There are at least two things to take issue with in your list. First, on your 3, indications are that it wasn't so much the bombings themselves as Aznar's insistence that ETA was behind thm that really upset people, who saw it as a crass bit of political manipulation. Second, I'm not inclined to grant 2 at all. What does "less favorable" to Al Qaeda" mean, and what are the differences between the Socialist and PP policies that make you say one is less favorable to Al Qaeda than the other?
I don't know what indications you refer to, but I suspect we'll never be able to know which element was more important: the bombing, or Aznar's 'handling' of the bombing. My basic understanding of human psychology leads me to bet that corpses lining the streets trump other considerations. But what do I know?
On #2 -- that's a fair cop -- we can't know whose policies are *actually* more effective against Al Queda. Maybe this socialist dude will turn out to be Churchill, Talleyrand, Sun Tzu rolled into one. But generally, the European socialist left is dovish, no?
Also, we can judge based on perception; Bush is widely perceived as enemy #1 for Al Queda, and Aznar/PP was a Bush ally. You'll have a hard time convincing me Spaniards went to the polls saying "we need to stick it to Al Queda by ousting PP." If a bombing in England precipitated a Blair defeat, I'd make the same case.
I agree we won't know whether the bombing or the handling made the difference. Here's one bit:
In an editorial entitled Of Lies (in Spanish, registration required), [El Pais] delivers Aznar and his government a bitter rebuke, putting its defeat down largely to "inevitable sense of manipulation and deception the electorate felt" over its reaction to the Madrid bombings.
And while the Socialists are genererally dovish, I don't recall that they opposed the action in Afghanistan, which is a pretty good test of a group's reasonableness, I'd say. We can debate whether opposing the war in Iraq indicates seriousness or its lack with regard to the war on terror.
I don't think Spaniards were trying to stick it to Al Qaeda, but that, as Jacob Levy points out, is the difference between acting reasonable and acting out of spite. Some things are right even if Al Qaeda wants them to happen.
Well, I'm looking for straws to grasp in this fiasco, so thank you for pointing me to the El Pais editorial.
And of course it's true that some actions can be good even if Al Queda favors them. It's hard, however, to spin a major electoral *shift* from hawk to dove (again, dealing at the level of these genearlities) that immediately follows a terrorist attack as anything but bad news. If being in Iraq was a bad idea, surely a recent Al Queda attack doesn't make it more of a bad idea? Unless you're getting out of Iraq in order to *focus* on Al Queda, which is far too policy-wonkish a position to influence Joe (or Jose) voter.
Rather, I think the Spaniards who shifted (correctly) believed that Aznars' cooperation with the coalition on Iraq made Spain a target. Further, I would imgaine many Spaniards thought this becaused they believed (again correctly) that Al Queda wants to undermine the Iraqi reconstruction by isolating the US.
In short, I suspect thinking like this defeated the PP. Further, that thinking was basically correct: Aznar's support of Bush and Blair did cost 200 Spanish lives.
I think we're running up against our ignorance of Spanish politics here. The "focus on Al Qaeda" argument seems wonkish, but I don't know if Spain, like the US, has had an opposition party saying for months that the Iraq war was a distraction that made people less safe. And it's not wonkish at all to throw out the party in power if you think they haven't done enough to make you safe; and a terrorist attack can certainly contribute to that feeling (this is assuming, as you don't seem to, that the opposition makes a credible case that they'd increase safety).
But I'll grant that plenty of people probably voted against the PP because they think Aznar's support for Bush made Spain a target. That's disheartening, I agree. But the war was so unpopular there that it can't really be surprising that Aznar would get thrown out at the first sign that his decision had unwanted consequences.
"I think we're running up against our ignorance of Spanish politics here."
I wish you could somehow arrange to have that sentence posted promintently in the line of sight of everybody who is freaking out about the election in Spain. Everyone is so furiously jumping to conclusions that the old joke about China knocking Earth out of its orbit comes to mind. Why not wait and see what PSOE *does* before declaring an end to civilization, or the blushing dawn of a Bush-free age?
