does he think he is? Bill Clinton?

Yeah, this is definitely about the fact that Berlusconi is a crook, and nothing to do with his policies. He's actually closer to the kind of leader (policy-wise) that The Economist likes than most other European leaders. But they've been warning about him and inveighing against him for many years, starting before he was elected to anything (I've been reading The Economist for 10+ years, fwiw).

It's actually really frightening that a major G7 (or is it G8 these days?) country is run by someone who would definitely, 100% unambigously be in prison if he wasn't also one of the richest men in the country. It's not like he just has bad business connections or a somewhat shady past (like maybe a Chirac, or what the loony left claims Bush is), but he's flat out a (business) crime lord. Of course, take what I say with a grain of salt, almost everything I know about Italian politics I learned from The Economist over the years. =)

Not to defend Berlusconi or anything, but the Economist has been on his tail for at least a couple of years now. It sounds like they just decided to turn the volume to 11 for some reason.

I have a feeling that Silvio is taking it all in stride.

You take The Economist much much too seriously. They were a good read during the Reagan years, but have moved steadily toward Euro political correctness since then. Their standards of writing and research have declined correspondingly. Italian politics today are probably less corrupt than they have ever been, which admittedly isn't a high standard ... but when is The Economist going to get indignant over the institutionalized systems of corruption in France, Germany, and Belgium?

Um, The Economist is constantly indignant about corruption in France, at least. They continue to periodically publish exposes of the Credit Lyonnais affair, and even lost a court case against them by one of the principals in it (a typically French method of squelching dissent, sue the journalist), forcing a recent statement and retraction in their newspaper.

Comments are Closed.