THERE is a persistent, and frankly patronizing, argument making the rounds: that if we want to prevent a Sara Duterte presidency in 2028, we must abandon reason, descend into the gutter, and speak in the language of rage, cursing and crude populism. The claim is familiar. People like Lovely Granada are “too elite,” Richard Heydarian is “too detached,” Cielo Magno is “too academic,” and Christian Esguerra is “too unrelatable.” Therefore, we are told to dumb things down, roughen our tone, and meet the so-called masses where they supposedly are.
This is not just wrong. It is dangerous. It assumes that the Filipino voter is incapable of reason unless ideas are stripped of substance and repackaged as noise. It reduces political engagement into a caricature where truth must be simplified and sensationalized just to be heard. Worse, it normalizes the very political culture that allowed demagoguery to thrive. The problem was never that these voices were too refined. The problem is that a segment of the electorate has chosen loyalty over thinking and identity over truth. That choice, repeated over time, hardens into a habit of mind that resists correction even when confronted with reality.
We must confront an uncomfortable truth. Not all voters are the same. There are those who can still be persuaded, those who are uncertain, and those who have insulated themselves from reason. It is this last group, the diehard Duterte supporters (DDS), who have constructed a political identity so rigid that facts no longer inform and evidence no longer challenge. At some point, this ceases to be a communication problem and becomes a problem of refusal.
Recognizing that some voters are no longer reachable is not elitism. It is analytical honesty. There are moments when the refusal to engage with evidence must be called out for what it is, not as a difference of opinion, but as a collapse of reasoning. To refuse to name it is to legitimize it. But calling out intellectual failure is not the same as abandoning reason. It is an assertion that reason still matters.
I have spent years trying to reason with diehard Duterte supporters. Yet for many of them, facts, evidence and even lived experience do not matter because what matters is preserving a political identity built around loyalty. This is not a failure of messaging. It is a refusal to listen. There is a crucial difference between voters who can still be persuaded and those who have decided that persuasion no longer applies.
Strategy must follow reality. The goal is not to convert the unconvertible but to engage the persuadable. There exists a middle ground composed of voters who may have supported Duterte out of hope, frustration, or misinformation but who remain open to reflection. These are the ones who can still be reached through reasoned discourse and evidence-based arguments.
Voices like Granada, Heydarian, Magno and Esguerra are not liabilities but assets because they provide clarity in a sea of noise. To dismiss them as “too elite” is to insult the very voters we seek to reach, suggesting that Filipinos cannot appreciate nuance unless ideas are diluted. That, ironically, is elitism in its most insidious form.
Those who call for “adjusting the tone” cloak their argument in inclusivity. But what they are really doing is lowering the bar not for themselves, but for everyone. They imply that the public cannot rise to the level of reason, so discourse must sink to spectacle. That is not respect. It is condescension disguised as strategy.
Refusing to descend into the gutter does not mean we must tiptoe around falsehoods or indulge intellectual laziness. Civility does not require silence in the face of nonsense. We can be sharp without being crude, direct without being vulgar, and call out the abandonment of reason as “kabobohan” without participating in it.
What must be rejected is the idea that political victory lies in mimicking the worst instincts of those we oppose. Why validate a political culture that rewards noise and penalizes thinking? Why abandon reason and evidence just to imitate a style that thrives on spectacle?
Let us not delude ourselves. The hardcore Duterte supporter is not waiting for a better argument. Their loyalty is emotional, almost devotional. We see this in absurdities such as a senator having coffee with a cardboard image of Duterte, reflecting a political idolatry where a public figure is elevated beyond criticism. How do you reason with that? You don’t.
The insistence that we must tailor our language to convert these supporters is self-deception. It creates the illusion that if only we spoke differently, we could break through. Sometimes the truth is simpler. Some people are not interested in being convinced. Accepting this is not defeatism. It is strategic clarity. It allows us to allocate effort where it still has a chance of making a difference.
This clarity demands discipline. Focus on the persuadable. Engage the undecided. Strengthen critical thinking among those still open to it. But do not redesign discourse around those who have already rejected reason, and do not degrade public conversation in a futile attempt to reach them.
At its core, this debate is about rational respect. We should respect the Filipino voter enough to speak to them as thinking individuals, without reducing them to caricatures that can only be reached through noise. At the same time, we must recognize that not all positions deserve equal intellectual standing.
We do not need to crawl into the gutter to win. But neither should we pretend that all arguments are equally rational. There is a line to be drawn, not between elites and masses, but between those willing to think and those who have chosen not to. Defending that line requires clarity, discipline and the courage to say so plainly.
Because in the end, politics is not just about winning elections. It is about shaping the kind of society we want to live in. If we win by abandoning reason, then what exactly have we won?
Disclosure: Antonio P. Contreras is a professor at the University of the Philippines Los Baños and vice chairman of the board of the state-run PTV Network Inc.