In his well-known Sunday editorial published on November 18, “PP Can Still Win the Elections,” Pedro J. Ramírez, executive editor of the newspaper El Mundo, discussed the need for a “centrist and liberal” project which he feels PP should carry out between now and March, in order to increase its chances of winning the general elections. He suggests they can win over Zapatero if they offer this project as an alternative to socialism.

 

This project would be characterized by at least four changes in the attitude of the party representing the Right. Firstly, they can no longer oppose homosexual marriage, which already has the support of the socialists. They must also begin supporting human embryo research as well as Civics classes (EPC). It is important that they abandon their defense of a “Natural Law,” which remains supposed and undetermined, and “face the secularism that is invading.”  In relation to Zapatero’s negotiations with ETA, Ramírez states that the negotiations of the so-called “peace process” have finished without the worst fears regarding concessions to ETA coming to fruition. Therefore, PP must reduce its opposition to PSOE’s policies regarding ETA to regain support.

 

In his article, Ramírez concludes: “Nobody will win elections playing the extremism card. If the Socialists now seek to define themselves with civil Republicanism and loyalty to the Monarchy in order to clean up their act, ¿why wouldn’t the Popular Party persevere in that magnificent invention such as the reformist center, and forget – at last – those Pleistocene truisms which will only end in the reenactment of the “Honor Without Ships” operetta?” (El Mundo, November 18, 2007)

 

Does this abandonment represent a reaffirmation of Liberalism* – such as the journalist states? It is first necessary to remember that, in his article, Pedro J. Ramírez was referring to a fundamental politics problem; the link between principles and practice; between political beliefs and inevitable electoral obligations. The Popular Party and PSOE are equally affected by this inherently problematic interaction. They realize there are flaws in their system; however, they always seem to believe there is no life outside their respective parties, and cling to the belief that their own bad administration is preferable to the adversary’s good administration. No politician is able to balance principles with practice in such a way as to completely satisfy his/her ideological conscience.

 

Irresolvable issues such as this can be seen in all areas of political activity and result from the ever-present relativism.  Is it necessary that the Popular Party stop “irritating” as the Socialists claim? Could this be the secret of success for the 2008 elections? Should the Popular Party embrace real liberalism? This seems to be the opinion of El Mundo’s executive editor as he urges PP leaders to renovate the reformist center.

 

Ramirez’s analysis is centered on two main questions; To what extent can the PP’s political principles be modified without losing the integrity of their foundational beliefs? At what juncture does winning an election become a surrender of oneself? At what point does liberalism stop being liberalism? That is to say, in today’s Spain, what is the link between liberalism and moderation?

 

On the other hand, the politician anxious to grab power, campaign managers and analysts are all posing the same question every four years; does “moderation” guarantee an electoral win?; and more than that, at what juncture does moderation become immoderation?; where does the moderation principle lie?; who or what determines the moderation criterion?; would things go better for the Popular Party if they were to embrace the moderation that the Left vociferously demands, and that Pedro J. Ramírez whispers to its ears?

 

 

Regarding the first question, the reader will agree for starters, that it is an insolvable issue; the link between principles - moral, political, business, strategic, etc – and actual practice is always problematic. Only the man with religious or ideological faith can settle something that for others is insolvable. The rest – including rulers and analysts – are satisfied with adjusting the ideals of policy in the best possible manner on a daily basis.  

 

We can return to the executive editor of El Mundo; “¿Why wouldn’t the Popular Party persevere in that magnificent invention such as the reformist center, and forget – at last – those Pleistocene truisms that will only end in the reenactment of the “Honor Without Ships” operetta?” The first thing calling our attention is that Pedro J. Ramírez’s logic becomes selective when it turns against him: Is it intellectually permissible to demand that his newspaper abandon the “extremist” position in relation to the “black holes” of the Madrid bombings investigation? Is the newspaper not very “moderate,” not very “liberal,” or “extremist” because it perseveres with the investigations, as the newspaper El País condemns? Should Ramírez or García Abadillo abandon their investigating “extremism” surrounding the Madrid bombings when most of the media are repeatedly demanding it?

