What the Sanchez-Fiejo debate teaches | Comment

A day later, all the press, including the left (albeit with other readings) gave in As a winner for the right-wing candidate. Sánchez not only has good data from the management of the leftist coalition, but also his parliamentary experience where he always knows how to show his dialectical skills in controversial moments.

however, Feijo ran into him from the start and he took over the scene And makes Sanchez’s place look like a defensive wannabe.

In general, the progressive press pointed in different ways “Feijou has muddied the entry court with his lies and Sanchez doesn’t know how to handle this situation”. This explanation is undoubtedly true, but it does not solve the problem.

In the Feijóo practice, more than lies were put together. Unforgiving of Sanchez’s rudeness, the F he hadeijóo played a card typical of the contemporary far right. Instead of telling lies, Feijo initially created a parallel reality, a fantasy, which, following the rules of the television show, cannot be dispelled by logical and fair criticism. Rather than lies, Feijo spoke forcefully and convincingly about a world without.

Sánchez’s arguments about Vox’s various advances in autonomous communities, censorship, bans, and racist statements by far-right officials did not make a dent in Feijóo, which he had already achieved in a compelling tone. Move into another parallel reality where the far right doesn’t seem to exist and he’s not responsible for this new identity between PP and Vox.

The Spanish debate is that Feijóo won not because he lied, but because he turned the debate into a debate. The minimum symbolic agreement that made these discussions possible was broken from the start, so Sánchez defensively sought to return to a reality where Feijo had been dissolved.

Are political debates still possible under these conditions?