On October 12, 1936, in the auditorium of the University of Salamanca, Miguel de Unamuno uttered one of the most iconic phrases of intellectual resistance to authoritarianism. Before a hostile audience and under the gaze of General Millán-Astray, founder of the Spanish Legion, the Spanish thinker made it clear that the use of force and victory on the battlefield are not equivalent to reason or consensus: "You will win, but you will not convince". His statement laid bare an uncomfortable truth for regimes that seek to impose an idea of absolute unanimity: power can be exercised, but it does not necessarily win the conviction of society.

On March 4, 2025, in Washington D.C., a similar scene was repeated with contemporary overtones. During a speech by Donald Trump before Congress, Texas Democratic Representative Al Green stood up and shouted, "You don't have a mandate!" Thereupon, he was escorted from the chamber by the House sergeant-at-arms. His interruption was not an act of mere protest; it was a reminder that Trump's return to the White House does not mean that his leadership is universally accepted nor that his victory represents the entire nation.

The parallel between Unamuno and Green lies in their role as dissident voices in contexts where power tries to present itself as unanimous and indisputable. In 1936, the nascent Francoism used the rhetoric of historical destiny to justify its rule and eliminate any trace of opposition. Millán-Astray, a symbol of militaristic fervor, reacted to Unamuno's challenge with the infamous exclamation "Viva la muerte!", synthesizing the logic of a dictatorship that despised intellectuality and critical thinking.

In 2025, the Trump administration has operated under a similar logic. It is obviously not a dictatorship; we are talking about a democratic regime. But since his return to power on January 6, the former president has acted with the conviction that his victory is tantamount to an absolute mandate. His speeches, his policies and his relationship with Congress reflect the belief that "his mandate" enjoys an "uncontroversial" character, with no room for legitimate dissent. Green, by interrupting his speech, made visible what many Americans feel: Trump may have won the presidency, but he has not convinced the entire nation that his leadership is unquestioned.

Winning, but not convincing

The problem with power based on force or imposition is that, in the long run, it does not generate genuine consensus. Unamuno understood this in his time, and Green expresses it today. The phrase "They will win, but they will not convince" encapsulates the idea that political control does not guarantee cultural or ideological hegemony. Millán-Astray and Trump share the vision of unquestioned leadership, based on the submission of the opposition. However, history shows that societies are more complex than authoritarianism wants to admit.

In Franco's Spain, repression guaranteed the stability of the regime for decades, but never managed to erase dissent. In the United States of 2025, political and intellectual resistance is still alive, and Green's disruption only reflects a divided country. Trump may be back in the White House, but he has not convinced everyone of his legitimacy. Less so considering that he is the first sitting president to be convicted in American history.

Like Francoism at its beginnings, his government faced an uncomfortable reality: unanimity is an illusion built from power but not necessarily reflected in society.

Unamuno was silenced and died under house arrest months after his famous speech. Green, on the other hand, still has the possibility of continuing to raise his voice. The difference between the two contexts lies in the strength of democratic institutions. However, the question remains: can a democracy resist when its leader acts as if the mandate were absolute? Time will tell if the United States manages to avoid the fate of those societies that confused victory with unanimous consensus and imposition with conviction. Will they finally convince?