And Then Comes Trump

>A balance between fear of change and openness to change is necessary. And there is a pendulum that swings between the two.

A couple of years ago, the sharp pen of Theodore Dalrymple revealed how, in Donald Trump’s election, the feeling of contempt (ethical and aesthetic) that the Democratic and intellectual establishment in general felt for citizens with roughly conservative or rural views worked in Trump’s favor. Hillary Clinton prematurely described them as a “basket of deplorables,” that is to say, racists, sexists, homophobes, xenophobes, Islamophobes and anyone else the politically correct reader wants to add. Because progressives made the grave error of considering those that had the wrong opinion on immigration, gay marriage or race not only to be mistaken but also to be immoral, those with such opinions were considered to be inferior from an enlightened point of view. A significant percentage of the electorate felt this contempt, and reacted to it by lifting up someone like Trump, someone who capitalized on their growing scorn.

This introduction is relevant because it seems that in our country, and in Europe in general, we are making the same mistake that precipitated the American disaster. That is, we are treating the Spanish nationalists who are demonstrating as if they were rancid and infected with an innate fascism. We consider the reaction against immigration to be an issue of immorality, and conservative sexual leanings to be certain signs of a sinful patriarchy or machismo. Finally, we convert political conflict into a moral question, where progressives embody an enlightened truth, and those that disagree are branded as ultra-right wing, a catch-all term for more varied political types.

But it has already been a while since the concept of the ultra-right stopped having the meaning that it had in Europe’s past. Nothing remains of fascism, which scarcely took root among us. The ultra-right labels of today unconditionally accept the institutions of liberal democracy in essence, and are not considered totalitarian because those using such labels don’t even know what totalitarianism is and their mottos refer to concrete and controversial democratic themes. Those seeking debate are refused and discredited as “fascists,” a term that functions merely as moral emoting, much like it would be to exclaim “Shit!” when you meet the people seeking debate.

To reclaim a centralist Spain without autonomous territories is contrary to the constitution, of course, but no more than it is to reclaim the dissolution of the state in various new independent or confederate states. While we admit that the latter is a legitimate pretense for changing the constitutional framework (according to the constitutional court), we don’t see why it should exclude public debate. Unless … we accept that in the moral asymmetry of the silly progressives, it is always good and convenient to resolve the framework for one side but not for the other.

It is not just simple-minded to react with disdain to any demonstration of pan-Spanish nationalism as something outdated, seedy and irremissibly contaminated until the end of time, (even in the reign of nonsense that we live in), but it is also unfair to those who feel Spanish and are treated as outcasts, while the nationalists on the fringe have been valued as being legitimate examples of perfectly admirable and perfect individuals from the beginning. Despite the fact that some of them have pretty good amounts of butchery in their past, they keep applauding the butchers. Spanish citizens end up suffering, as Helena Bejar notes, from relative deprivation and a sense of abandonment. And they react.

The distrust and fear about immigration, above all when the media insist on presenting it as a relentless invasion, is normal in any human group. The xenophobia is as “natural” as altruism and cosmopolitanism. It is the unsociable way to be sociable that makes us human, as Immanuel Kant said. We must count on overcoming this fear through education and proof, In contrast to the contempt and scorn that come from positions of moral superiority, because what happens is that those most affected by the fear of the other stand to gain the least when it comes to good social and intellectual position. That is why they are afraid.

If human beings had not been open to change, humans would not have emerged from caves. But if humans did not possess an atavistic aversion to risk, they would have returned to the caves long ago. This balance exists, and it is a smart thing to know how to deal with arguments and examples. Don’t despise argument as something evil. First, because that gives it too much importance. And secondly, because those doing the arguing get pissed off. And then… comes Trump.