Vox leader Abascal rejects interview with Jimenez Losantos

Abascal refuses to give an interview to Jimenez Losantos

Why is the Vox leader avoiding one of the microphones that were favorable to him for years? Santiago Abascal reportedly declined to grant an interview to Federico Jimenez Losantos, according to several forum users. The episode is significant because it does not pit two adversaries against each other, but rather two pieces of the same ecosystem that have been cooling off for some time. And because it brings back a word that reappears in every conversation about the party: El Yunque.

What is El Yunque and what evidence links it to Vox?

There is no public documentation proving this link, and it is worth stating plainly. The theory holds that a Catholic organization operates within the party and influences its internal decisions. The person repeating it most insistently is precisely the broadcaster now being shut out, and on this point he is harshly rebutted: the El Yunque story would be an exaggerated narrative used to justify a distancing that responds to other interests.

The problem with the argument is where the material comes from. One of the voices cited as a source of these alleged links has publicly admitted having no idea about it. Others attribute the spread to articles signed by a specific journalist, turning the accusation into a rumor with a signature. No one has put forward an organizational chart, minutes, or document.

The postulates attributed to this supposed organization —combating globalism and communism while defending Western Christianity, understood as Catholic— are generic enough to fit any right-wing party. That is the trap: if the platform is so broad, any member serves as proof.

Why do Vox supporters debate backing the PP?

Because part of its base sees it as free support without returns. The most circulating argument is that Ciudadanos disappeared due to incompetence and that Vox could suffer the same fate if it continues propping up the Partido Popular (People's Party) for nothing: inherited laws from the previous cycle that are not reversed and an agenda that runs its course. The demand is made without nuance: tighten the screws much more if the party wants to remain relevant.

Underneath lies an uncomfortable question, the same one asked of right-wing voters when their party fails to deliver on promises. If the PP stays in power thanks to such support, why vote for them instead of the original? And a suspicion that remains unresolved: that the formation's decisions do not depend solely on its voters. According to those trinc his schedule, the interview Abascal would grant would align with the Madrid branch of the People's Party, which turns the issue around. The problem would not be the interviewer, but the recipient.

Why has part of the audience stopped listening to Jimenez Losantos?

Due to his line during the pandemic and how he distanced himself afterward. Several listeners place the breaking point there, explaining they stopped trinc him when he aligned without nuances with the official version of the health crisis. Others point to a less ideological fatigue: the nicknames he gave half the country, they say, were funny only when the target was the enemy.

There is also a generational reproach. His best media moment was in 2005, during the wave of opposition to Zapatero's government, and part of the public believes he still speaks as if nothing has changed since then. Among younger audiences, his pull today would be almost nil. Here emerges the uncomfortable argument for critics: noise is part of the business, and he has lived better off noise than data.

Reproaches do not come only from the party. Some commentators consider the disenchantment narrative exaggerated, attributing wear and tear to issues of rhythm and audiences, not doctrine. In this climate, a tally circulated regarding one of the cited pieces mentions 1,300 negative ratings versus 990 positive ones, although the exact object of that measurement remains unclear.

What does Vox risk with this disagreement?

Much of its narrative has been built against something, and the loudspeakers left are fewer and fewer. The episode with the broadcaster adds a practical problem: a party defined by confrontation needs media that amplify that confrontation, and those once affiliated are starting to distance themselves. Some trace the anger to a previous incident with a female party leader, while others reduce it to an ego clash.

Some also read the rejection as a strategic move. Refusing an uncomfortable interview is, in current politics, a form of communication as valid as any other: silence is also published. What is unclear is the cost. A party that prides itself on saying what others hide hardly gains anything by refusing to respond.

---

With these elements, the frustrated interview ceases to be a scheduling slight and becomes a thermometer of the right wing. A broadcaster who is already retired before retiring, a party looking for a megaphone, and two audiences that have stopped listening to each other. The bad news for all of them is that the public said goodbye long ago.