There is a widespread effort in public debate to find economic explanations for the support received by authoritarian right-wing parties. Sometimes it’s about young people, who face serious difficulties in becoming independent and acquiring housing. On other occasions, it’s about impoverished middle classes, who have lost purchasing power due to globalization. And there is also mention of those who have suffered most from the austerity policies followed after the Great Recession of 2008.
Read more Flavita Banana: too brief
I would like to point out two ideas. The first is that the economic explanation is questionable, at least in the case of Spain. The second is that even if it were true that Vox voters are victims of the system or what is sometimes called the polycrisis, it does not follow at all that the immediate response is to support parties that do not respect fundamental rights and despise political pluralism. One thing does not follow from the other.
Let’s start with the relationship between economic situation and voting for the authoritarian right. The data does not seem to support this relationship. Key factors, such as income and education, show a weak association with voting for Vox. The effects of age and gender discriminate better than income or education. Here are some examples: according to the latest 40dB barometer (April’s), the percentage of support for Vox among people with low educational levels is 10%; among those with high educational levels, it rises to 13%, a relatively small difference (and not statistically significant). If we look at the social class of the interviewees, there is no difference whatsoever regarding Vox between those who consider themselves lower class and those who identify with the upper class. If the CIS barometer from March is analyzed, it can be seen that in households earning more than 5,000 euros per month, support for Vox stands at 11.4%, while in households with incomes below 1,100 euros, the percentage is 12.5%, a difference of only one point. Perhaps these data do not capture the main problem at the moment, which is housing. But, following the CIS data, only 9% of Vox voters mention housing as the country’s main problem, compared to 30% among the rest of the citizenry. The difference is even greater among people under 30, meaning: young Vox voters do not seem particularly concerned about housing compared to other young people.
It has also been pointed out that what really matters is not so much the citizen’s personal situation, but whether they live in a thriving region or one in decline, in a state of abandonment. However, in the aforementioned 40dB barometer, the vote for Vox in the Community of Madrid, the most prosperous and dynamic region of the country, stands at 14%, while in Extremadura, which can be said to be one of the regions disconnected from the global economy and large metropolises, support drops to 9%. In principle, the trend should be the opposite.
Sometimes the thesis is defended that the vote for Vox is not a result of material deprivations, but of a negative attitude towards the country’s direction. The authoritarian right-wing voter is possessed by a pessimistic vision. They think that Spain is sliding down a slope leading to the abyss; thus, feminism, immigration, and citizen insecurity lead them to challenge existing parties. Hence their denunciation of the political class and their defense of a party that seeks to break the most basic democratic consensuses.
Well, if not even a bad personal situation should serve as an excuse to vote for authoritarian parties; even less so should that diffuse discomfort of a nostalgic and reactionary nature. I am not going to question that there are reasons for many people to be deeply irritated, but that does not mean we have to readily accept that they behave in a politically irresponsible way.
Read more A top job
Presenting Vox voters as victims of the system is an empirical and political error. Victimhood has almost become an ideology: victims, of any kind, evoke compassion, solidarity, and even admiration. There is a prestige associated with the victim that makes everything forgiven. It seems as if, due to the difficult situation they are going through, they are exempt from all responsibility when unleashing their pain and, at times, their anger.
Without in any way belittling how difficult the lives of people on the radical right may be, their decision to opt for authoritarianism has no justification, whether they are perceived as victims or not. Giving in to reactionary impulses is frivolous for two reasons. Firstly, because the authoritarian option usually ends up being detrimental to those who promote it. This has been seen, for example, in the United States, where some minorities voted massively for Donald Trump and are now suffering harassment and persecution from ICE (the immigration and customs enforcement service).
Perhaps this argument is considered paternalistic; after all, people have the right to be wrong. The real problem is the second one: the authoritarian gamble has serious consequences for the rest of society, and there is a high risk of irreparable damage. One thing is protest, the rejection of the status quo, the denunciation of the inefficiencies and injustices of our time, and quite another to endanger the rights and freedoms we enjoy (with all their imperfections). Many of the reasons for irritation with the political system can be shared, from corruption to the lack of attention from representatives to citizen demands, but not that the solution consists of supporting parties and candidates who dedicate themselves to causing an even greater evil.
Allow me to resort to an old story. In 1987, the abertzale left ran in the first European elections held in Spain with the slogan “Hit them where it hurts most. Vote for Herri Batasuna.” As there was a single electoral district, they could be voted for anywhere in Spain. There was a desire to express anger at the country’s situation at the polls. Nine days after the vote, the ETA attack occurred at a Hipercor in Barcelona (21 deaths). I suppose some would reconsider whether it had been worth protesting electorally in that way.
Americans are learning what the political irresponsibility of having elected Donald Trump for a second time entails. The rest of the world also suffers the consequences. Perhaps Western citizens tempted to vote for the authoritarian right will learn something from the consequences of betting on the abyss. The Trumpist mess is the greatest threat to the West, but perhaps it will end up being the best antidote to stop the authoritarian poison from taking effect.
Read more The potato conundrum in Spain: which variety to choose and what each one is for
