Destructive opposition in Brazil

The recent history of political opposition movements in Brazil during the redemocratization period sadly reflects an intolerant society.

One of the traits of consumerism/intolerance is haste, in everything. A search for shortcuts to quick victories and defeats over the opponent. Almost always, never reflected upon.

Haste prevents reflection, calm and objective thinking, and instead leads to resolving the issue as if searching for a summary answer on Google. This is never knowledge, at most information. Intolerance, on the other hand, leads to the desire to crush the opponent, even through insults or personal attacks. It's primitive and crude, but many choose this path.

The philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer wrote 'How to Win an Argument Without Being Right'. For those who live their lives believing that society is the enemy and that they need to defeat people from the moment they leave home—in other words, the typical mediocrity—this is excellent literature. Schopenhauer was so brilliant that he indulged in masterfully theorizing verbal warfare for mentally empty individuals who need dialectical tricks.

In politics, this model prevails. Two people from opposing parties, in a casual conversation on TV, for example, usually consider the other person and their party to be completely idiotic. Nothing that one proposes is worthwhile, useful, or acceptable.

It is clear that with this attempt to dismantle the other side, the label of "fool" is transferred to society – the voter – after all, it was the people who chose the weak party, the asinine politician.

That's not how it works. Completely idiotic people are very rare. It's more or less like not winning any games in the sports lottery. When a political opposition tries to say that 'everything' done by a government team is wrong, the analysis is automatically compromised. It loses credibility.

Even if the parties are ideologically opposed. The PT fell into this error before being in government. The PSDB is now using it. The difference is that the PSDB was already in government and was a 'victim' of this 'technique'. It should have learned from it.

Burning the other side doesn't create logic, rationality, or useful data. Oppositions need to mature, to stop being childish. Aécio Neves, a handsome fellow, comes across as a grumpy old aunt. It's estimated that even he himself doesn't really believe much in what he's obligated to say, contest, and bulldoze. He's just systematic and vicious.

On the government's side, we see clumsy defenses like the one claiming that collusion in the Petrobras CPI is 'historical.' So if other parties committed fraud, we can too. An argument that no beginning lawyer would use.

But the mania for bulldozing, incinerating, and focusing not on the problem, but on 'discrediting' the other generates these deformed thoughts or irrationalities.

Regardless of whichever side you're on, there are concerned, competent, and skilled people. None other than the genius Darcy Ribeiro, who declared, 'I am on the left and I think it is the salvation of the world,' would retort: ​​'There is a lazy intelligentsia preaching that the right is stupid. It is not.' (Confessions, p. 298).

The Brazilian political opposition has long been embroiled in petty squabbles. The personal attacks they pursue, including those against family members, sometimes border on sensationalist gossip. Sometimes on petty prejudice. They picked on Lula when they discovered he had a daughter. What a 'trophy,' what a great 'discovery' for a conservative and hypocritical opposition. It's as if those who are picking on him don't have their own children in secret, with attractive secretaries, as revealed by Playboy. And what's more, with public money. And child support too.

With the return to democracy, it became possible to say anything and no longer be arrested and tortured. But this opened the door to fabricated stories, lies, and illusions.

With electronic media squeezing the time and length of discourse – Twitter imposing a 140-character limit per speech – long, philosophical, and coherent speeches are no longer understood or digestible. Haste has won. In politics, insults, cynicism, and lies have become the norm and the commonplace.

Paulo Skaff – the Marina Silva of the drizzle – the businessman struggling to become a politician, one week says he would never vote for Dilma, unless he were crazy. What bravery, what bravado. The following week he shamelessly changes his tune and says he'll vote for whomever his party, PMDB-Dilma, tells him to. Is that how it is, no 'word'? No. There isn't. That's exactly how it is.

It is estimated that the 2014 election will be a slaughterhouse. Or a meatpacking plant. But what about society? What about the people? What about Brazil?

The dishonesty of winning at any cost, all without ethics, has triumphed. It was the same with the accusations surrounding the World Cup, and it will be the same with the election. Since there is no electoral court, no public prosecutor's office, or ethics police, anything goes. Anything is possible. And Brazil and its economic systems, its balance of payments, its stock market, its image, will have to endure it.

It's become clear that politicians are spineless. They insult your mother and children as much as they like. If the insulter forms an 'alliance' the following week, everything is resolved. Everything is forgotten, and they smile on TV, hand in hand.

When will this evolve, improve, refine, or reach a minimally 'honorable' level (what a difficult word)? When education breaks free from the shackles of electoral control. But until now, what has never been truly desired in this country is to educate the masses. The game goes on.

From the blog General Observatory