March 15, 2004
Calpundit gets it right
While Sullivan and Instapundit whip themselves up into a hissy fit over whether the Spanish elections are a "victory for the terrorists" (somehow every left victory is a "victory for the terrorists" these days), Calpundit seems to be the one on the right track--and more in line with the European media's analysis of the exit polls coming out of Spain.
Both the Socialist and the People's Party oppose terrorism. Fervently. Their disagreements hinge on matters of strategy, like whether or not to attack Iraq.
That said, consider the actions of the Aznar government since the Madrid bombings. They did everything possible to link this incident to the ETA including accusing the ETA straightaway. Finally, thank heavens, they broke down under public pressure and admitted they were actually investigating Islamists on the very eve of the election.
If Reynolds and Sullivan can't see what an outrage that is, then they're the ones who are blind, not us. Aznar's posturing was scary, Orwellian shit. And the Spaniards called him on it.
This is how democracy works. People want a government and a foreign policy that is going to tell people the truth and not use mass murder for political gain.
And finally, as Yglesias points out, it's extremely difficult to tell which way a terrorist attack is going to effect the outcome of the election. In many cases, the voters may go with the party perceived to be "tougher" on terror. Spaniards might have looked at the terror attacks and said--yes, it was best after all to attack Iraq. Look at the precedent-isn't the above the conventional wisdom on why the American people supported the Iraq War?
The truth is, Aznar's opportunism is the far more likely explanation for his party's defeat. And either way, I'm happy for Spain that Aznar and his party are out.
Update:
Robert Greene weighs in.
Do you seriously expect Reynolds or Sullivan to consider any interpretations that don't jibe with their worldview? Maybe, *maybe* you could hope that for Sullivan, since he occasionally shows his ability to be rational, but Reynolds? Puh-leeze.
That said, I agree with Calpundit's reasoning here. It seems more likely that people voted against Aznar simply because they were in shock and felt like he was more interested in using the bombings for political gain than finding out the truth. That said, another month or so and they probably wouldn't have had that large of an effect on the elections. So, in the sense that the bombings did affect the election's outcome, you could say that "the terrorist won", though I don't think that's the point Sullivan is making. He's claiming, as you pointed out, that the Socialist party will do nothing but try and appease the terrorists though he gives no evidence to back this up.
There's more on Aznar's attempted political manipulation over at Crooked Timber.
I don't think there is any doubt that Spain will be redoubling its efforts to assist the US on the war against actual terrorists (that is, if economic/regional/strategical/political disagreements don't get in the way, as they well might, because as we all know the Socialists are FILTHY REDS). Spain may be pulling their 1300 out of Iraq, but I'd be willing to bet that 10 times that number will be active in the next action against real Islamic terrorism. And even the Bush admin wouldn't be stupid enough to block this, considering the signal it sends.
I suppose I could be wrong. But from my perspective, people who call this a victory for Al Qaida aren't putting the pieces together.