The asylum granted by Spain to Edmundo Gonzales Urrutia (EGU) – in reality a self-exile of the winner of the Venezuelan elections – has once again shaken the floor of Spanish-speaking politicians and activists.
I will not deal with the reactions of the radicals who would have preferred to have a hero in their pantheon, through more energetic actions by the elderly former diplomat; like surrendering to the henchmen of the most detestable government in the America (along with that of Daniel Ortega) or living in hiding for months and perhaps years or immolating himself like a Tibetan monk in the name of freedom and democracy.
I will refer to the other parallel current of radicalism, the “antis” (capitalists, imperialists, Jews, moderates, democrats… logical) who, not having a more decent job, claim to be “influencers” on social networks or on the pages of readers of popular newspapers. In the “Hell” of that lost left, Lula and Petro are lukewarm servants of the empire, even if they are located in a circle above the “traitor” Gabriel Boric.
For this group of anti-imperialists of logic, the EGU would have acknowledged its electoral defeat by “fleeing” to Spain, accepting the diplomatic help of the ineffable José Luis Zapatero, the ambiguous mediator of that operation. In search of arguments to help their godfather, the “antis” do not realize the consequences of their statements: did the exiles of the Spanish Civil War or the coups of Pinochet, Banzer or Vilela flee admitting their defeat or trying to save their lives and continue to fight for their ideals?
Beyond the ideological delusions of a part of the youth, including academics (social, first and foremost), there is an attempt to restore an antagonistic logic to the Cartesian one, universally accepted to this day, the one that guides the progress of all scientific disciplines. It is the antilogical, very popular in debates on social networks.
In the Middle Ages, the movement of the planets was explained by the existence of angels who pushed them laterally along their orbits. After Newton it became clear that the “angels” did not push, but pulled the planets towards the center of rotation. In addition, they had a name: “Force”. Apart from that, it would be arbitrary to infer that angels do not exist.
A common form of antilogic is to refute an argument by appealing to other facts of other times and places: “that Maduro does not show the electoral minutes and why does King Felipe not show his own?”; “Maduro lost the elections, ‘yes, but’ the essential thing is to stop imperialist greed”; “that the police surround Corina Machado’s advisers, who have taken refuge in the Brazilian-Argentine embassy in Caracas, ‘yes, but’ Noboa has also invaded that of Mexico”; “That Haitian immigrants didn’t eat cats, ‘yes, but’ in their country they do.” In short, according to antilogic, one misdeed is justified by another.
To continue debating in search of truth, without resorting to anti-logic as a diversionary tactic, one should apply the rule of the “hic et nunc”, of the “here and now”. What does it consist of?
As the name suggests, it is a matter of analyzing a fact in itself, with arguments that have to do with the “here”, not with what happens in other places with authoritarian regimes of all colors, and the “now”, not with situations taken at will of the client from the hat of history.
To begin with, why not discuss the situation in Venezuela only on the basis of facts (campaign, vote, rejection of results) leaving aside the cheating of whether Maduro is a champion of socialism or a neighborhood bully; whether or not the United States interferes in the countries of America or whether Javier Miley is the disgrace or the savior of Argentina?