An extract from the interview carried out by Borja Sémper circulates through the lies of good Spain a few days ago on TVE. You already know calico: the classic format for some to relax, others to enjoy and in a state of alienation good roll temporary anyone is wrong for there to be a viral video until judgment day.
On this occasion, the question that motivates everything is this: “Mr. Sémper, who do you prefer between Sánchez and Abascal?. Any normal constitutionalist mind (note that I am not even saying fascist or right-wing, or even center-right: the level is as low as “constitutionalist”) would have answered the obvious: that whatever the ideas of the one or the other, Abascal risked his life against ETA for defending his ideas and for that reason alone you should always be on your boat. A simple answer, based on normal moral codes, that even the most lukewarm reds can understand and that would only generate hatred among those who were going to hate him even if he said that Pedro Sánchez “is very good”, like says the socialist. MPs declaim in parliamentary seats without shame or modesty.
I summarize everything that is happening: instead of answering the obvious, He decided to trigger the worst possible response from the entire range of options that could cross his mind.. More precisely, his speech was “buf”. “Chamois.” I insist, “buf”. The spokesperson for the political party leading the opposition to the worst government in the history of democracy and a president ravaged by corruption decides that between his government partner and the criminal, it is a question of answering “buf” .
This could be an anecdotal question if it were not that it reveals a very serious problem of equidistance which constantly gives the feeling that no one understood anything about what happened on June 23, which is the original sin of this whole story. issue. It is extremely difficult to build an alternative government if it has not yet been decided internally. If Feijóo is not president, it is his fault that he made a deal with Vox (lie) or was ashamed of the deals with Vox (truth).
There comes a time when I prefer to forget that time when the PSOE qualified Otegi as a man of peace while a blue vacationer boycotted himself by assuming the socialist moral center as his own, saying that in Genoa they were afraid of Abascal when, Of course, the PP already shared an autonomous government with Vox (Castilla y León) and had won with an absolute majority the reddest territory in Spain (Andalusia) with Gallardo already as vice president of the earthquake. It’s such an obscene harakiri that it gives rise to all kinds of conspiracy theories that are best left unlisted..
In any case, The past only leads to melancholy, so let’s focus on the present. This is legitimate, even if it may seem wrong to some of us.that the PP prefers to develop on its left wing to the detriment of its right wing. The problem is that they have not understood how social democratic votes are captured: it is not a question of accepting their theses or being equidistant from them, but of ensuring that the flags of the right are becoming so transversal and priority that it is urgent for left-wing voters. The PP will resolve it, although in important areas it trusts the PSOE more. I will give you an example: will the PP obtain the votes of any social democrat for having proposed feminist or environmental measures? No, because socialists have more authority and credibility on these issues, even if the right proposes measures likely to attract them. Will the PP get the votes of a social democrat if it fights head-on against the amnesty, so that some PSOE voters understand that the national emergency is more important than the working day of four days ?
Naturally, yes, because in effect it shows that all of Spain is blue at the regional level, even if it remains red at the national level. I will reverse the argument: Do you vote for the left if they promise to lower taxes? Certainly not. Would you vote for them if the PP suddenly became a republican party and the PSOE was the only one to guarantee the monarchy? If it was for a greater good, surely yes.
Well, in summary, here is the subject: that to win the votes of those on the other side, we must not become the opposite, we must convince them that our cause is more important than theirs. And for that, of course, the first step is to not have any complexes about assuming this between a hero who fought with his life for freedom and any other, always the hero. Even if it’s a fashion. Or perhaps, in this case, precisely because of it.