Since we're conjecturing from imperfect knowledge to decide if the elections were or weren't a victory for AQ, here's a just-as-probable-as-anyone's interpretation of facts and reasonable guesses.
1. Spainish Government sides with US in War Against Iraq. (known)
2. This move is widely unpopular with Spanish people. (known)
3. Spanish people see it as a sidetrack to the War on Terror. See their leaders as unserious about combating terror. (Reasonable inference from reports)
4. See bombing as consequence of government's unserious stance towards terror. (reasonable conjecture)
5. See pushing the blame on the ETA as more evidence that their Government is more interested in politics than confronting and really doing something about terrorism. (my interpretation which I'm predicating to the Spanish voters)
6. Reason that thier Administration is doing a lousy job of fighting AQ, and anyone else will likely do better. (follows from 1-5)
So, you see, voting out the PP was the best thing they could do. Voting for the PP again would be to let the terrorists win.
I realize I should probably explain #4 a little more. The failure to prevent to bombings could be seen as a consequence of the Spanish government focused more on an unnecessary militarypolitical project, Iraq, which resulted in less time and resources devoted to outing and protecting the people from REAL terrorists. So, by dropping the ball on AQ to go after Iraq, the government perhaps lessened both their offense and defense on terrorism, making the country more vulnerable.
Of course, this is absolute conjecture, but it seems plausible enough. And the government has been accused by the voters of being distracted by Iraq, so I doubt I'm alone in thinking this.
Something like the following seems to be the working definition of 'appeaser' in contemporary American political discourse:
appeaser (n): one who pursues a course of non-violent conflict resolution. Especially, one who prefers not to participate in violent conflict resolution led by the United States and its allies.
Gosh, I'd like to believe those responses. But here's all we need for the "depressing interpretation" to work:
1. PP was headed to victory
2. PP's policies were less favorable to Al Queda than the socialists'
3. After the bombings, and because of them, PP lost decisively
4. Al Queda perpetrated the bombings
With 1-4 granted, we have Al Queda influencing an election in their favor via mass slaughter. If that's not depressing, I don't know what is.
Posted by baa | Link to this comment | 03-15-04 3:40 PM
There are at least two things to take issue with in your list. First, on your 3, indications are that it wasn't so much the bombings themselves as Aznar's insistence that ETA was behind thm that really upset people, who saw it as a crass bit of political manipulation. Second, I'm not inclined to grant 2 at all. What does "less favorable" to Al Qaeda" mean, and what are the differences between the Socialist and PP policies that make you say one is less favorable to Al Qaeda than the other?
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 03-15-04 3:52 PM
I don't know what indications you refer to, but I suspect we'll never be able to know which element was more important: the bombing, or Aznar's 'handling' of the bombing. My basic understanding of human psychology leads me to bet that corpses lining the streets trump other considerations. But what do I know?
On #2 -- that's a fair cop -- we can't know whose policies are *actually* more effective against Al Queda. Maybe this socialist dude will turn out to be Churchill, Talleyrand, Sun Tzu rolled into one. But generally, the European socialist left is dovish, no?
Also, we can judge based on perception; Bush is widely perceived as enemy #1 for Al Queda, and Aznar/PP was a Bush ally. You'll have a hard time convincing me Spaniards went to the polls saying "we need to stick it to Al Queda by ousting PP." If a bombing in England precipitated a Blair defeat, I'd make the same case.
Posted by baa | Link to this comment | 03-15-04 4:13 PM
I agree we won't know whether the bombing or the handling made the difference. Here's one bit:
And while the Socialists are genererally dovish, I don't recall that they opposed the action in Afghanistan, which is a pretty good test of a group's reasonableness, I'd say. We can debate whether opposing the war in Iraq indicates seriousness or its lack with regard to the war on terror.
I don't think Spaniards were trying to stick it to Al Qaeda, but that, as Jacob Levy points out, is the difference between acting reasonable and acting out of spite. Some things are right even if Al Qaeda wants them to happen.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 03-15-04 4:27 PM
Well, I'm looking for straws to grasp in this fiasco, so thank you for pointing me to the El Pais editorial.
