miércoles, 11 de octubre de 2017

martes, 10 de octubre de 2017

Letter on Catalonia

As you know, we are living through difficult times. For you to understand how things
have reached their present state we must explain that Catalonia, one of the richest
regions in Spain, has been governed for more than three decades by a nationalist élite
that has made every effort to build a specifically Catalan administration in which
everything that is to do with Spain will disappear. During this time they have imposed
the will of one half of the Catalans, the nationalists, on the other half. Now they are
doing so more forcibly than ever and are threatening imminently to separate Catalonia
from Spain.

National construction. An internal document of the nationalist government of
Catalonia (dating from 1990) sets out in minute detail its strategy to distort the social
reality. Successive regional governments have favoured access by nationalists (and
Catalan-speakers) to the teaching profession, to parent-teacher associations, to the
governing bodies of the universities, to high positions in the media and, in fact, to all
the fabric of government, society, business and trade unions.

This also explains the “spiral of silence” that has for decades hidden and silenced
more than half of the people of Catalonia. For that reason the time has come to give
status to those workers, who are absent from public life and do not want to lose their
rights in Catalonia and their family ties with Spain. The social reality of Catalonia,
which the nationalists deny, is plural. Firstly because more than half of Catalans have
Spanish as their mother tongue, and secondly because there is not even a nationalist
political majority: the separatist government is supported by a majority of
parliamentary seats, but not by a majority of votes.

Corruption and political disconnection. In spite of everything, on 8 November
2015, the Catalan Parliament announced the “beginning of the creation of the
independent Catalan state in the form of a republic,” adding that “the Parliament and
the process of democratic disconnection will not be subject to the decisions of the
institutions of the Spanish state, in particular the Constitutional Court.” On 6
September they put themselves beyond the pale. Without even the majorities required
by their own Statute of Autonomy, by the guarantees, by the obligatory reports from
their institutions, and even ignoring the schedule for the parliamentary debate, they
sowed the legislative seeds for a breakaway. In the absence of the main opposition
parties, who represent almost half of the chamber, they approved two laws for the
“disconnection” from Spain: the Law for the referendum and the Law for Judicial
Transition and the Foundation of the Republic, which will come into effect, they say,
after the breakaway of sovereignty. And that will be in a matter of hours or days.

In 2010 the independence movement in Catalonia was able to arouse 19% of the
population compared with only 10% in 2003. The breakaway described above was
reached after a radicalization that started to take off in 2013. In March of that year, the
prolonged discontent with the financial cuts that followed the economic crisis was
redirected towards Spain. “Spain is robbing us” were the words of Convergencia i
Unió, the party in power. With that ruse they set out to cover up the corruption of the
family of Jordi Pujol, the ideologue of nationalist construction and First Minister of
Catalonia from 1980 to 2003. The illegal funding of his party came to light, involving
the granting of public contracts to companies close to the party. The current first
Minister of Catalonia, Carles Puigdemont, was part of this party, which has now
changed its name to PdeCat in order to cover its tracks.

The implications of sovereignty. The underlying idea of sovereignty (which is
declared to be indivisible in every Constitutions in the world with some rare
exceptions such as Ethiopia or the former USSR) is that everybody has everything and
nobody has anything. Sovereignty is a unity of decision, it is a community of justice.
Nobody can vote on who can belong to the political community, since this would
mean that one part of the population could exclude the other. If the richer regions
could vote to leave, we would be submitted to their perpetual blackmail, and the
equality of rights and duties would be endangered. Sovereignty over Catalonia also
belongs to all the other Spanish citizens and workers; and likewise, the rest of Spain is
also the political property of the Catalans.

History of false grievances. Catalonia is not a plundered region and does not have an
abnormal fiscal deficit. Spain is in practice a federal state where the Catalans enjoy
very wide self-government and none of their rights are infringed. Moreover, even
though those who have Catalan as their mother tongue are in the minority, and in
breach of judgments from our high courts (which require at least 25% of school
classes to be taught in Spanish), in Catalan public schools no subject is taught in
Spanish apart from the Spanish language. Moreover, there was never a war of
secession in the years following 1700, but there was an international war of
succession to the Spanish throne. There was never any historical episode of “Spain
against Catalonia”. Their strategy has always been to inflame victimism.

