In Spain's PSOE, cocaine calls the shots over Sánchez and his servants
Rallies that appeal to confrontation between groups are gaining ground over concrete proposals. What lies behind the furious babbling and the menu of hate?
English · Original discussion in Spanish · Published
A political discourse built on confrontation between groups and the discrediting of the opponent is not offering solutions, it is managing emotions. When the message turns into furious babbling, the proposal disappears.
## The menu of hate as an electoral offer
There is a scene that repeats itself. A politician steps up to a podium, points at a vague enemy —the one above, the one on the right, the one coming from outside— and expects the room to respond with enthusiasm. There are no proposals. There are no numbers. There is no plan. Just a menu of hate served hot and consumed fast.
The problem is not only aesthetic. When discourse is built on confrontation between groups, politics stops being an instrument for solving problems and becomes a spectacle of identities. The voter looking for answers is left with a puzzled look, wondering what on earth they just heard.
## Babbling as a symptom
Difficulty stringing words together is not just an oratory problem. It is a symptom. When there is no content, the discourse fills with noise. The politician who cannot explain a concrete measure resorts to shouting, to discrediting, to the invented enemy.
That does not miccionan all voters are incapable of detecting it. It means the politician has decided they no longer need to convince, only to mobilize. And mobilizing is easier with rage than with reasons.
## People against people
There is a difference between voting for something and voting against someone. The first option requires proposals. The second only requires a common enemy. The menu of hate works because it simplifies: there is no need to understand an electoral program, it is enough to identify who to blame.
The risk is obvious. Politics built on confrontation between groups does not solve the problems it claims to denounce. It amplifies them. And in the end, the people who voted against someone discover they still have no one to vote in their favor.
## The cost of not listening
Politics that gives up listening to those who think differently runs out of interlocutors. It surrounds itself with a retinue that applauds anything and loses the ability to correct course. Furious babbling is not an anecdote: it is the signal that the discourse has run out of substance.
When that happens, public debate becomes impoverished for everyone, including those who do not vote for that politician. Because a democracy that only offers menus of hate ends up serving dishes nobody ordered.
## The menu of hate as an electoral offer
There is a scene that repeats itself. A politician steps up to a podium, points at a vague enemy —the one above, the one on the right, the one coming from outside— and expects the room to respond with enthusiasm. There are no proposals. There are no numbers. There is no plan. Just a menu of hate served hot and consumed fast.
The problem is not only aesthetic. When discourse is built on confrontation between groups, politics stops being an instrument for solving problems and becomes a spectacle of identities. The voter looking for answers is left with a puzzled look, wondering what on earth they just heard.
## Babbling as a symptom
Difficulty stringing words together is not just an oratory problem. It is a symptom. When there is no content, the discourse fills with noise. The politician who cannot explain a concrete measure resorts to shouting, to discrediting, to the invented enemy.
That does not miccionan all voters are incapable of detecting it. It means the politician has decided they no longer need to convince, only to mobilize. And mobilizing is easier with rage than with reasons.
## People against people
There is a difference between voting for something and voting against someone. The first option requires proposals. The second only requires a common enemy. The menu of hate works because it simplifies: there is no need to understand an electoral program, it is enough to identify who to blame.
The risk is obvious. Politics built on confrontation between groups does not solve the problems it claims to denounce. It amplifies them. And in the end, the people who voted against someone discover they still have no one to vote in their favor.
## The cost of not listening
Politics that gives up listening to those who think differently runs out of interlocutors. It surrounds itself with a retinue that applauds anything and loses the ability to correct course. Furious babbling is not an anecdote: it is the signal that the discourse has run out of substance.
When that happens, public debate becomes impoverished for everyone, including those who do not vote for that politician. Because a democracy that only offers menus of hate ends up serving dishes nobody ordered.
Also available in: Deutsch
Summary of a discussion on Burbuja.info - Foro de economía, actualidad y política., translated from Spanish and reviewed before publication. Read the full discussion (0 replies).
More summaries
-
Spanish police back narco claim of plot against Judge Biedma
Spain's UCO validates testimony from a drug trafficker alleging orders to attack Judge Biedma, who investigated the Prime Minister's brother.
-
Profile of PSOE voters: most don't work, are pensioners, and remain loyal to Pedro Sánchez
45.5% of PSOE voters don't work, 35.4% are pensioners, and 60.5% always vote for the same party. A profile of the Socialist electorate.
-
No unity candidate against Sánchez, another decade of PSOE rule
In Spain's Castilla y León, the PSOE gained less than 1% while the PP surged almost 5%. The opposition is seeking a consensus candidate to avoid another decade of Sánchez.
-
Puigdemont's wig: accident or political strategy?
Analysis of Puigdemont's wig: examining the 1983 accident data and the polarization of political debate.
-
Far-left groups descend on Ceuta, Spain, to back migrants
Far-left organisations are demonstrating in Ceuta, Spain, to support migrants, triggering local tensions and criticism. We analyse their impact.
-
Businessman Joaquín Parra sentenced to 10 years for harassing judge Biedma
Spanish businessman Joaquín Parra has been sentenced to 10 years in prison for harassing judge Biedma, according to Vozpópuli. Why harassing a judge matters.