Juan Milián has introduced Liberaos! The failure of the anger policy and the return of responsibility, published by Deusto in 2023, as a pivotal work for understanding the current moment in politics. He frames the moment sheathed in a clear verdict: the failure of resentment is real, while the return of responsibility remains only a hopeful aspiration for now. Sitting between two poles, from populism to the state, a gap emerges that marks the distance between failed strategies and policies that succeed, a marker of a country facing moral bankruptcy yet capable of empowerment. This distance also traces the shift from the spirit of national harmony that circulated during the Transition period to a cultural substrate that has tried to resist any fixed structure while still pressing for a new public ethos — one that embraces genuine plurality from citizens who are often pushed toward infantilization by the very rhetoric that claims to defend them.
He observes that this dynamic unfolds in the country while a party that participates in the constitutional pact moves in tandem with it. Populism and nationalism, resentment and identity politics appear to seep into the machinery of governance, weakening the State and eroding the democratic process that once defined the Transition. The analysis offered is sharp and lucid, demonstrating how the language of anger, amplified by media and political leadership, undermines the sense of shared citizenship and erodes personal accountability. When blame is routinely placed on others, space narrows for the personal resolve that sustains a fairer society. The message is clear: if the target is always the other, there is little room left for the duty that strengthens a nation and promotes common welfare.
Among the defining mutations of contemporary life are currents of identity that seek to replace the nuanced ambiguity of the human condition with a single guiding principle. This tendency narrows the rich spectrum of pluralism into a one-dimensional view. Quoting thinkers such as Friedrich Hayek, Benjamin Barber, and Maurizio Viroli, the author recalls the early 20th century assertion by the novelist Joseph Roth about patriotism and nationalism. Roth’s observation — that patriotism stays aligned with republican institutions and the common life of the people, while nationalism tends to defend unity and cultural uniformity — continues to resonate. The discussion notes that the former aims to safeguard freedom and civic virtue, whereas the latter can drift toward exclusion and ideological purity. The language of patriotism is rooted in shared political life; the language of nationalism tends to emphasize purity and homogeneity. The author reflects that exclusionary identities have fed new waves of populism, anger, and political irresponsibility, while democracy remains a living project that succeeds only when citizens commit to it with responsibility and effort. The overarching point underscores that a healthy democracy rests on inclusive dialogue, practical reforms, and a shared sense of duty that transcends blaming others.