Internationalisation of the conflict. The Catalan government has for many years
sought to make use of its own institutions located in the main international capitals to
spread their lies and false grievances to the world, illicitly diverting to propaganda
activities the funds that should have been used to provide basic services. In this way
they hope to have gained allies for this moment of tension. They need this support in
order to win politically that which is not democratically viable.

Risks for our democracy. There is much talk just now about “mediation” and
“dialogue”. It worries us that there are prestigious public figures and international 
institutions that (with the best of intentions) do not realise that by appealing to
dialogue in the current circumstances they may in fact be putting pressure on the
Spanish government to give in to iniquitous claims that seek to break up the equality
of all Spaniards before the law. Social peace and freedom are most urgent now; but
democracy and the common agreement on which it is based is also at stake. We
believe that the rule of law and the democratic institutions, which the government of
Spain must safeguard, now deserve international support in order not to give in to
blackmail and to preserve the rule of law in Catalonia against those who demonstrate
with chants of “The streets will always be ours.” The secessionists prioritise the
images of mobilisation in the streets above parliamentary arithmetic and the law; this
is obviously a risk for any democracy. It is enough to look at the company they keep.
For that reason we reject out of hand any hypothetical bilateralism of Spain-Catalonia,
which would reward the seditious elements and snatch democratic sovereignty from
all the other Spaniards.

Principle of legality. Finally, we should not overlook the fact that the so-called
‘referendum’ of 1 October (which took place with countless irregularities that
invalidate the slightest hint of credibility) was struck down by our Constitutional
Court, just as the Italian Constitutional Court did with respect to the independence
claims of Veneto in 2015 or the German Court when faced with the attack from
Bavaria in 2016. What is more, unlike the case in these two countries, or in France
and Portugal, our Constitution is not “militant”, meaning that it can be amended in
ways that could include a federalism that would regulate the exercise of selfdetermination.
To many of the signatories a reform in this direction would seem unjust
as it would contravene the indivisibility that, as we have tried to explain, is
characteristic of sovereignty. Nevertheless, the separatists have not even wanted to
give consideration to this path.

On 1 October, the police had a court order to close the schools that were to be used as
polling stations in order to prevent voting; however, two associations closely linked
to, and subsidised by, the separatist government connived with the Catalan police
(who partially disobeyed their orders) to organise a massive act of sedition. Bringing
people out onto the streets in order to break the law; that was the strategy and it was
anything but a democratic one. Fortunately, some of the ringleaders of Sunday’s
events, the presidents of the organising associations organisers and the chief officer of
the Catalan police, are already under judicial investigation for sedition.

The police quickly stopped their charges. Four people were hospitalised and after a
few hours there were only two serious injuries: one had been hit in the eye by a rubber
bullet, and an elderly man had had a heart attack. In particular cases there is evidence
of manipulation that has been highlighted by the international press; and, as has
happened recently in other important international campaigns, Russia was involved in 
the whole thing. Apart from one isolated case. we deny that there was disproportionate
use of legitimate violence.

The consequences. Many companies and banks are leaving Catalonia. But it is not
only businesspeople who are afraid. Teachers have come under pressure too as have
the judges, who know that the Catalan government has files on the 801 judges in
Catalonia, distinguishing the separatists from those loyal to the Constitution, and they
recently revealed their fears: “They want to make us choose between the Constitution
and the new legality. This is terrible, but we will have no choice but to choose
between treason and exile.” Many people are afraid to express their ideas in public, at
work, etc. There are children harassed at school because their parents are Guardia
Civil officers. Tension is escalating and there is powerful movement from an antisystem
party (CUP), which supports the Catalan government and has for some time
been threatening violence in the streets.

Some time between Friday 6 and Monday 9 October, the seditious Catalan
government is expected to declare unilateral independence.

