Brazil Is Not a Fiction – Folha de S. Paulo, November 13, 1984

by Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira

Having always avoided partisan battles, I had planned to stay silent on the shifting dynamics of the succession debates. This was especially true since, until recently, the ideological differences between the two candidates were vague—almost intangible—and therefore did not warrant serious commentary. Aside from a doctrinal perspective, any interference on my part in this great “brouhaha” would be pointless. I don’t have a structured constituency to lend political weight to my statement, and my role in the Brazilian public sphere is purely ideological or doctrinal.

It so happens, however, that in recent weeks, the landscape of political controversy has experienced notable shifts. For quite some time, Mr. Tancredo Neves’s public stance leaned left, with only occasional right-wing statements meant to reassure conservative voters in his home region. Mr. Paulo Maluf, on the other hand, maintained a subtly right-leaning position, although he also occasionally made gestures in the opposite direction. Thus, one could see, through the haze of the moment, a certain symmetry between their respective positions.

* * *

Over the past ten or fifteen days, Mr. Paulo Maluf has been making noticeably more left-leaning statements, without, however, Mr. Tancredo Neves shifting to the right in response. The balance has been disrupted. If things continue as they are, the race between the two candidates will become a contest to the left. They seem to believe that whoever moves further left will win.

Of course, neither of them appears committed to ending up in a communist regime, but rather to reaching that highest level of leftism that prevents a candidate… from shocking the right too much.

From this perspective, the competition is not a race but a contest of linguistic skill. The key is to find formulations that appeal to as many leftists as possible without alienating the center and the right.

For an observer especially focused on the doctrinal details of the succession, nothing could be less interesting…

However, right now, I feel an irresistible urge to say a word amid the “brouhaha.” Here it is.

This entire game seems to stem from the belief, shared by both candidates, that most of the Brazilian population leans to the left, so the candidate who wins over the left will have won Brazil. It is only because both fear they will fail to attract an undeniable left-leaning majority that they are both interested in also gaining some right-wing votes, to add to the votes they receive from the left.

I believe this is fundamentally wrong. Let me explain.

In my view, in our beloved and unique Brazil, the term “conservative class” refers to a specific economic elite, led by industrialists and followed by merchants more or less closely. Then come professional intellectuals who have achieved significant financial success in their respective fields.

Taken together, all of this forms a human hierarchy that roughly consists of the upper class and the upper middle class. Next is the middle class proper, and below that is the working class.

Now, based on a very folk-centric view, some political observers strongly believe that the higher the social class, the more reactionary it is. It feels so natural that this must be true! After all, who could be a more loyal supporter of property than a property owner?

Based on this purely theoretical premise, observers conclude that the fewer possessions a Brazilian has, the more likely he is to lean to the left. The lower-middle and middle-middle classes would then be more adaptable to communist pressures or demands. As for the working class, it would be Marx and Lenin’s strongest electoral base, dominated by the semi-Marxists of the “Catholic left.” Therefore, one must be a Marxist to win an election. And everything else follows from that point.

This picture is very questionable. Because of my duties at the TFP, I am constantly in contact with people from all social classes across Brazil. The proportion of leftists is much higher among the so-called upper class than among the middle class, and it’s higher among the middle class than in tenements and slums. The election results from the last gubernatorial race clearly demonstrated this in São Paulo, especially with the leftist vote in upscale areas like Morumbi and Jardins.

Above all, among all social classes, the percentage of leftists was lower than many observers had expected.

* * *

Surprising? Why should it be? On the very night I write these lines, Ronald Reagan is being reelected by a landslide. All sectors of American public opinion—from the center to the far right—are celebrating. Their joy is already stirring sympathetic reactions in similar sectors worldwide. Yet Reagan’s victory is not merely an isolated American event. It is well known that the left has suffered significant setbacks ever since the election of the conservative Thatcher in England. One need only recall Trudeau’s defeat in Canada. And in France, consider the decline of Mitterrand, whose once‑flamboyant, self‑managing pompadour—timely toppled—symbolizes the serious loss of support he suffers with each new public‑opinion poll.

Why shouldn’t the same principle apply to Brazilian public opinion? All of this leads to one conclusion: to win, candidates must not try to craft their election campaigns around the fictional image of a socialist-communist Brazilian public. Instead, they should speak with a clear, honest, and courageous voice, using language that appeals to centrists and even to reactionary sectors of the public. Polls will then show that the candidate who genuinely connects with the real Brazil will come out ahead, not the one who panders to an unreal, fictional Brazil—a paradise for communists and their ideological allies.