Ginsborg tells the fascinating story of Silvio Berlusconi's rise to power from ordinary roots to the Prime Minister of Italy (it leaves off at 2004, unfortunately). Though it is really the story of how charismatic individuals, whether in media or in politics (or in Berlusconi's case both) persuade us, distracting us from terrible, structural problems they claim to fix. We see ourselves in them, and the fashion-conscious, high-tech consumerism they represent. It is amazing to read that some of Berlusconi's biggest supporters were women with cash reserves taking their cues from the kind of cheap, televised entertainment he provides.
Democracy works best when its power is diffused through institutions. History shows that if power can actually be located it will be stormed. It is this diffusion of power that makes democracy look messy. Contrary to this are the minutemen and women who need personalities, current affairs, conflicts, dramas mini and macro, verbal duels. The stuff of reality television. You tell it like it is to whoever needs to hear it. Sometimes they actually respond. Change in democracy is slow for a very good reason. But all these problem-solvers do not want to hear it.
Play it safe and aim for high profits. Pay fierce attention to levels of audience share, and mark your progress. If the people have insatiable acquisitive tendencies why should they be denied? Somehow the media and the kind of talk that corresponds to it is equated with democracy now, while the kind of work which requires research, town meetings, voting and non-violent change in power, observation over time instead of following the trends, is not considered democracy anymore. At least not to those who find the Berlusconis of the world so fascinating while followers of the magnates claim, loudly, that "the media" is the problem.
Almost on cue the book ends with Berlusconi getting a face-lift.
________
On a side note, this survey of Italian politics and culture feels like it has been covered well in Ferrante's novels. Here is much of the detail she dramatizes including the shadiness and corruption. Remarkably, this excellent historian almost feels redundant when compared to an artist covering the same territory. Why should this surprise me?