When the constitutional order is re-established and the fear and the threats have
ceased, all Spaniards must talk and tackle the legal changes that we consider to be
right. But not before, in order not to give up our political equality.

The signatories would be pleased, if you wish to do so, for you to pass on this
information on to anyone who may be interested.
Kind regards.

Spanish Members of the European Parliament: Maite Pagazaurtundúa Ruiz, Teresa
Giménez Barbat, Javier Nart, Esteban González Pons, Enrique Calvet Chambon,
Beatriz Becerra and Carolina Punset.

University professors and public figures: Fernando Savater (Philosopher and
writer), Mario Vargas Llosa (Nobel Prize for Literature), Félix Ovejero (lecturer in
Economics, Ethics and Social Sciences at Barcelona University), Teresa Freixes
(Professor of Constitutional Law at the Autonomous University of Barcelona),
Francesc de Carreras (at Barcelona University), Teresa Freixes (Professor of
Constitutional Law at the Autonomous University of Barcelona), Rosa Díez (MP for
PSOE and UPyD), Camilo José Cela Conde (Guest Researcher at the Department of
Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California), Francisco Sosa
Wagner (Professor of Administrative Law), Adela Cortina (Professor of Ethics and
Political Philosophy at the University of Valencia), Andrés Trapiello (Writer), Félix 
de Azúa (Retired Professor of Aesthetics and Theory of Art at the University of
Barcelona), Alfonso Ruiz Miguel (Professor of Philosophy of Law at the
Autonomous University of Madrid), Francisco Mora (Professor of Human
Physiology at the Faculty of Medicine of the Complutense University Madrid and
Adjunct Professor of the Department of Molecular Physiology and Biophysics at the
University of Iowa, USA), Araceli Mangas Martin (Professor of International Public
Law at the Complutense University of Madrid), Juan Antonio García Amado
(Professor of Philosophy of Law at the University of León), Manuel Montero
(Professor of Contemporary History at the University of the Basque Country), Arcadi
Espada (Writer and Journalist), Joaquín Leguina (was MP for PSOE), Roberto L.
Blanco Valdés (Professor of Constitutional Law at the University of Santiago),
Aurelio Arteta (Retired Professor of Moral Philosophy and Politics at the University
of the Basque Country), Manuel Atienza (Professor of Philosophy of Law at the
University of Alicante), Albert Boadella (actor and playwright), Javier Tajadura
Tejada (Lecturer in Constitutional Law at the University of the Basque Country),
Antonio Bar Cendón (Professor of Constitutional Law and Jean Monnet Professor
“ad personam” of Law and Politics of the European Union, in the Faculty of Law of
the University of Valencia), Julián Sauquillo González (Autonomous University of
Madrid, Professor of Philosophy of Law), Mercedes Fuertes (Professor of
Administrative Law), Carmen Iglesias (Spanish Royal Academy /Royal Academy of
History), Javier Fernández Sebastián (lecturer in the Faculty of Social Science at the
University of the Basque Country), Joseba Arregi (formerly lecturer in Sociology at
the University of the Basque Country, former Minister in the Basque government),
Yolanda Gómez Sánchez Professor of Constitutional Law (Jean Monnet Professor,
ad personam, of the European Union), María José Villaverde Rico (Professor of
Political Science at the Complutense University of Madrid), Carlos Martínez
Gorriarán (Lecturer in Aesthetics at the University of the Basque Country), Luis
Rodríguez Abascal (Tenured Lecturer in Philosophy of Law, Autonomous University
of Madrid), Carmen Sanz Ayán (Professor of Modern History. Complutense
University), Ramón Vargas--Machuca Ortega (Professor of the Faculty of
Philosophy and Letters of University of Cadiz), Iñaki Iriarte (Tenured Lecturer in
History of Political Thought in the University of the Basque Country), Javier Peña
Echeverría, (Professor of Political Philosophy at the University of Valladolid), Josu
de Miguel Bárcena (Lecturer in Constitutional Law at the Autonomous University of
Barcelona), José Vicente Rodríguez Mora (Lecturer in Economics, University of
Edinburgh), Manuel Toscano Méndez (Lecturer in Moral Philosophy at the
University of Malaga), Rafael Arenas García (former Chair of Sociedad Civil
Catalana), María Elvira Roca Barea (Doctor of Medieval Literature, has worked at
the Spanish National Research Council (CSIC) and taught at Harvard University),
Nuria Amat (writer), Jesús Conill (Professor of Moral Philosophy and Politics at the
University of Valencia), Antonio Diéguez Lucena (Professor of Logic and
Philosophy of Science at the University of Malaga), Carlos Fernández de
Casadevante (Professor of International Public Law at the Rey Juan Carlos 
University in Madrid), Carlos Mougan (Tenured Lecturer in Moral Philosophy,
University of Cadiz), Ignacio Tirado (Lecturer in Private, Social and Economic Law
at the Autonomous University of Madrid), Antonio Hermosa (Lecturer in Aesthetics
and History Philosophy at the University of Seville), Martín Alonso (Retired Lecturer
in Philosophy), Juan Antonio Cordero Fuertes (École polytechnique, Paris), Juan
Antonio Cordero Fuertes (École polytechnique, Paris), Gabriel Cabello (Lecturer
of History of Art at the University of Granada), Francisco Castilla Urbano (Lecturer
in History and Philosophy at the University of Alcalá), Roberto Colom (Professor of
Psychology and Biology Health at the Autonomous University of Madrid), Juan
Ignacio Martínez Pastor Spanish National Distance Education University (UNED),
Lidia Valera Ordaz (lecturer in the Faculty of Journalism, at the University of
Valencia), Miguel Peña Méndez (Lecturer in the Faculty of Fine Art at the University
of Granada), Isabel Echevarría Isusquiza (Department Hispanic, Romance
Philology and Theory of Literature), Juan Bonilla (Writer), Albert Boadella (actor
playwright), Juan Antonio Negrete (Lecturer in Philosophy), Tomás Valladolid
Bueno (Lecturer in Philosophy), José Ángel González Sainz (Writer, Lecturer and
founder of the Antonio Machado International Centre), Luis Alberto de Cuenca y
Prado (Poet), Miguel Ángel Quintana Paz (Professor of Ethics and Political
Philosophy), Roberto Ramos Fontecoba (Responsible of the editorial Página

