Collor at the Hour of Courage – Folha de S. Paulo, January 19, 1990

by Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira

The Folha de S. Paulo editorial of January 14, 1990, was a genuine act of courage. With a boldness rarely seen among us, it confronted head‑on one of the dominant taboos of Brazilian public life.

For decades, the country’s real socio-economic problems have been presented to the public with a mix of exaggeration and bias. Exaggeration occurs because, in many specific cases, the problem—though serious and stemming from highly blameworthy causes—is not as disastrous as it is made out to be. Bias exists because this narrative ignores or at least downplays the many positive aspects that also stand out in our national reality.

In response to this, the most common reaction has been a soothing, tear-stained compassion that quickly gives way to thoughtless concessions—concessions that have almost always pulled the country even deeper into the quagmire of state capitalism.

Along with this compassion came a generous dose of political trickery. Gradually, the public became accustomed to accepting negative portrayals of national reality as accurate descriptions. Electoral demagoguery thrived whenever a candidate exploited the “demands” circulating in the public sphere—some legitimate, many exaggerated, almost all feverish and shrill—and turned them into a political spectacle.

Therefore, someone needed to speak the clear, invigorating truth and suggest the strong, wholesome measures recommended in the Folha editorial.

This does not mean we agree with every point it raises. Certain troubling ambiguities remain. For example, do the sweeping reforms said to “alter the pattern of income distribution” include the disastrous structural reforms so regrettably favored by the Sarney administration and by the Constituent Assembly? And what, precisely, is meant by “strengthening” the social role of the State to combat “extreme poverty”?

Nonetheless, the Folha editorial’s overall message deserves praise and provides real hope. If President Collor, with similar courage, aims to fulfill the wishes of the majority that voted for him, one can reasonably expect him to work toward a program aligned with the principles outlined in that editorial.

I would be betraying my entire past if I failed to emphasize one point. If the situation in Brazil has reached the monstrous proportions described in the editorial, it is because it has not received clear‑sighted, courageous, and forthright resistance from the nation’s active forces. On the contrary, almost all of them gradually began to court demagoguery as it advanced—even when doing so amounted to political harakiri.

I recall here several archetypal attitudes of two powers in our national life, one spiritual and the other economic—powers that, incidentally, are generally good friends: the CNBB and the FIESP.

But if matters have reached this point, it is largely due to a mistaken idea of goodwill: the belief that being “good” means saying yes to everything, and being “bad” means saying no. Those who, like the TFP, found themselves forced to say no to demagoguery repeatedly were easily labeled as “bad,” while those leading the charge toward the self-destruction of the existing order were celebrated as “good.”

This is a profound moral problem that, in our country, only the Church can solve. However, I worry it won’t be resolved until the severe crisis currently affecting the Church worldwide is addressed.