Posts Tagged ‘VOX’

“The New Face of Old Tyranny: …

August 1, 2025

*

… The Persistence of Francoist Nostalgia and the Discomfort Beneath It”


Ricardo Morin
Half Republican, Half Falangist
CGI
2005

By Ricardo Morin

August 1, 2025

One cannot assess the Spanish political climate without acknowledging the rise of VOX, a far-right party founded in 2013 by former members of the conservative Partido Popular. Since 2018, VOX has gained traction by opposing regional autonomy, feminist legislation, and immigration, while defending a nationalist agenda that includes the revision—or outright rejection—of Spain’s historical reckoning with Francoism.

It is the symptom of a deeper democratic disillusionment. What resurfaces is not spontaneous historical memory, but a political and cultural framework that reasserts itself when the social agreements binding the present begin to fray. VOX’s references to the Franco regime are rarely doctrinaire or explicit, but they are unmistakable in the party’s rejection of the Democratic Memory Law, its exaltation of national unity as a sacred and untouchable principle, its condemnation of the autonomous state model, and its appeal to a so-called “natural order” that treats hierarchy, the traditional family, and social inequality as if they were objective facts of history.

What is most concerning is not that voices like these exist—they always have—but that they have regained institutional power and cultural legitimacy. Dissatisfaction with the political system, fatigue with ineffective parliamentary politics, and a growing sense of identity displacement feed into a shared national unease. This unease can be felt across a wide spectrum: small business owners who perceive the state as hostile, or young people who find no meaning in a hollow, bureaucratized political language. The grievances vary, but the far right offers a single channel: the emotional simplification of conflict—transforming fear into obedience, and uncertainty into wounded pride.

Within this framework, VOX presents itself as the only political actor with a unified narrative. Its strength does not lie in public policy, but in assertion. It offers no coherent platform of governance, but instead proposes a reactive, exclusionary identity. And here the progressive response often falters. While the institutional left—represented by the PSOE and remnants of Unidas Podemos—relies on rhetorical frames worn down by official discourse, segments of the academic and cultural intelligentsia (particularly university-affiliated think tanks and subsidized editorial circuits) have retreated into a ritualized defense of democracy, without reassessing its principles or renewing the language through which it is explained. Repeating just causes through exhausted formulas turns even the noblest ideas into noise.

Worse still, in the name of pluralism—or out of fear of being labeled sectarian—certain cultural institutions (El País, publishing houses like Taurus, or high-profile forums such as the Círculo de Bellas Artes) have offered platforms to reactionary voices under the pretext of open debate. In doing so, they have helped normalize a discourse that steadily unravels the ethical agreements underpinning democratic life. What is framed as tolerance may, in fact, be a form of structural surrender.

Spain’s history is burdened with wounds that were never fully closed. The political pacts of the Transition, born of necessity, opted for shared silence as the price of institutional stability. That silence allowed for peace, but left the past unresolved. Today, as new efforts—like the Democratic Memory Law—begin to reshape that narrative, fear returns: fear that to acknowledge historical violence might destabilize the present. VOX exploits this fear not with policy, but with symbolic refuge—offering a home to a version of Spain that feels lost.

The responsibility of the intellectual class is not to reassert inherited certainties or rehearse moral slogans. It is to sustain complexity: to resist the lure of simplification, to acknowledge the fatigue of progressive frameworks without falling into cynicism, and to offer new ways of thinking that preserve both rigor and empathy. Because while reactionary discourse gains ground through simplification, critical thought must hold its ground in nuance—even if nuance isn’t viral, even if it doesn’t win applause.

*


Annotated Bibliography

Preston, Paul: The Spanish Holocaust: Inquisition and Extermination in Twentieth-Century Spain. New York: W.W. Norton, 2012. (A comprehensive history of political and ideological violence during and after the Spanish Civil War, this work provides essential background for understanding the roots and continued appeal of Francoist narratives in Spain.)

Snyder, Timothy: On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century. New York: Tim Duggan Books, 2017. (This compact, cautionary text distills key lessons from the collapse of democracies in 20th-century Europe and offers reflections that resonate strongly with contemporary authoritarian rhetoric.)

Stanley, Jason: How Fascism Works: The Politics of Us and Them. New York: Random House, 2018. (An incisive study of fascist techniques and psychological mechanisms, this book helps explain how divisive identity politics and historical denial function in modern ultranationalist movements.)

*


“Censorship, Caligula, and the Return of Imperial Propaganda”

July 31, 2025

*



Ricardo Morin
A Flag in Distress
CGI
2025


Ricardo F. Morin

July 31, 2025

*

Brendan Carr, whom Donald Trump designated Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), recently defended the use of regulatory authority to induce a “course correction” within the media.  This intervention marks a disturbing turn in the use of public institutions to advance a politics of grievance.  Justified as an effort to combat diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, portrayed as forms of discrimination contrary to the public interest, this position reveals a broader ideological purge directed not toward restoring any genuine neutrality but toward eliminating pluralism itself.

This form of censorship, presented as a defense against “ideological indoctrination,” constitutes an explicit repudiation of fundamental democratic commitments, particularly the principle of freedom of speech.  Equity does not threaten democratic cohesion.  The danger lies in the repressive apparatus now being consolidated to discredit its purposes and silence its defenders.  This strategy follows not a normative but a theatrical logic:  it is a spectacle of power, not a legitimate exercise of government.

In this respect, the comparison with Caligula’s reign is revealing.  The Roman emperor turned politics into a theater of personal rule, in which caprice displaced law and punishment was staged as a demonstration of dominion.  His purpose was not merely to govern but to subjugate: reducing law to mere scenery for his will.  Under Trump, institutional manipulation, the fixation on personal loyalty, and the staging of conflict reproduce this same logic.  Truth and legality are subordinated to the performance of an authority beyond challenge.

The FCC’s transformation into an organ of ideological enforcement, far from being an exception, forms part of a broader pattern.  The supposed protection of the public from “divisive” content provides a pretext for suppressing narratives that confront structural inequality, racial exclusion, or historical privilege.  Within this rhetoric, equity and social justice become threats, while censorship assumes the form of cultural protection.

Censorship does not exhaust the mechanism at work.  When public authority not only discourages dissent but also determines what may count as balanced, factual, or patriotic speech, it pressures the media to adopt the terms by which that authority legitimates its conduct.  Oversight thereby becomes propaganda.  If this course continues, a plural media environment will be dismantled, along with the conditions that make democratic deliberation possible.  In its place, public communication will be organized around a narrower principle:  institutional recognition will be reserved for speech that ratifies the ruling power’s account of itself.  Far from fostering national unity, this order imposes conformity under the guise of patriotism.

This is not a restoration of institutional order but a return to imperial arbitrariness.  Its defining sign is not the abolition of institutions, but their preservation as a backdrop for power that no longer submits to their constraints.  The parallel with the Roman Senate under Caligula requires no assertion of historical equivalence.  It rests on a precise operation: preserving institutional forms after their effective capacity to restrain power has been removed.

*