The politicization of misfortunes

BarcelonaIn less than 24 hours, Santiago Abascal seized upon the Córdoba train accident to declare that "nothing works under corruption and lies," and Silvia Orriols latched onto Salvador Illa's infection to chirp that "a president's life is worth no more than that of a police officer, a mechanic, or a florist..." I would say that if these two statements catch our attention, it's not so much because their content has shocked us more than usual from these two figures, but because they reflect the confidence of the new right that the cultural winds are in their favor—the rhetorical excess that betrays those who have taken the polls at face value and are going overboard. It's impossible to know for sure whether these pronouncements will ultimately add to or detract from their support, but it has become abundantly clear that the aura of authenticity surrounding right-wing leaders is just as much of a pose as that of the rivals they criticize so vehemently, and in reality, they all follow the same playbook.

One of the ironies of this manual, and one that also explains our bewilderment, is that it was invented by the left: the fact that behind institutional neutrality and an emphasis on technical management lie politically motivated decisions that are anything but natural and could be very different is an idea originating from the left, which sought to shake the conscience of a certain class. As Ernesto Laclau's theory of populism explains, to challenge hegemony you must break down consensus and interpret any problem through a friend/enemy lens, seizing upon disruptions to normality as proof that corrupt elites have betrayed ordinary people. And Laclau was the go-to author for Pablo Iglesias and Íñigo Errejón. From the 2008 economic crisis to the recent torrential rains, the idea that catastrophes must be politicized instead of closing ranks with a somber expression has been the lever with which the left has had to shift the balance of power.

Naturally, if the right has adopted this playbook, it's because it works. The idea that there should be sacred topics is comforting, but the truth is that behind everything we consider untouchable lies a position on how the world should be, a position that can be debated in political terms.

The calls for decency and against dehumanization made in response to the outbursts of Abascal and Orriols are not apolitical, but rather a way of countering one politicization with another. Just as some have called for defending one Special treatment for the presidents, others have taken advantage of the train episode to try to open a debate about whether Spain can afford such an expensive high-speed infrastructure, and still others have spoken of Salvador Illa's admission to remind people of the underfunding of Catalan healthcare or the infringements of linguistic rights that are committed every day.

Navigating a turbulent world where everything is hyper-politicized is ambivalent: we can respond by exhausting ourselves and losing faith in politics itself, or we can feel our batteries recharged because the necessary change simply needs to find the analysis and the message that politicize the problems in the right direction. The paradox of Abascal and Orriols is that the very energy they want to harness is the same energy that could fuel the counter-revolution that ultimately ousts them. The only certainty is that we live in times where everything is especially open, and that the game won't be won by the most depoliticized, but by those who know how to politicize with the keenest sense.