 

Pedro J. Ramírez himself gives us the answer when he consistently defends his newspaper’s unshakeable will of acting based on principles; they are non-negotiable; they are not subject to the usefulness of the moment. Are we striking against the veteran journalist regarding principles, when alluding to the pressure exerted over El Mundo due to the investigation of the Madrid bombings? Perhaps, but it is imperative not to lose track of the basic principles behind Ramirez’s advice: The criterion behind his censuring the Popular Party’s policies in relation to the homosexual marriage, EPC, or embryonic research is exactly the same used by Cadena SER, or the newspaper Público, to condemn El Mundo’s conduct regarding its investigations, extremism,  irritating manner, and minority nature.

 

The journalist will deny his need to put the search for truth under the criteria of opportunism; he will appeal to his profession’s sacred principles. Principles that do not become tempered, but adapt to the circumstances. It does not seem to be so different from the case describing the Popular Party’s political activity that worries Ramírez so: If one agrees upon the premise that the Popular Party is a liberal, or liberal-conservative party, it will then have to adapt its principles to each circumstance, which indeed implies the ability to apply them at every moment, rather than putting them on ice.

 

The fact is that the Rule of Law – the citizens equal rights under the Law – does not allow for any moderation; moderate rule of law in a constitutional state is no rule of Law. It is the same situation when a journalist cannot moderately investigate a terrorist attack. Moderation makes no political or moral sense faced with inequality. Defending equality in a moderate manner implies one of two premises; the first is not to act moderately in its defense – something that gives a poor picture of the politician. The second is to defend a moderate rule of law –which may be to say too much of him/her. Liberalism can imply moderation of the ends, the historical prudence of political action; but as soon as it applies the moderation to the rule of law, it stops being liberal to become something else.

 

The same happens with pluralism; can one possibly be moderately plural? In Basque Country – to the tune of Goma 2 dynamite – and in Catalonia – due to institutional pressure and anti-system forces – pluralism is not only at risk; it is losing ground. Can one sacrifice the defense of plurality in the name of centrism? In the same article, Pedro J. Ramírez defends the idea of facing up to independentist blackmailing, oblivious to the fact that the “moderation” he requests in other areas can also be requested here. Moderation makes no sense when defending pluralism.

 

What about the five issues for a liberal policy requested to the Popular Party by the executive editor of El Mundo? According to Pedro J. Ramírez, PP should abandon the Pleistocene in the name of liberalism; but about what kind of liberalism is the illustrious journalist talking? Let us analyze the five viewpoints he criticizes the Popular Party for. 

 

Ø    Does the acceptance of the homosexual marriage imply an affirmation of liberalism? If what is behind the Socialist proposal is the belief that anything can be called family – that only the majority suffices to force moral recognition forward; if the basis and engine propelling pro-gay legislation in Spain and Europe is the project to eliminate religious legitimacy as to make their voices heard in society; and if the belief that definitions depend on the gamble of majorities, then there is no doubt. Contrary to what Pedro J. Ramírez seemingly thinks, legalizing homosexual marriage is anti-liberal.

 

Ø     In relation to embryonic research, the influential journalist does not go deeper in an issue that otherwise would require one more article. Does adhering to liberalism imply accepting research on human embryos? The problem certainly escapes political theory; the decision falls to science itself, and beyond that, to anthropology. At what moment of conception does the human being exist? A question that by itself suggests the scientific-technical despotism that liberals- and even Socialists – during the 19^th and 20^th centuries feared as the worst kind of dictatorship, but that Ramírez hurries to admit as liberal. For our part, there is no doubt; permitting labs or hospitals to make life or death decisions, besides being anti-liberal, is anti-human in the strictest sense.