As leaders of this project, we remain at your entire disposal to provide you with any
other information you may require on this issue.
With best regards,
Maite Pagazaurtundúa (MEP, ALDE) and Fernando Savater (Philosopher and

Links to some interesting documents in English:

• Identity poison plan carried out since 1990 by the Catalan secessionist governments.

• Letter sent to Jean Claude Juncker by five founding members of ¡Basta
Ya! (Fernando Savater, Carlos Martínez Gorriarán, María San Gil, Rosa
Díez, Maite Pagazaurtundúa), association awarded the Sakharov Prize for
its civic struggle against ETA and against the theoretical foundation of
exclusive ethnic nationalism in the Basque Country.

• In Defence of The Freedom of Expression of Professor in Catalonia
(International Manifesto)

• “Call to the democratic Left on the events in Catalonia”

• Marginal Revolution (ECONOMY BLOG). About Catalonia:
-About language policy:

-About institutional disloyalty:

• Some articles from El País in English: 
-What is really happening in Catalonia? (05/10/2017)

-Who in Europe supports the Catalan secessionists? (05/10/2017)

-Catalan police leader under investigation for sedition by High Court (04/10/2017)

-There’s fake news in Catalonia too (02/10/2017)

• Some Spanish press articles translated into English:

• Some research articles:
-Roberto Garvía & Thomas Jeffrey Miley (2013): “Linguistic immersion” and
political conflict in contemporary Catalonia. European Journal of Language Policy
5.1, 5–40

- Thomas Jeffrey Miley (2007): Against the Thesis of the “Civic Nation”: The Case of
Catalonia in Contemporary Spain, Nationalism and Ethnic Politics, 13:1, 1-37

-Thomas Jeffrey Miley (2014): Democratic Representation and the National
Dimension in Catalan and Basque Politics”, Journal of politics culture and society,

-Enric Martínez and Thomas Jeffrey Miley (2010): The constitution and the politics of
national identity in Spain, Nations and Nationalism, 16 (1), 6–30.

