Because You Never Asked

     The good news, like a confident boxer boring in on his opponent and getting nailed with a straight right hand to the jaw, has just been stopped in its tracks. It is now on one knee with the referee counting as it tries to shake off the cobwebs.

     Three days ago, they held municipal elections all over Spain. It is their version of our off year elections, although it differs in that all the action is on a local level. Nothing having to do with the national parliament (the "Cortes") is in play, but it happens everywhere in the country and the heavy hitters of the important political Parties get out and stump for their people.

     Most Americans know the story of "Dewey Wins!" Spain had its version of such in 2003.

     The "left" in Spain, now out of power for 6 years, was expecting to start their comeback this year. All the polls indicated substantial gains for them and the upbeat feeling in their ranks could not be concealed. And why not? Everything seemed to be conspiring in their favor, not the least of which being the unpopular participation of the Spanish government in the Iraqi conflict. Couple this with the massive oil spill off the northwest coast of Spain, where the government took much criticism for its lackluster response, along with a generally sluggish economy, and tomorrow seemed to have turned into today for the opposition.

     But Dewey lost again and I, as an ideological brother of the losing side, am now that fighter with one knee on the canvas, dazed, bewildered, trying to clear my head and understand just what happened. The following remarks will attest to the fact that I beat the count and survived, but this particular fight has been lost. My face shows the scars of defeat and my legs are wobbly as I head for the showers and try to regroup. I'll be the first to admit that losers and excuses make warm bedfellows and I'll leave it to the reader to see if any of my excuses are at all convincing.

     First off, in the words of that great loser, Richard Nixon, "let's make something perfectly clear": these were local elections revolving around local issues --- we built that new athletic complex, the streets still don't drain well, that tax on tourists, what about the old folks center, can we build on our property, will there be more development, etc., etc. The war was not a serious topic of conversation, but the opposition (the "left") definitely insinuated it into the campaign. Usually it was an after thought . "and oh, don't forget." There were numerous ads in newspapers asking people to say "no" to war. Famous artists and entertainers made sure the issue stayed alive. A well-known cartoonist, whose work appears every Sunday in a magazine supplement of an important newspaper, used his space to simply say, "Have a long memory". Although this election cannot be considered a referendum on Spain's military participation in Iraq, the issue, like the surreal presence of a ghost on the English moors, was out there.

     Did I, a foreigner (albeit, a well versed one) misread the scope of the Spanish people's rejection of the war? In picking through the rubble of defeat, I must reject that premise. Anyone in support of this war was so outgunned, it was embarrassing to admit it. This was true on the street and in the print media as well. (The government in power always has some clout with regard to state run TV, which is still a substantial part of boob tube programming In Spain.) I suppose what I, and the opposition in general, over valued, was the depth of feelings engendered by such an impersonal TV war, one that really had no effect on anyone's lives. Yes, it's very easy to feel morally outraged by such an action, just as one feels pain for the children starving in Africa, but once you step into that voting booth, things closer to one's life begin to nudge such altruism out of the way: my kid's school, my job, my next new car. Unlike myself, who sees these imperialistic wars as an ominous symptom of a cancerous world order, one not capable of using the world's resources in a way that most benefits our or any other species, most people cannot operate that far from the source of their problems. 

    About a month before the elections currently being discussed in these pages, the other formal participant in Bush's war, England, had the same kind of municipal elections. Given the chronology of the events, the stench of the war during England's elections was far more pungent. The British, who were also overwhelmingly against their government's actions, dealt Tony Blair a severe blow at the polls. Would the Spaniards have done the same if their elections had been a month earlier

     There is probably a good deal of truth in this assumption. If, as any journalist will tell you, there is nothing older than yesterday's news, a war concluded weeks before, in a land half way around the world where the victims dress like Martians and don't even know who Julia Roberts is, could be looked upon as Medieval history. Adding to this amnesia is the cowardly compliance of those most opposed to the war --- France, Germany, Russia, etc. --- thus legitimizing what should be considered a criminal offense (see essay "The Real World Order"). But there might also be more complicated factors having to do with the nature of the political "left" and "right".