 

Ø     The case of Civics classes called Educación para la Ciudadanía (EPC) seems to be a clean-cut case; it was conceived to “create” good citizens. The proposal itself is essentially anti-liberal. Is it justified by the fact that something similar exists in other countries? Absolutely, the liberal or democratic character of a policy does not depend on its success. Would it be liberal if, as Ramírez states, it were to teach other principles? No way, the project itself that the State teaches society what the State is and must be is anti-liberal from beginning to end.

 

Ø     In fourth place, identifying secularism with liberalism is not only an error, but it seemingly is the main problem of postmodern culture. Excluding religious or transcendental beliefs from public discourse implies, in the first place, the belief that one can cut into pieces the public/private spaces of human beings. Secondly, it implies having the certainty that religious beliefs are out of place in politics, which by itself, is already as debatable a belief as the religious ones are. Only that, it is shown as the sole possibility – devised in the name of democracy. It is what Tocqueville called despotism. This statement does not seem to be very debatable. The kind of secularism that the Peace Front propagates using propaganda and threats is anti-liberal in the strict sense of the term.

 

The link between principles and political action is problematic; the solution that El Mundo’s executive editor proposes to the Popular Party is false. The renunciations presented as liberal in his article are in fact anti-liberal. Moderation in ETA’s case is even more scandalous. Is it possible to be moderately against the negotiation between the Administration and ETA? If negotiating the future Basque Statute and the annexation of Navarre with ETA is immoral, as the journalist declares himself on a regular basis, can immorality be moderately criticized? Or for that matter, can immorality be accepted with moderation? Being against the political negotiation with ETA, in the past, the present and the future, admits neither moderation nor centrism. And in the name of the reformist center, one can hardly ignore the project for a change of regime that Zapatero is preparing to carry out after March 2008 – in complicity with ETA.

 

Contrary to what many believe, renouncing principles is not only non-liberal, but it is anti-liberal; the homosexual defense is anti-liberal, as well as the State’s indoctrination of children, experimenting with human embryos, the despotism of civil religion, and the pact with ETA’s totalitarianism. Looking the other way, talking about economics, or the taxes paid by those just making 1000 euros a month, or Hugo Chávez’s tragic buffoonery, can help to win elections; but it speaks volumes about the lack of principles and the kind of liberalism that one thought the Popular Party had demonstrated to defend until now with more than just effort and blood.

 

Liberalism not only means upholding one’s principles; it is indeed characterized by defending pluralism and equal rights under the law any time, any place. Liberalism is not constituted by the moderation of its ideals, but rather its antithesis. Educational despotism, secularism as ideology and religion, subjugating the right to life to scientific-technical needs imply in fact the immoderation that the liberal person – if he/she wants to continue being one – will face now as much as in the 1930s, during the early part of the 20th century.

 

If the Popular Party fails to criticize the conversion of gay couples into marriages; if it accepts as inevitable, research using human beings as guinea pigs; if it places the good of its children under State control, and agrees to the substitution of Christianity with a civil religion; if it chooses to present its candidacy to the 2008 elections without supporting ETA’s victims, and without condemning the pacts with terrorists reached by PSOE, it might be able to win the elections, as Pedro J. Ramírez indicates. Nevertheless, the party will not do it in name of liberalism, nor will it be able to lay claim to liberalism as such.

 

 

It could be called a case of political paradoxes when El País ruthlessly attacks El Mundo, basing those attacks on the same conceptions of centrism and moderation that Pedro J. Ramírez uses with the Popular Party. It is left to be seen if such ideas bear any success to Mariano Rajoy’s party.

 

Can elections be won abandoning principles, with a version of liberalism that it is not liberalism? In general, the Popular Party does not seem to be too different, regarding its political conception, from its European kinship, be it French or German. There is not one single theoretical approach in the programs, statements, speeches or writings by PP leaders that would call for describing it as an extreme right-wing party – in the fashion that the Peace Front does.

 

It is not a result of political theory nor the history of its ideas that the Popular Party is described as “the extreme right” or “the radical right;” the ones applying these titles are Rodríguez Zapatero, Telecinco or PRISA. In his latest book, the Prime Minister warns against the Spanish Right; he proposes its refoundation, and criticizes the conservative media.