• Catalonia: Political group leaders discuss the situation with Frans
Timmermans (04/10/2017)

viernes, 15 de septiembre de 2017

El coste de la falsa certidumbre

Cada cierto tiempo salen a la palestra cálculos sobre el impacto económico de la secesión de Cataluña, el papel lo aguanta todo, pero un economista honesto debe decir que en caso de espiral de hostilidad los costes crecerían de manera exponencial superando los escenarios racionales. No se debe tomar una cifra como cierta y mucho menos que ésta permita asentar la creencia de que se pueden limitar los daños.

En ocasiones los hechos desbordan las previsiones que pare la racionalidad más instrumental, una de las anécdotas que mejor ilustran este fenómeno es la anotación del diario de Keynes en el verano de 1939 sobre la imposibilidad de que Alemania desencadenara una guerra que no podía permitirse por motivos económicos, de manera casi simultánea a esa reflexión las tropas de Hitler entraban en Polonia. No es una excepción, me contó un exdiputado de UPyD que Emilio Ontiveros estaba explicando en TVE que Irak no entraría en Kuwait cuando le cortaron su análisis para dar la noticia de la entrada de los tanques de Saddam Hussein en el emirato, quizá sea apócrifo, aún no he encontrado la pieza pero cuadra perfectamente con la forma en que los economistas malinterpretamos el mundo; se non è vero, è ben trovato.

Cuando un agente cifra el máximo de sus aspiraciones en un suceso prácticamente cualquier coste le es aceptable a cambio de alcanzarlo, la creación de una nación (y/o la destrucción de otra) o acabar con el capitalismo responden perfectamente a este esquema monomaniaco. Esta forma de pensar (y actuar)  sólo alcanza a los más ideologizados pero que tiene una versión blanda para el público masivo: en ella el coste de ese fin es limitado, asequible y las ganancias futuras ciertas y eternas. Da para fundar una religión.

Para la propaganda masiva se preparan "argumentos" de conveniencia como ya vimos con el Brexit (y los 350 millones de libras semanales que pasarían de pagarse a la UE a destinarse a la sanidad) o la prosperidad que prometía Marine Le Pen si Francia abandonaba el €, aunque se vista de economía la motivación sigue siendo xenofoba aunque maquillada con los ropajes del simplismo del supuesto sentido común que alienta (siempre) el eternamente fracasado proteccionismo.   

El bien supremo de un nacionalista es tener su propia nación y eso no tiene que ver tanto con la cultura, la lengua o las leyes, no hace falta una nación para nada de eso, se trata de excluir a los impuros de un nosotros como bien contaba esta semana Juan Cla de Ramón.  
Estos días hemos podido ver esa xenofobia del independentismo catalán que siempre ha señalado Arcadi, sin pudor dicen: somos especiales, somos sonrientes, somos mejores y su consiguiente sois distintos, sois inferiores (para así tratar de paliar un profundo complejo de inferioridad). 

España en general y Cataluña en particular están altamente endeudadas y además siguen precisando de financiación constante y creciente para mantener el actual Estado de bienestar. El encaje en la unión monetaria ha permitido sostener durante una década de crisis los servicios a costa de un déficit y un crecimiento de la deuda que no encuentran con facilidad precedentes y comparables similares en el mundo. En un hipotético (e improbable) proceso de separación se pondría en grave riesgo el funcionamiento del Estado, e incluso por el calibre de España la continuidad del €, valorar los efectos de un escenario como ese donde hubiera enconamiento excede cualquier previsión catastrófica y me recuerda a la atribulada pregunta que una periodista de Radio Nacional hizo en directo la tarde del 11-S a un responsable de bomberos de Huelva experto en catástrofes. ¿Cuánto tardarán en desescombrar la zona? 