And of course it's true that some actions can be good even if Al Queda favors them. It's hard, however, to spin a major electoral *shift* from hawk to dove (again, dealing at the level of these genearlities) that immediately follows a terrorist attack as anything but bad news. If being in Iraq was a bad idea, surely a recent Al Queda attack doesn't make it more of a bad idea? Unless you're getting out of Iraq in order to *focus* on Al Queda, which is far too policy-wonkish a position to influence Joe (or Jose) voter.
Rather, I think the Spaniards who shifted (correctly) believed that Aznars' cooperation with the coalition on Iraq made Spain a target. Further, I would imgaine many Spaniards thought this becaused they believed (again correctly) that Al Queda wants to undermine the Iraqi reconstruction by isolating the US.
In short, I suspect thinking like this defeated the PP. Further, that thinking was basically correct: Aznar's support of Bush and Blair did cost 200 Spanish lives.
Posted by baa | Link to this comment | 03-15-04 5:06 PM
I think we're running up against our ignorance of Spanish politics here. The "focus on Al Qaeda" argument seems wonkish, but I don't know if Spain, like the US, has had an opposition party saying for months that the Iraq war was a distraction that made people less safe. And it's not wonkish at all to throw out the party in power if you think they haven't done enough to make you safe; and a terrorist attack can certainly contribute to that feeling (this is assuming, as you don't seem to, that the opposition makes a credible case that they'd increase safety).
But I'll grant that plenty of people probably voted against the PP because they think Aznar's support for Bush made Spain a target. That's disheartening, I agree. But the war was so unpopular there that it can't really be surprising that Aznar would get thrown out at the first sign that his decision had unwanted consequences.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 03-15-04 5:13 PM
"I think we're running up against our ignorance of Spanish politics here."
I wish you could somehow arrange to have that sentence posted promintently in the line of sight of everybody who is freaking out about the election in Spain. Everyone is so furiously jumping to conclusions that the old joke about China knocking Earth out of its orbit comes to mind. Why not wait and see what PSOE *does* before declaring an end to civilization, or the blushing dawn of a Bush-free age?
Posted by jhp | Link to this comment | 03-15-04 5:48 PM
Since we're conjecturing from imperfect knowledge to decide if the elections were or weren't a victory for AQ, here's a just-as-probable-as-anyone's interpretation of facts and reasonable guesses.
1. Spainish Government sides with US in War Against Iraq. (known)
2. This move is widely unpopular with Spanish people. (known)
3. Spanish people see it as a sidetrack to the War on Terror. See their leaders as unserious about combating terror. (Reasonable inference from reports)
4. See bombing as consequence of government's unserious stance towards terror. (reasonable conjecture)
5. See pushing the blame on the ETA as more evidence that their Government is more interested in politics than confronting and really doing something about terrorism. (my interpretation which I'm predicating to the Spanish voters)
6. Reason that thier Administration is doing a lousy job of fighting AQ, and anyone else will likely do better. (follows from 1-5)
So, you see, voting out the PP was the best thing they could do. Voting for the PP again would be to let the terrorists win.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 03-15-04 5:59 PM
I realize I should probably explain #4 a little more. The failure to prevent to bombings could be seen as a consequence of the Spanish government focused more on an unnecessary militarypolitical project, Iraq, which resulted in less time and resources devoted to outing and protecting the people from REAL terrorists. So, by dropping the ball on AQ to go after Iraq, the government perhaps lessened both their offense and defense on terrorism, making the country more vulnerable.
Of course, this is absolute conjecture, but it seems plausible enough. And the government has been accused by the voters of being distracted by Iraq, so I doubt I'm alone in thinking this.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 03-15-04 6:07 PM
Thanks for the links.
Something like the following seems to be the working definition of 'appeaser' in contemporary American political discourse:
appeaser (n): one who pursues a course of non-violent conflict resolution. Especially, one who prefers not to participate in violent conflict resolution led by the United States and its allies.
Posted by John | Link to this comment | 03-16-04 1:39 AM