 

He provides his own version of Spain’s history, of the Transition period, and of what he considers appropriate for Spain: “Our democracy, unlike most democracies, is not fruit of a revolution, of radical change. It is the result of an agreement, of an exemplary transition, but not of an impulse in which the deep democratic values teach how to relate to power, how to venerate it.  Those values must be there.” (Jesús Miguel de Toro, “Madera de Zapatero” RBA, pp. 178)

 

By now, deceiving oneself makes no sense; Rodríguez Zapatero longs for a revolution that never existed, and nostalgically points to a Second Republic that ended with tragedy; and whose values must exist. The Spanish Constitution should not need to be upheld, and the current Spanish regime should not be guaranteed. The Prime Minister yearns for a change of regime, a change of state model, and a Spanish society configuration different from the one sustaining the constitutionalist-pluralist project. Beyond the elections, this Administration’s progressive principles are powerful, and the historical scorn with which they treat those who are against them, too:

 

“If there is something characteristic to this electoral term is that there is a project. It is precisely because there is a project that the hawks on the Right present as useless a resistance as active, just because they know there is a project. They have realized that there is an attainable project rich in cultural values, and therefore ideological, that could define the social and historical identity of modern Spain for a long time” (Ibid pp. 150).

 

So do not be deceived on this matter; there is a far-reaching ideological project that can define modern Spain’s identity. And the Right? Where is the extremism that El País denounces, and that Pedro J. Ramírez proposes to abandon? For the Left, the Spanish Right is defined as extreme for it opposes the changes that the Peace Front has in store for Spain. While no one can know what Rodríguez Zapatero truly thinks, the truth is that the legal, institutional, and social reforms undertaken by PSOE directly lead to the abandonment of the Spanish, British, Italian, and French liberal parliamentary regime, giving way to its substitution for something else. 

 

On Thursday, November 22 – just a month after Pedro J. Ramírez proposed that the Popular Party take a liberal approach, that is in fact anti-liberal, another well-known journalist, Ernesto Ekaizer, was interviewing Juan Costa, the Popular Party’s campaign coordinator; some days later, the same newspaper interviewed PP spokesman Gabriel Elorriaga. In recent years, El País has distinguished itself for two things; the denunciation of the Aznar Administration’s role in the Iraq War, and the denunciation of the lies told by Rajoy’s party between the day of the bombings (March 11,)  and March 14. It is compulsory to acknowledge that this is the flagship of the Peace Front project to change the Spanish political regime: Vertically, converting the Right into a mute of the popular democracy we are being promised; horizontally, turning Spain into a confederal state, where some communities annex others in the Pyrenees and El Levante, annihilating any kind of opposition to some imperialist streaks overseen from Madrid and described as progressive in El País, “the global newspaper in Spanish.” 

 

 

To what extent is the Peace Front, and El País for that matter, interested in the Iraq War? The question answers itself; under the premise to make the observation of things as they have happened in recent years; the hysteria against the Popular Party and José María Aznar began long before the first American marine stepped on Iraqi sand; before anybody could have imagined a snapshot like the Azores photo. Did the leaders of the Popular Party ignore what El País was publishing about the Popular Party in November 2002? Even before that date, Rodríguez Zapatero became PSOE’s Secretary General with a political project and has never claimed otherwise.  

 

To progressives, the Iraq War is no more than the embodiment of the extremist nature of the Right in a concrete decision, and not only on the part of the Popular Party. Rodríguez Zapatero himself seems to think so:

 

“Aznar’s decision to send troops there is the culmination of that ultraconservative project, and, if analyzed in depth, of the complex about what Spain represents (...) It culminates there, it runs aground there, all that attempt of a project to place us as an ultraconservative-thought country, as a country whose happier destiny would be to submit to the strongest” (Ibid pp. 155).