Es insensato creer que hay a corto o medio plazo posibilidades de escenarios de equilibrio, no hay ningún punto intermedio entre disolver o no disolver España y menos cuando el objetivo de una parte es  España y/o el capitalismo, v el escenario más negro lejos de verse como un horror sería la oportunidad para su Nueva Jerusalén, su definitiva arma revolucionaria.

La economía puede sobreponerse a cualquier desastre, sólo hace falta repasar la historia de Alemania Occidental o Japón después de 1945, si bien es cierto que para ello tuvieron que ir justo en el sentido contrario del nacionalismo. El argumento para impedir el golpe de Estado secesionista no puede ser económico, es moral, cualquier punto entre la igualdad de los conciudadanos y la xenofobia es un paso hacia la indignidad y en eso no se puede hacer ninguna concesión.

lunes, 9 de enero de 2017

El escozor de la proximidad

Pablistas y errejonistas, sanchistas y susanistas, estalinistas y trotskistas y tantos y tantos otros se empeñan en dar la razón a Churchill, Adenauer y Andreotti sobre la naturaleza fraterna, en el sentido de Caín y Abel, de las relaciones entre camaradas, colegas y conmilitones.  

La competición democrática y la lucha por el poder cuando tienen éxito se rigen por comportamientos completamente antagónicos, mientras que la suma de mayorías requiere atraer al diferente y mezclarse con él, la conquista y conservación del poder precisan justo lo contrario; exagerar las diferencias, purgar al rival (compañero) y mostrar sobreactuadamente cuánto daña el herético (o el líder) a las esencias y posibilidades de una comunidad sea ésta un partido político, un régimen totalitario, una disciplina del conocimiento o una forma de entender el arte de cúchares (sea aquíleo como Tomás, o de verónicas pintureras como Morante).

Media verónica de Morante en la Maestranza (Sevilla).

¿Por qué nos molesta más si cabe una pequeña diferencia de los más cercanos? quizá porque aspiramos a todo y vemos fines donde solo hay herramientas, quizá porque el sectarismo es un comportamiento más primario y presente que la generosa cesión estratégica y racional, o porque no entendemos las ventajas de la colaboración y nos gusta más el maniqueísmo que a Pablo Iglesias una cámara (aunque le capture abrazado a un leño que parezca la profética calavera de Errejón Yorick). 

Ser un vero antisistema neocomunista hace ver como peor que sospechoso de quintacolumnismo a los anticapitalistas que son sólo populistas, ser socialista del no es no y estar dispuesto a cambalachear la pertenencia al € o, peor aún, que el grado de cohesión social dependa de la pertenencia a un territorio hace que uno sea visto como un peligro para la continuidad del PSOE.

La honestidad intelectual sólo permite ir en pos de la verdad a contracorriente, y eso viene unido indefectiblemente al espíritu crítico como brújula que no nos permita perdernos en nuestras propias inercias, algo que Javier Hernández Iglesias expresaba en un tuit que recojo abajo y que queda listo para cincelarse en mármol. Siendo esa la actitud idónea a para las ideas y el acuerdo democrático no lo es en absoluto para la disputa del poder y quizá explique al menos en parte los rotundos y reiterados fracasos de los intelectuales como políticos, los atajos ideológicos son el antónimo del espíritu crítico.

La acción política necesita tanto competir democráticamente como el descarnado ejercicio de la lucha por el poder y para ambas cosas se precisa liturgia y teatralidad, pero sería más que deseable que a diferencia de lo que sucede en estos groseros días de Sálvame Político televisado y tuiteado, ni espectadores, ni actores adoptaran el método hasta el extremo de Moliere en el Enfermo imaginario

El espíritu crítico en un tuit.

