The idea that humanity as a whole deserves admiration is challenged here, and the Spaniards are not presented as exemplary. While there are people dear to the writer, especially the readers who engage with these lines, there are many doubts about the mechanisms that drive collective behavior and decision-making.
The author uses personal experience as a negative example to avoid offense. They acknowledge a certain mental balance and a set of criteria guiding economic and social choices. The stance is practical, shaped by broad reading and a preference for order over chaos, even when one is inclined toward conservative thinking that is not tied to a specific political label. Instances from daily life, such as encounters with neighbors or religious observances, prompt reflections on political alignment and loyalty, sometimes provoking a reconsideration of what it means to be faithful to a cause.
On issues of taxation and public policy, the author recognizes a potential self-interest in reducing taxes across income, property, housing, and inheritance. There is also an admission of a comfortable standard of living that does not require welfare or housing assistance. Yet upon encountering certain political figures and their rhetoric, a spontaneous sense of frustration rises, challenging the consistency of personal convictions with the realities of leadership and policy promises.
The piece expresses frustration with highly educated individuals who lean left and advocate for greater social justice, wealth redistribution, and strong public services. These individuals often support progressive victories for marginalized groups and immigrants, yet some followers of those ideas appear conflicted and may hesitate to fully back the political movement they otherwise support. The writer notes a paradox where voters seem to oppose rather than support a clear political path, suggesting that the motivation can be more about opposing rivals than about endorsing a positive program.
There is a candid admission that a conservative voice is not a direct proxy for a love of dictatorship or for disdain of all left-leaning ideas. The author questions the coherence of prioritizing certain religious or social symbols over systemic reforms, and considers how personal loyalties can blur the lines between principled stands and tactical choices. The image is of a political theater where solemn declarations collide with everyday pragmatism, and where some supporters of different camps are seen as acting out of self-interest rather than conviction.
Historical divides in Spain are invoked to illustrate persistent polarization, but the author fears that today there may be as many divisions as voices. Acknowledging that political victories by opponents are rarely easy to accept, the text laments a climate in which compromise seems distant, as if two factions are trapped in a modern echo of a famous painting by Goya, with rival factions unable to move forward yet perpetually entangled in a struggle.
The author ponders whether the governing class might simply be acting out of grievance or anger, and whether the public would prefer those they despise to hold power or to be kept at bay. A suggestion emerges that some individuals may harbor a masochistic streak, wanting to endure a long stretch of political conflict, even when it deepens old wounds. In an ideal world, the preferred outcome would be clear winners, but the reality is that only a small portion of voters identify with a specific party, and even then, not everyone votes strictly for their preferred candidate. There are stories of voters who would never align with certain leaders, regardless of party, and of insiders who push their own agendas in ways that shape the field more than the electorate realizes. The sense is that power often travels from name to name, riding on the ambitions of a few rather than the will of many.
In the end, restraining impulses surface: people appreciate honest voting that avoids turning the ballot into a weapon. There is sympathy for quiet, principled individuals who stand apart from the loud, performative displays that sometimes accompany political life. As long as there is a person of integrity somewhere in the world, there remains a glimmer of hope—a belief that elections can be a vehicle for social improvement, not a tool to dismantle the society one dislikes.
And for those who never meet the participants, a word of caution is offered: casting a ballot with someone’s name on it is a serious act, and it is wise to vote with awareness of the consequences. The text ends with a reminder to voters to consider their own stance carefully and to avoid turning an election into a self-inflicted misjudgment. The reader is urged to reflect honestly on who their vote is really intended to support and to avoid harming their own interests in the process.