When the Left Owns Property (Bieito Rubido in El Debate)

Bieito Rubido argues in El Debate that Spain's left is hypocritical for questioning private property while its leaders amass real estate. The article defends property as an extension of individual freedom and argues that attacking it from power is a political mistake that backfires on those who make it.

Private property has been for centuries one of the pillars of Western political thought. **Bieito Rubido**, in an article published in **El Debate**, argues that Spain's left is living a contradiction that is hard to sustain: it questions property while its leaders and figureheads enjoy notable real estate wealth. The text does not ask anyone to give up their assets. On the contrary, it defends that right as legitimate. What it points out is the incoherence of those who deny it to others.

## From Saint Thomas to Locke: property as freedom

Rubido recalls that reflection on property goes back a long way. **Saint Thomas Aquinas**, **Rousseau** and **Locke** approached the question from different angles. Locke in particular held that aspiring to the legitimate accumulation of resources was healthy for society. Without ambition, he suggests, the world grinds to a halt.

That idea connects with a simple principle: without property there is no freedom. The owner has a space of independence that depends on no one, not even the State. Rubido presents it as an extension of free will. Spain, he adds, is a country of homeowners, with an atavistic bond with housing that transcends ideologies.

The article does not demonize those who own several homes. It mentions **Almodóvar**, **Gran Wyoming**, **Pablo Iglesias** and **Bardem** without reproaching them for their wealth. What irritates him is something else: the demagoguery of those who deny to others what they enjoy themselves.

## The Montse Mínguez case and the electoral cost

The text focuses on **Montse Mínguez**, spokesperson for the **PSOE** (Spanish Socialist Workers' Party) in the Congress of Deputies. Her situation, according to Rubido, is going to dominate the campaign more than other issues. The author argues that this kind of contradiction is backfiring on the party.

Rubido claims that every day of the encampment in **Sol** costs the PSOE tens of thousands of votes. He cites no source for that figure, but uses it to illustrate his thesis: a party that encourages campaigns against property while its leadership owns more than one home ends up paying a political price.

The PSOE led by **Sánchez**, he says, has abandoned rationality and lives in a state of agitation. For agitation to work, he adds, you have to be very clean and very coherent. Otherwise, the message blows up in your face.

## Hypocrisy as a political burden

Rubido insists that he is not scandalized by anyone owning possessions. What outrages him is the hypocrisy, the envy, the black soul of those who do not want for others what they have for themselves. He calls that attitude an old tic of the most reactionary left.

The article suggests that behind the altruistic discourse there is no vocation to solve other people's problems. Only an aspiration to stay in power. The ghosts of the past are back, he says, encouraged by Sánchez and his circle.

The implicit conclusion is that coherence is a political asset. Those who defend private property by example have the authority to speak about it. Those who attack it while benefiting from it hand a weapon to their adversaries.