Aunque más que nunca se precisa del liberalismo para alumbrar un nuevo tiempo para después de una crisis decirse liberal es una estrategia indudablemente perdedora a corto plazo en España; populistas, neocomunistas y fascistas describen como neoliberales a todos los demás, entre socialistas es sinónimo de apestado (en el PP de Rajoy no es muy distinto) y en general en la lucha interna de los partidos* el liberal tiene tantas opciones de supervivencia como el gordito con gafas pasados los primeros minutos de una peli de terror. 

Entre liberales pese a la enorme hostilidad externa de la polarización hay fricciones, filias y fobias que pueden originar o que originan facciones. Ilustraré con una anécdota lo que digo y distinguiré dos puntos de desencuentro: la corrección política en el que se inserta lo que cuento en mi anécdota y el viejo e inútil pulso entre liberalismo político y económico, vamos con la anécdota y dejemos para el siguiente párrafo las categorías: pese a que presumamos de racionalismo he participado en debates con compañeros que producen los mejores textos de nuestra generación donde se han tomado decisiones atendiendo a simpatías animalistas ¡cuando trabajábamos sobre Estado y bien común! 

Otro tanto ocurre con el entusiasta auge de la incorrección política, algunos han creído errónea o perversamente que es buena idea compensar los indiscutibles errores y excesos del cosmopaletismo, la masculinifobia, la animalocracia, el pachamamismo o el supremacismo de las llamadas minorías étnicas, con unas gotas de machismo, crueldad, nula conciencia ecológica o racismo. No, este pensamiento homeopático es una aberración inaceptable, la suma de errores nos hace peores y los del segundo tipo abyectos, no cabe usar dosis tóxicas para corregirnos. Perseguir lo correcto debe ser innegociable y para ello debemos desterrar los usos bastardos de la corrección y no cejar en la actitud que pretende erradicar las injusticias por más que esto sea un ideal inalcanzable en su totalidad pero donde logramos indiscutibles avances en las últimas décadas. Sobre la corrección, corrección e incorrección política también quiero rescatar un buen tuit de Miguel Ángel Quintana

Sobre la vieja y melancólica pelea entre liberalismo económico (conservador) y político (socialdemócrata) por ser quien porte la bandera del liberalismo pata negra es mejor no añadir nada salvo la extrañeza que produce ver como objeto de deseo una etiqueta que se parece a una prenda reflectante para pasear en una noche de principios de los noventa en Sarajevo. 

Lo correcto y lo políticamente incorrecto en un tuit.

Pese a que decirse liberal es una mala estrategia, España va a ser gobernada por un largo periodo atendiendo a principios liberales de tolerancia, justicia y libertad, éste y no otro es el mayor mínimo común denominador posible, los paraísos identitarios nacionalistas o anticapitalitas (de clase) cuentan con un indiscutible volumen de apoyos y una cantidad aún mayor de quienes rechazamos con todas nuestras fuerzas esos caminos a Waco incendiado. Cuanto mayor es el apoyo a los rupturistas más crece el rechazo mayoritario.

El que suma gana y lo administra el que resiste, Rajoy lo ejemplifica hoy al acoger del modo más creíble a todos los que rechazan** el populismo y el secesionismo, a casi nadie le debería extrañar que en España esa y no otra sea la estrategia ganadora. Rajoy no satisface a los suyos, tampoco lo necesita, no tiene todavía (quizá por poco tiempo) quien le discuta su posición desde la proximidad quienes podrían hacerlo estaban en sus propios asuntos o no han sido capaces de salir aún de la caverna del Tinell.

* Fui militante de UPyD y sé de lo que hablo, pese a ser un partido con un manifiesto que bebe de lo mejor del liberalismo la vida interna del partido (presupongo que como los demás) se regía por un ortodoxo centralismo democrático.

* *Las coaliciones se definen en muchos casos de un modo negativo, la estrategia anti PP que le dio el éxito a R. Zapatero es un fracaso estando la izquierda dividida y subsumida en nacionalismo y neocomunismo, esta posición es débil, insuficiente y afortunadamente fortalece al PP aunque lamentablemente sin necesidad de méritos propios.
Se ha producido un error en este gadget.