 

It is not the Iraq War that worries and troubles El País and PSOE’s post-Marxist Left. A simple review of the presidential statements demonstrates that the existence of the Popular Party as a force called to govern is what greatly irritates those who seek a project for Spain going beyond the Constitution. What seems to irritate Rodríguez Zapatero is neither the Iraq War – one he continued to pursue by other means – nor the weapons of mass destruction – whose existence he accepted in 2003. What he sees in the Iraq War is neither a mistake in strategic decision nor a crime against the “international legitimacy;” it is an “ultraconservative,” “extreme Right-wing,” and “extremist” project. Thus, el País was never neutral, and never had the desire to be neutral: “It is very ‘difficult to be neutral’ when ‘there are some wishing to return to the Civil War.” (Jesus Polanco, March 2007).

 

Was the decision to support the Americans in the war against Saddam actually debatable? Without a doubt, though the reasons vanish as victory consolidates. Did the Peace Front contribute with some strategic, political, legal argument against it? Certainly not; and neither did Pedro J. Ramírez in 2003. Embarked on a project of big game hunting, the Left knew perfectly well that the objective was much closer than Fallujah. The assaults against the offices of the Popular Party, the attempts to attack people in Catalonia, the insults to José María Aznar and Mariano Rajoy should have certainly persuaded the Popular Party that the Iraq War was only the occasion to achieve a much greater objective: The Popular Party itself.

 

Extremely intimidated before and after March 2004, the Popular Party made the worst of all decisions; it completely accepted the idea offered by the Left about the war, its actors, and motivations. The party incriminated itself; it internalized the hysterical pacifist screams coming from Ferraz and its mediatic galaxy against Aznar; and tried to dodge the issue to leave behind a decision based on moral and strategic principles. In March 2004, the Popular Party seemed to have the desire to leave behind a storm that was not its responsibility, but that, inexplicably, the party accepted as such.

 

However, things were not that easy. For the Left, the Iraq War was the symbol of an ultraconservative Right; therefore, when the Popular Party desisted from the determination to defend the war, it also desisted from defending itself: When accepting the vision the Left offered about the war to the Popular Party, the party unknowingly accepted the vision that the Left offered about the party itself. Consequently, apologizing for the war would be equivalent to apologize just for existing; to live perennially in hiding; to expiate its sins, not only the sin of the Iraqi adventure, but the sin of being openly liberal, openly Spanish, decidedly pro-Atlantic and ready to recuperate in the ballot box the power it once lost. 

 

 

In November 2007, three months before the elections, the Popular Party tried to no avail to leave the ghost of the Iraq War behind them: the Peace Front tied cans of humiliation and remembrance to PP’s tail. The faster they ran from it, the louder they sounded, echoing the Left’s slogan “¡No a la Guerra!” (No to War!) Accepting the moderation that El País had been demanding for years, the Popular Party decided to forget and move on. Consequently, the Left – aware of the Popular Party’s intellectual, moral and political weakness of its retreat – uses it as its own banner. In an El País interview on November 22, Juan Costa abjured his party’s legacy; consequently, the interviewer reminded him about it repeatedly using the party’s repentance to bury any possibility of victory in 2008. 

 

Ironically, currently, the situation in Iraq improves daily; terrorists have fewer chances to commit murder; American casualties have oftentimes dropped; PP acted not only on principle, but it seems that these principles are being confirmed on Iraqi soil. Those who PP seeks to give explanations despised the reasons given regarding Iraq. Talking about Iraq’s currently improved situation is avoided and hidden by the same newspaper that PP tries to please. Today, when the policy of principles seems to become the policy of results, the Right should not expect recognition from those who remain unwilling to acknowledge it in El País and in El Mundo.

 

The Popular Party stopped defending its decision on Iraq; it did not realize that in doing so, it was abandoning its own defense.  It failed to defend policy based on principles, and in doing so, the action did not translate into victory. Those who then insulted its members, continue doing it today, and will continue doing it tomorrow. Becoming exhausted in a useless effort to convince others to move on to other issues, it discovers those others do not want to move on. They forget that if the Peace Front has made the Popular Party responsible for all jihadist crimes in Iraq, it should also be given credit for Iraqis enjoying the improvement of daily living conditions.

