Monday, October 18

The disputed vote of Mr. Vargas

The most well-intentioned people have wanted to see in Mario Vargas Llosa’s censorious words about the elections and the wise vote the fruit of the chocheo typical of certain ages, but no. First, because there are many other people of his age, José Saramago, Emilio Lledó are examples, who have not freaked out and second, because what the writer has said has been saying for a long time and, furthermore, his statements are typical of the bourgeoisie to the that belongs with the added exoticism of the Creoles from beyond the puddle.

Jorge Mario Pedro -as Miguel Ángel Aguilar would say but does not say-, his seams have jumped in public although in private, in those capital cenacles of national vargasllosismo, it is common to hear him as his fellow men of the same tenor. This group made up of former government presidents, former newspaper editors, artists, journalists and academics drinks from its own waters, determined to defend ourselves from the dangers of universal suffrage in the hands of people who do not know as much as they do, who have known so much in their lives. life as to now be rich and self-declare missionaries.

Jorge Mario’s words at the PP Convention are not new and they have sat very, very well in the popular third of the Salamanca District, which seems to be his organic, endogamous and, therefore, very celestine circle. It is not only about ideological reproduction but, if possible, biological reproduction, although it is not possible precisely because of biology. In any case, pregnant with a dynastic spirit.

Regarding his ideology, not hidden but camouflaged, there is enough bibliography but I limit myself to citing Eric Hobsbawm. On The echoes from the Marseillaise, Hobsbawm shows how after the triumph of the bourgeois revolution, in front of the absolute monarchy and the clergy, in revolutionary France, the bourgeoisie never had in their thoughts anything other than the change of the ruling class, but only that, hence the Third Estate was quickly divided. The ideologues of bourgeois liberalism tried to keep democracy at bay, they said, by avoiding the intervention of the poor and the working majority. By universal suffrage, it is understood, hence his quick confrontation with Jacobinism.

In fact, they even claimed that Jacobinism was like smallpox. Fear of democracy, Tocqueville would say. The bourgeois who anticipated Jorge Mario already feared that universal suffrage without intelligence, as they called it, would spread throughout all bourgeois countries, hence they tried to prevent it or, in any case, discredit it. For them, their cousins, voting was a matter for the wise and enlightened and not for the poor and workers who would vote badly and endanger their status quo.

It is not only in revolutionary France that the bourgeois tried to maintain their class privileges; Early in the newly emancipated United States, the Philadelphia Convention witnessed similar tensions. The debates between Madison and Jefferson, today considered heroes of democracy, included the same classism and racism, the original sin of the United States. Freedom yes, democracy too, but only by voting those who knew, they, considered aristocrats of the new faith.

Fortunately, with much suffering and also, at times, acts of contrition, universal suffrage spread but the bourgeois resistance, anointed with modernity and intellectuality, did not diminish. It is common even in our days not to recognize the electoral victory of the progressive parties, marking them, in the case of forming a government, as illegitimate and, in any case, staining the results that do not suit their privileges, as indigenism, communism, radicalism, nationalism or simply, fraud. Everything is worth less accepting the basic and fundamental idea of ​​all democracy: vote for all and one man or woman, one vote.

American Creoleism was impregnated with that original culture of bourgeois liberalism and we have come this far. Round-trip reactionary Creoleism, such as the cantes, from Miami to Bogotá, from Lima or Quito to La Paz or Brasilia, and it stops with increasing frequency in the capital Madrid of the anti-democratic and, on occasions, coup plotter.

Ciudadanos no longer exists, a formation to which Jorge Mario dedicated his love, fervor, efforts and vote. I do not know if Albert Rivera continues to be admitted to the Vargallosista circle, given his failure in the mission entrusted to him. In the capture of the wreckage of that sponsored project, such as infomercials, the popular dispute their support. In these days, the disputed vote of Vargas Llosa has gone to Pablo Casado, perhaps that means a breakdown of the gang, we will see it in soon editorials, philippics, and opinion columns. It could be until the writer is jinx, don’t rule it out.

In any case, that thing that nests in the capital’s cenacles has little to do with democracy, a lot with class privileges, very little with the natural evolution of the eighteenth-century bourgeoisie and it moves away in a traumatic way from the contemporary role of the European right. anti-fascist.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *