No one is free to say simple things. The misfortune is to say them seriously. This is how Montaigne heads the first chapter (“The useful and the honest”) of book III of his essays. In these two sentences from the French philosopher, Ramón Tamames’ stay in full board for two days at the Congress is summarized. The Englishman Samuel Johnson, for his part, was the one who bequeathed to posterity another apothegm, dated 1775 and collected by his biographer James Bosswell, which serves to refer to Vox’s role in this little play: patriotism is the last refuge of shamelessness. So far the motion of censure regarding its promoters and headliner.
The second and final day of the dramatized documentary only improved the first in brevity. The most substantial thing was to observe how the popular spokesperson, Cuca Gamarra, confirmed with her speech that her party is not in a position to disown – or even to do a little violence to – Vox. With the alibi of courtesy to candidate Tamames, Ms. Gamarra forgot to delve into the differences that separate her political project from that of the ultra-right. The fact that Alberto Núñez Feijóo took the Easter holidays in time and disappeared from the stage during the motion does not mask the crystal clear reality that has emerged in Congress. The popular abstention is nothing more than the assumption of a reality: the parties will participate in the elections, but whoever governs will do so as a bloc. And that of the PP can only be built using the bricks of the ultra-right. All the efforts of the people are concentrated on dissimulating this evidence. That’s why the motion was so annoying to them. The renewal of the left-wing bloc, despite the fact that they have been eyeballing it for some time, was in turn solemnized the day before with Yolanda Díaz’s life in the Government and for many years. The cards are what they are. We will vote for parties, but we will be governed by coalitions. Clearly we should already know all this.
Vox has achieved little or nothing of what it intended. Demoscopy will tell us the minute and the result of Santiago Abascal’s last thought in the coming days. Even so, the extreme volatility of today’s politics and the fact that the usual glasses are not very useful for analyzing the currents of voting towards the extremes advise some caution about what is particular. In fact, Vox’s narrative and campaigns are not written through traditional media. That is why among young people – particularly among men – it is one of the preferred political options. This barn of votes is immune to what has happened in Congress.
The Abascal-Tamames duo aspired, in addition to violence against the PP to the cry of maricomplejines, to expand the circle of trust in Vox among the electorate. The ultra-rightist from head to toe, with an impassive gesture, singing a duet with an Economics professor who, from the presumed calm and experience of the years, claims that there are no political enemies, ideological heterogeneity and kindness and the good put in the oratory of the Congress. This part of the experiment did fail. To the obvious contradictions of the approach has been added the inability of the learned economist to become something more than a puppet who has not managed to reach old age without leaving behind the sin of extreme vanity. His age, which commands the respect that old age deserves, should not be an impediment to harshly judging his ridicule in Congress, only softened by the tenderness that his old age has awakened in the chamber.
The spokesperson for Vox, Iván Espinosa de los Monteros, closed his speech with the cry of think different (pensa diferent) and turning the death of Steve Jobs – the genius of Apple – into the heritage of ultra-righteousness. Minutes earlier, Ramón Tamames claimed the legacy of Isabel the Catholic to demonstrate that women did not need a feminist revolution to paint something in the world. Vox as a common thread from the 15th to the 21st century. Simplicity said seriously. Montaigne warned us about almost everything.