 

6. Against ETA; Asking for permission to win the elections?

 

After the Basque elections in 2001, a warning came from the pages of El País against constitutional alliances. Shortly thereafter, the manhunt began, going after Nicolás Redondo Terreros and the constitutionalists inside the Basque Socialist Party (PSE.) Today we all know that it was not ETA, making an offer or writing mysterious letters, that initiated negotiations. It was not ETA who looked for Rodríguez Zapatero; it was he who opened the negotiation process with the terrorist organization – because of his deep ideological beliefs.  

 

From the beginning of ETA’s truce, the worst evidence started to surface: PSOE had agreed with ETA on a new political framework for Basque Country – something that was pleasing as much to Arnaldo Otegi as to Rodríguez Zapatero. PSOE had also agreed to surrender Navarre to the pan-Basquism of Nafarroa Bai, and prepared the release of unremorseful terrorists out of jail. Between March 2006 and December of the same year, government envoys and ETA terrorists met and agreed on fundamentals; they just disagreed in the way to carry out the coup de main, but not which way to go.

 

In a sort of balancing act, the Administration was promising more in exchange of a slower undertaking; ETA demanded a little less, if done more quickly. The former and the latter were on the task of deceiving each other; moreover, they extended their deceit to a third actor – the Spanish society. The agreements reached by the Socialist government and ETA would stir up such a strong reaction from Spanish society, that they were all reached in secret – an ode to silence in between. There were pacts, agreements and road maps. From Gara to Deia, El Mundo, ABC, La Razón or El Confidencial, all have published details of meetings and agreements that El País and PSOE dismiss as non-existent, and that Pedro J. Ramírez encouraged to erase from our memory.

 

Now, that public opinion so feared by Rodriguez Zapatero and by ETA awoke ablaze with anger. Neither in the Popular Party nor in UPN should there be any doubt; it was the brave and decisive attitude of Mariano Rajoy and Miguel Sanz joining together with civic organizations, the ones that brought the negotiation between PSOE and ETA down to a screeching halt; it helped to avoid the surrender of Navarre and disrupted the negotiations between both parts, at least the ones that were still open. Depicted during months as “the enemy of peace,” the truth is that only the Popular Party can face the citizens with a clean conscience today; it will be a matter of trusting the citizens’ response to all parties involved.

 

On the contrary, from March 2006, El País became the spearhead of defending the dialog with the terrorists. Before the contacts become public, El País denied they had ever taken place; later, it chose to strongly defend them. In the first case, the accusations against PP came from its pages, for just believing in rumors, PP was discrediting the institutions. In the second case, when the negotiations were already public, PP was accused of obstructing the last chance for peace. The Peace Front, with El País at the helm, defended for long that Navarre was not on the negotiating table and that terrorist De Juana Chaos would not be released from prison – at the same time that its editorialists and columnists were fervent supporters of the pact with Patxi Zabaleta’s pan-Basquism, and showed their support for the “gestures” towards the terrorist organization.

 

The fact is that, as of now, the Popular Party can be satisfied with the attitude regarding the negotiations with ETA; one should give credit where credit is due, and the Popular Party has earned it; it prevented Rodríguez Zapatero from giving away Navarre, as much as El País bears responsibility for having commanded the delivery maneuver. It makes no sense that PRISA reproaches Gabriel Elorriaga in an interview; it should rather be the Popular Party the one demanding responsibilities because of the attitude kept by the Left during recent years.

 

The fact is that Navarre “was already sold” in February 2007; the March 17 demonstration in Pamplona and Rajoy’s steadiness were the factors bringing to a sudden halt a pact that was alive the night of the elections. Moreover, the contacts after the double murder at the T4 airport terminal have continued, and only the Popular Party’s decisive attitude has pushed the negotiation into the abyss – a negotiation that was political from beginning to end, and that even today goes on uninterruptedly, but in the dark. The Left has no right to ask for explanations about some exaggerations-come-true. It is instead the Peace Front the one that should be judged by Spaniards in the ballot box. 

