Why is it so difficult to emerge such a center candidate, even though there are politicians qualified to do so? The inquiry is not metaphysical in character, and I don’t believe there is a silent majority waiting for Godot. Even because the saying-whose doesn’t appear, right? A third name will only become viable if it wins votes among voters who are already speaking in the polls — they are the majority.
The 2022 election will, yes, be fundamental for the future of Brazil. It is a question of whether or not democracy will survive. There’s no risk of an old-fashioned scam. There are other ways, some of which are already under way, to get the troops out. The militia of the police is an eloquent example of the hell that awaits us. Let it be conjured up.
The dispute thus defines the future, but it is also an echo of the past. We are experiencing the consequences of an intervention in the 2018 electoral process that led to an artificialization of public life. Shortly after recovering his political rights — which were taken from him by means of illegitimate instruments, of vitiated legality — Lula became the favorite in the dispute. It would be competitive even if Bolsonaro behaved like a statesman.
Even if opponents insist on resuscitating the denunciations against the PT —and perhaps it is a case of asking what has not yet been said—, it is worth remembering that, in the last election, Lula invented, from within the prison, a candidacy that was far away. of humiliation. It is not just the judicial redemption that benefits him. There are voters who have been waiting for him since 2018.
But what about the center? If politics were an equation or an architect’s design, there would be no name capable of competing with João Doria. He is an effective administrator and offered an answer to the scourge of our time:
vaccines. For now, his electoral situation is uncomfortable even within the PSDB — which, to me, sounds absurd. The party should have adopted him and vaccines as its own since the end of last year, despite the mistakes it made in the internal economy of the party.
If Lula inherits 2018 votes, the center names inherit difficulties. Luciano Huck and João Amoêdo have already jumped out. The so-called centrists allowed themselves to be contaminated by Bolsonaro’s reactionary discourse. Liberals made, to some extent, the same mistake as the galloned military: they bet the ogre would let himself be led.
It was imagined that it could be used as a battering ram against PT and the left, to be swallowed up later by its own incompetence.
History teaches you not to give a presidential pen or a post. Bolsonaro swallowed reputations rather than being swallowed by them. The forces of reaction that it mobilized refer to the worst demons of our formation and our deformations. The policy of hate does not comply with efficiency criteria and crosses the threshold of murder. And don’t be denied the cleverness of having realized early on where the pressing danger was coming from. His first war of destruction targeted the democratic right.
Here I propose a question to the postulants of this center or that third way — and, in this regard, I include Ciro Gomes. Lula, obviously, offers himself as “the” anti-Bolsonaro name, but there is an underline in his postulation that says by silence: “He is the evil to be defeated”. Out of politeness, he should not be asked the question whether he will vote for Ciro, Doria or even an unknown person if he does not reach the final stage. But there is little doubt about what would be, in that case, the choice of your electorate.
The PT is having the intelligence not to create a non-existent equivalence between Bolsonaro and the other opponents. When someone who places himself as a third way says “neither Lula nor Bolsonaro”, he tends to speak to a minority that already sees the two postulants as distinct, but equivalent, evils.
This equivalence —false according to the most basic values of civilization— makes this center, for the time being, speak to an electorate that has very little potential for expansion. I understand that the discourse of the third way is not in the “nor-nor”. The 500,000 dead so far impose a first ethical divide.
Proposals come later.
LINK PRESENT: Did you like this column? Subscriber can release five free hits of any link per day. Just click on the blue F below.