Annalisa Chirico liberal, tortorian, radical

Politicamente Scorretta

The blog column curated by Annalisa Chirico, a regular space for her political commentary, published in association with the Panorama testata.

Here the writing moves between liberal argument, feminist debate and civil liberties, often taking a public exchange as its starting point and answering it directly.

Soft watercolour painting of an open notebook and pen on a pale desk, in muted teal, cream and olive tones, thoughtful and unhurried mood

What the column is

Politicamente Scorretta is the online column Annalisa Chirico curates for the publication, and it carries her regular political commentary. The tone is opinionated and argumentative: positions are stated plainly, and counter-arguments are met in the open rather than set aside.

The subjects follow her wider interests — liberal thought, women's rights, public debt, and the way political debate is conducted in Italy. Pieces often begin from something said elsewhere and continue the conversation from there.

Politicamente Scorretta is the name Annalisa Chirico gives to her regular column, and the title itself sets the expectation: commentary that says what it thinks rather than what is safest to say. The writing takes opinion seriously as a form, treating argument as something to be made openly and defended in public. Readers who follow the column come for that directness, for positions stated plainly and then carried through to their conclusions. It is a place where political debate is conducted in the open, with counter-arguments met head-on instead of quietly set aside, and where the tone stays conversational even when the subject is contentious.

The subjects the column returns to follow the author's wider interests rather than the news cycle alone. Liberal thought, women's rights, public debt, and the way political conversation is carried on in Italy all recur as familiar territory. Pieces often begin from something said elsewhere, a remark, a claim, an argument made in another forum, and then continue the conversation from there, pushing it further or turning it around. That habit of replying gives the column its rhythm, since each entry reads less like a closed verdict and more like an invitation to keep arguing, carefully and in good faith.

What holds the column together is a temperament as much as a set of topics: sceptical of consensus, impatient with euphemism, and willing to be wrong in public rather than vague in private. The prose is unhurried and argumentative in the best sense, building a case step by step and letting readers see the reasoning rather than only the conclusion. Because it engages with what others have written, it also keeps a record of a wider debate, one voice answering another over time. For anyone interested in Italian politics and liberal ideas, the column offers a steady, personal point of view worth following.

A reply to Michele Boldrin

Soft watercolour painting of two facing armchairs in a quiet room, rendered in sage green, warm cream and deep teal, conversational and reflective mood

On 15 February 2011 the column published a response to Michele Boldrin's reflections on NoisefromAmerika, which had addressed her directly. She described it as a good exchange with a professor who observes Italy from the United States.

"I do not understand how a person can feel their own dignity harmed by what someone else does."

The piece takes that disagreement as its opening and works outward, keeping the argument on dignity, conduct and the terms of the debate itself.

Threads across the column

  • Women's rights and the language used about women in public argument.
  • Public debt and the fiscal questions that follow from it.
  • Electoral results and the reading of regional and national votes.
  • Civil liberties, from bioethics to individual freedom.

Selected entries