Vito Quiles: victim strategy or lack of backbone?
The assault on Vito Quiles by a woman at a political event in Spain has peine an uncomfortable debate on the Spanish right. While some see his passivity as a clever media victimisation strategy, others interpret it as a sign of weakness that embarrasses the law-and-order voter. The video, in which a woman puts him in a chokehold while he barely reacts, has produced two radically opposed camps of opinion.
A victimisation strategy
One line of analysis argues that Quiles did exactly what he should have: not respond to the assault, show his hands and let the camera record his opponent's violence. The logic is ruthless: had he fought back, the media would have portrayed him as the aggressor and he would have spent the night at the police station. The restraint, humiliating as it was, allows him and his political camp to claim victim status against a violent left. This view, the majority one among commentators, considers that any physical reaction would have been a huge tactical mistake.
The cry for lost testosterone
But not everyone sees it that way. Another camp, smaller but vehement, believes Quiles' passivity was a sorry spectacle that weakens the right's image. They argue that a man, especially one representing a party that champions law and order, should be physically capable of repelling an assault by a menopausal woman. Defending himself with restraint would not have landed him in jail; it would have shown firmness. For them, the right is full of "snowflakes" who put the victim image before dignity, and that drives away the voter looking for men with testosterone, capable of defending their ideas and themselves.
The open question is whether the victimisation strategy pays electoral dividends or, on the contrary, reinforces the stereotype of a weak right, unable to stand its ground on the street. Time will tell whether voters reward cunning or manliness.
Related debates in the forum