Brazil’s Trump?
I just read this article about the current frontrunner in the Brazilian presidential elections, a man named Jair Bolsonaro who is described in the article I just linked as “far-right,” and given to racist and misogynistic utterances:
Loathed by much of Brazil for his insults against women and gays, his alleged racism and crude exhortations for “bandits” to be shot down, Bolsonaro has surprised many by becoming a frontrunner.
The only politician currently more popular is the leftist ex-president Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, a leader who also divides Brazilians — only in the other direction.
Lula would easily win the election, according to polls, but he is in prison for corruption and very unlikely to be allowed on the ballot.
Polarization, anyone?
I had never heard of Bolsonaro until a few minutes ago, but I have become inherently suspicious of accusations like the ones leveled against him by the left and/or the international press. They may indeed be very true, but it’s hard to judge without actually hearing him and seeing him (and understanding Portuguese, probably).
Short of that, I’ll just say that some of his utterances sound awful—for example, that he told a newspaper that one congresswomen was “not worth raping” because “she is very ugly”. But other statements of Bolsonaro’s seem to be more common sense, such as the idea that people should be allowed to defend themselves against crime:
But with Brazilians desperate to ditch the status quo after years of recession, rampant corruption and ever-growing violent crime, his provocative positions make him stand out.
In Madureira, which is surrounded by sometimes almost lawless favelas and where residents live with the constant danger of gunfire, Bolsonaro’s pitch for looser gun control to allow self-defense met with particular approval.
“Guns don’t feed violence, just as flowers don’t bring peace,” Bolsonaro said, responding to critics who say that flooding society with even more guns will only increase the bloodshed.
When the left has been in control for years and it has led to “recession, rampant corruption and ever-growing violent crime,” why wouldn’t a significant number of people want a change? And why wouldn’t they incline towards someone who promises to allow them to defend themselves against a growing number of criminals? “Elites” are fond of telling people what they can and cannot do, but elites are for the most part protected against the disturbing phenomena they have created in a way that the regular populace is not. So why wouldn’t a Trumplike figure have mass appeal? And why would people heed the warnings of their “betters,” who have not seen fit to offer them any other way to deal with myriad problems except to suck it up, and grin and bear it?
It is quite obvious that whatever it was that led to Trump’s appeal in this country, there are similar (although of course not exactly the same) influences leading to the rise of similar (although of course not exactly the same) politicians in different countries. And the powers-that-be in those countries seem similarly surprised at the entire phenomenon.
I certainly don’t know how this will wind up; it could be disastrous in the end. But I wouldn’t trust the MSM to be able to tell me.
That is what always thoughtful Richard Fernandez posted recently:
“When the totality of cultural warfare and revolution now raging throughout the world is summed we may be watching an event bigger than the fall of the Soviet Union. The event doesn’t have a name yet, on the day we finally understand, it will. But understanding may prove the most difficult part.”
My suggestion for the name of the event mentioned by Wretchard: The Second Reformation. Just as book printing challenged the ability of elites to control the masses, social media and other aspects of new informational technologies undermined the ability of gatekeepers of the ancient regime to keep the gates. Angels and demons of populism unleashed, with unpredictable consequences.
The allegations may be true of the individual, but the left is known to project and paint people with broad, sweeping strokes, not based on character (e.g. principles), but diversity or color judgments.
Everyone knows that journalists are corrupt and dishonest. They lie all the time. When they aren’t lying by commission they are lying by omission. They used to pretend to be reporters but now they are blatant democrat partisans.
Professors Wright and Rossi conducted a big study on guns, crime and violence and concluded the availability of guns has little effect.
https://books.google.com/books/about/Under_the_Gun.html?id=GfCMJgliyugC
“Guns don’t feed violence, just as flowers don’t bring peace,”
An excellent sentiment.
Pink tutus don’t end wars either (see PowerLine on the AZ Senate race).
I no longer believe anything printed in the left-wing press, including the words “e” and “o” … and “os” and “a” and “as” and….
(It’s a little more complicated in Portuguese…)
Western Europe is heading into populist/nationalist waters. The ‘far right‘ is gaining momentum in Sweden, Germany, and the Netherlands. In typical European patterns, I suspect it will involve bloodshed. As we are on the verge of a return to the leftist violence of the late 1960s and the early 1970s, we too can expect bombings and assinations in the days ahead, especially if the hysterical longing for the “blue wave” fails to materialize.
one congresswomen was “not worth raping” because “she is very ugly”.
He sounds like Don Imus before he was defenestrated by Media Matters. I am listening to Sheryl Atkinson’s new book on audio. She uses it as an example of the smear methods and says that was Media Matters’ first big success.
He sounds like Duterte
“flooding society with even more guns …”
Well no, they should be allowing people without rap sheets to buy guns. And punishing those with rap sheets who are caught possessing guns. It’s not rocket science. But then, the U.S. doesn’t do the above very well either, though I think it used to.
Recently I read two articles about Brazil’s murder rates being the highest. Is it any wonder that the population is looking for different answers?
Given how candidates (who are not chosen by the media and progressives) are treated, thick-skinned, street fighters, with real world experience are applying for the job (and have a chance to win).
Ruth,
Brazil does have a high murder rate, but they ain’t got nothing on Honduras and El Salvador. Sad.
South American countries have a long standing habit of electing populist leaders.
It’s their economics that brings them down. They tend to take popular moves like price freezes and exchange controls because they don’t have a party discipline that enforces incremental changes in a coherent plan.
Tinkering with the gun laws might — might — make the slums safer. Getting rid of them would be more helpful.
Populism, Socialism and Authoritarianism have been tried in various mixes throughout South America. Even those without the Socialism haven’t been hugely successful.
Chester Draws,
There are numerous studies on guns, violence and criminality. Here are some of the major studies that you can read to become knowledgeable on the subject.
(1)Drs. James Wright and Peter Rossi, “Under the Gun, Crime and Violence in America” (1983) National Institute of Justice.
(2)Professor Gary Kleck, “Point Blank, Guns and Violence in America” (1991).
(3)Dr. Charles Wellford; et al, “Firearms and Violence: a Critical review” (2004) National Academy of Sciences.
If you read these studies, you will find there is no evidence that demonstrates the availability of guns has any measurable effect on rates of homicide, suicide, robbery, assault, rape or burglary.