No one is free to speak foolishness. 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 those two sentences by the French philosopher, Ramón Tamames' full-board stay for two days in Congress is summed up. The Englishman Samuel Johnson, for his part, was the one who left behind another apothegm, dated 1775 and collected by his biographer James Bosswell, which serves to refer to the role of Vox in this little theater: patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel. So much for the motion of no confidence in what concerns its promoters and its headliner.
The second and final day of the docudrama only improved the first shortly. The most substantial thing was to observe how the popular spokesperson, Cuca Gamarra, confirmed with her intervention that her party is not in a position to renounce –or even violate a little– Vox. With the alibi of courtesy towards the candidate Tamames, Mrs. Gamarra forgot to delve into the differences that separate her political project from the extreme right. The fact that Alberto Núñez Feijóo took the Easter holidays in advance, disappearing from the stage during the motion, does not mask the crystal clear reality that has emerged in Congress. Popular abstention is nothing more than the assumption of a reality: the parties will go to the elections, but whoever governs will do so en bloc. And that of the PP can only be built using the bricks of the extreme right. The dissimulation of such evidence is concentrated all the efforts of the popular. That was why the motion was so annoying to them. The renewal of the block on the left, despite the fact that they have been gouging their eyes out for some time now, was in turn solemnized the day before with the long live the Government and for many years from Yolanda Díaz. The cards are what they are. We will vote for parties, but coalitions will govern us. Of course, we should already know all that.
Vox has achieved between less and nothing than it intended. The demoscopia will tell us the minute and result of the last occurrence of Santiago Abascal in the coming days. Even so, the extreme volatility of current politics, and the fact that the usual glasses are not very useful to analyze the currents of voting towards the extremes, advise some prudence on the matter. In fact, Vox's narrative and campaigns are not written through traditional media. Hence, among youth –particularly among men– it is one of the preferred political options. That fishing ground for votes is immune to what has happened in Congress.
The Abascal-Tamames duet aspired, in addition to violating the PP to the cry of maricomplexines, to expand the circle of trust in Vox among the electorate. The far-right fetén, impassive in his gesture, singing a duet with an economics professor who, from the supposed calm and experience of the years, claims that there are no political enemies, ideological heterogeneity and kindness, and good bearing in public speaking congressional. This part of the experiment has been unsuccessful. To the manifest contradictions of the approach has been added the inability of the learned economist to establish himself as something more than a wimp 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 severely judge his ridicule in Congress, only softened by the tenderness that his old age has aroused in the chamber.
The spokesman for Vox, Iván Espinosa de los Monteros, closed his speech shouting “think different” (think different) and turning the late Steve Jobs –the genius of Apple– into a patrimony of the extreme right. Minutes before, Ramón Tamames claimed the legacy of Isabel la Católica to show that women did not need any feminist revolution to paint something in the world. Vox as a common thread from the 15th to the 21st century. Simplicity said with seriousness. Montaigne warned us of almost everything.