 

As in the case of Iraq, the Popular Party seems to accept once more the interpretation made by the Left about the negotiation with ETA. Stepping further in moderation – more than what the Peace Front screamingly demands, and that Pedro J. Ramírez applauds – Mariano Rajoy was deliberately absent during the 24 November demonstration organized by ETA’s victims, while Gabriel Elorriaga backs down regarding ETA when pressed and harassed by the journalist of El País. May it be that the Popular Party is not aware of its achievements, of its popularity, of the service rendered to the nation? As of now, the facts depict a disquieting reality; if ETA has not gotten its way, it is not because of PSOE’s stance, but because of the Popular Party’s.

 

In the dark years of the Iraqi post-war period, the Popular Party has tried to escape from itself; consequently, the Left chased the party and still goes on reminding it that Iraq is the example of its intolerant and bellicose character. Escaping from itself did not only deny its right to defend certain higher principles – better than the ones of those attacking its offices, – it also encouraged its inquisitors that, from Ferraz Street or the newspaper El País, still go after PP members. In what seems to be a surprising outcome for all, victory begins to loom in the Iraqi horizon. If the Popular Party does not accept the Azores photo, the al-Andalus base, and all the Iraqi mythology, it will leave victory without a victor to claim it – something that neither PSOE nor El País are too keen to acknowledge.

 

Right now, the word victory timidly shows up in the Iraqi horizon; democracy is increasingly taking root, and it happens in more and more cities and regions of Iraq. In 2003, PP supported a war with, at least, the same good intentions as those of people who were against it. However, since then, those people do not get tired of bringing up the party’s responsibility. Today, with a victory within sight, it is necessary to acknowledge that the Spanish Left will never admit a victory that will be its defeat, and Pedro J. Ramírez will not point out the end of the war among the merits of the Popular Party– a war he opposed; siding with Rodríguez Zapatero and the Peace Front; something he still does.

 

In the same fashion, the Peace Front is not interested in acknowledging before March 2008, its pacts with the terrorists, and the fact, barely disguised, that they will resume talks as soon as possible. During months, PP was declared the “enemy of peace;” its decision – holding up to the most elemental moral principles – has impeded the completion of the pacts reached by PSOE and ETA. The disruption of their pacts were due to the pressure exerted by a Popular Party put at the helm of a deceived society – it was never due to the desire of the two dealing partners. The defeat of the negotiation is, with capital letters, a victory that the Popular Party should claim as an achievement of its own making.

 

Not far from Election Day, the magic formulas to gain power flourish from left to right. However, the moral to-date seems to be evident; abandoning one’s principles does not guarantee the rival’s respect, but rather its scorn, and with it, the increase of hostility towards the Popular Party. Besides, in the eyes of citizens, it voids the achievements of the Iraqi pacification, and the holdup of the pacts with ETA. In the Spain of 2008, the victory in Iraq, and the victory over ETA can only be claimed by the Popular Party. Either the party claims both of them, or its inquisitors will add more fuel to the fire.

 

Pedro J. Ramírez’s anti-liberal advice, and the attempts to appease those who have branded the party as murdererous and irritant, not only fail to appease the wrath of the inquisitors, but instead it just spurs the harassment against the Popular Party. The way to win these elections will not be by abandoning liberalism; nor is the foregone result a loss for the Popular Party as the executive editor of El Mundo has written. The ballot box will render verdict on the issues; if Rodríguez Zapatero’s foreign policy is better than the Popular one, and if his policy towards ETA is better than Rajoy’s. In both cases, the Popular Party has the upper hand. In view of situation, Popular leaders do not seem to be in worse conditions or having less possibilities of victory than Rodríguez Zapatero and the Peace Front – those who, banging their drums, go hopping mad and demanding to jail historians, to close media outlets and to free the Right from itself. 

 

* The term Liberalism is being used here in the context of Classic Liberalism, and not as a synonym of Progressivism as in American English.

 

©2008 Translated by Miryam Lindberg