Sforzini versus Gasperini: the culture war amongst Vannacci’s intellectuals

We have barely had time to mourn the funeral – more artificial than real – of ‘woke’ culture, when new details of the Futuro Nazionale programme have emerged, complete with the inevitable and deliberate controversies. This time, the atmosphere emanating from the pages of the freshly published document is the sparkling, innovative spirit of the Congress of Vienna in 1814; we are spared the wigs, but otherwise everything is there, starting with a triumphant celebration of life that translates into opposition to ‘homosexualist’ and ‘genderist’ dogmas.

Reactionaries – men of the world, even if they did not serve in the army in Cuneo – would have steered clear of certain terms. Can you imagine a Thomas Carlyle, a Juan Donoso Cortés, a Joseph De Maistre or a Nicolás Gómez Dávila – all masters of style and linguistic scholarship – using such language? This really does sound like Woke Right rubbish. And then, how exactly is the opposition proposed in the programme – concerning such content to be removed from television schedules – actually implemented? Is there a test, a form, an ‘anti-gender’ commission? It brings to mind Kevin Kline’s dance scene in the film "In & Out", with the recorded voice telling him not to dance because ‘real men don’t dance’, and then he gives in and lets loose to the beat of Gloria Gaynor.

If these proposals were devised and published to attract advertising at no cost – and this is indeed happening – the strategy is reminiscent of Trump’s early days, when, on Steve Bannon’s advice, it was decided to go all out on sensationalism to ensure a daily presence in newspapers, on TV and in online news feeds. The problem, however, is that sensationalism, when it comes to political programmes, comes at a price. And that cost is the construction of a political party’s identity. It is therefore somewhat surprising to learn how the radically pro-life, anti-abortion, anti-gender and so on stance has caused a large section of the Vannaccio movement to turn up their noses, fuelling chat rooms and sparking heated debates and insults between activists and leaders.

Luca Sforzini, president of the Centro studi Rinascimento nazionale – considered Vannacci’s leading think tank – has issued a press release whose very title makes clear the atmosphere within the newly formed party: "Beware of the black crows. Sometimes the problem with a political project is not its opponents, but its bad advisers". Let those who wish to understand – that is, the author of the anti-gender programme – understand. For Sforzini, it does no one any favours to look strictly and solely to the past. “Faced with the challenges of the 21st century – AI, the technological revolution, the demographic crisis, energy, productivity and the security of the West – it would be a mistake to reduce a national proposal to bans, moral prescriptions and cultural wars,” the press release continues.

A little further on, somewhat polemically, the year 1864 is cited – the date of the Syllabus with which Pope Pius IX condemned liberalism, and from which the subsequent ban on Catholics participating in politics is said to have stemmed – as the reference point for the author of the section of the programme that caused such a furore and against which Sforzini is now issuing this statement. The criticism is directed not so much at the individual – who, it seems safe to say, is Lorenzo Gasperini, a Vannaccian philosopher and programme coordinator – as at a conception of politics that bears a resemblance to Dante’s soothsayers in Hell, who move forward with their heads turned, forced to look only backwards. Whilst, therefore, a media row rages in public over the obscurantism of those predictions and concepts, the party itself appears deeply divided. In fact, it is not just these conceptual skirmishes; there are also heated online discussions in which people are asking who granted the authority and legitimacy to produce a programme without prior consultation.

They say that Vannacci loves competition and even a certain degree of conflict – a sort of internal selection tactic to identify the most capable, strong and daring. That may well be, but such a tactic works if you’re Google, not a newly formed party lacking structure and identity. The risk is that the party will split even before the first election.