     One cannot overlook the fact that in England a so-called left-center government is in power, which contrasts with the right-center government ruling in Spain. (This writer would consider Blair's government a "centrist" one, and Aznar's a neo-right one, but the labeling system currently being used by the media is a part of the propaganda we swallow every day.) For reasons I will enunciate below, especially with regard to an issue of conscience or morality, the "left" will always break ranks with more facility than the "right". For most people opposed to this war, the moral aspects of it took center stage, though I consider it as stupid from a policy standpoint as it is immoral, not the least of reasons being that it dooms the planet's economy to a steady diet of fossil fuel into the unforeseeable future.

     Generally speaking, people who vote for Republicans, Tories, or the P.P. in Spain (the right) are, above all else, doing such to protect material interests. In contrast to this, people who vote for the Democrats, Labor, or the P.S.O.E. in Spain (the left), are more concerned with ideas; justice, equality, a better world, etc. (I suppose most "liberals" see this as an act of grace or altruism. I don't. I see it as being in my own interest, although it is not a material interest.) Those on the "right" see their superior material situation as something they deserve or have earned, while the "left" sees the "unfortunate" as victims of injustice and exploitation. People on the "right" are pragmatic. The "left" is more romantic.

     If we take these ideas into the polling booth, we see that Tony Blair's left-center government is far more likely to be punished by its own supporters than Aznar's right wing government in Spain. Once the curtain is drawn, the Aznar supporter is going to weigh his options and realize that he has a business to run, property to administer, wealth to hide, investments to make, taxes he doesn't want to pay, and he doesn't want any greater-good social contract nibbling around the edges of his domain. OK, he doesn't like the war, it seems wrong, he doesn't see the need . but in the end, Aznar and the "right" represent something very tangible for him; his material interests. When Blair went against the ideals of his supporters, they punished him. Aznar didn't have to worry about the ideals of the core of his support, because the "right" deals in interests not ideals.

     So here I am, licking my wounds in the dressing room. They've put some ice on my swollen eye and stopped the drip of blood leaking from my lumpy nose. I've taken a shower. The aspirin has curtailed the throbbing in my head. Some things are beginning to come clearer.

     Both the "left" in the United States and Spain are suffering one overriding deficiency that, more than anything, is holding it back: a lack of charismatic leadership. For those who know Spanish politics, we are talking about an heir to Felipe Gonzalez, who led the Spanish version of the Democrats in power for 13 years until 1996. In America, we are talking about an heir to JFK, and to some lesser extent, Bill Clinton. When one snatches defeat from the jaws of victory, it is imperative to learn something from it. In this case, the most essential lesson could be the following: in what we now refer to as the western democracies, that ill-defined goulash of regular folks swarming the "center" is where an election is won. The "left", in the last quarter century or so, has tried to mold its ideology to this pivotal group, thus compromising their passion and identity. The mistake in doing this is that this "central goulash" has no ideology. They are regular folks, working, raising their kids, watching a little football on TV. Rather than trying to play to an ideology that doesn't exist, you have to impress them with your own ideology. There is nothing about what a Democrat in the United States or a Socialist in Spain stands for that is too radical for this non-ideological "center" to accept. What's been lacking is someone with the star quality to attract the attention of this "goulash", someone who can explain his or her ideology with style and grace. The leader of the "left" in Spain is a decent enough fellow named Zapatero. He's been a good Party man all his life --- loyal, trustworthy, rising slowly through the ranks. He's the Spanish version of Tom Daschle or Dick Gephardt. He's a good soldier but not a good leader. He leads his Party (which makes him their Presidential candidate in a parliamentary type system) in much the same way stagnant water gets funkier. It will only get nastier until the water is changed.

Relevant Material - A man on the republican side during the Spanish Civil War (the left), explains the difference between the political left and right.

      "To be liberal is to be overly tied to the impulses of the heart. We are sensitive and romantic. But the State is an artificial, hardhearted thing that requires cynical, calculated, cold-blooded maneuvering, even great cruelty at times. (.) We are naïve. The reactionaries aren't, no, because they base their actions on the concrete reality of their money, their material well being, and they'll use the night stick on anyone who opposes them. They know exactly what they want. We defend ideals, daydreams, as if everyone was a good person. They act as if everyone was a bad person. We are naïve ." From the book "Cuentos (II)" (Stories II), by the Spaniard, Francisco Garcia Pavon.