The crooked angels

The wall fell more than 20 years ago, but people are still throwing stones over it. The concepts of right and left persist—and will exist as long as there are those who uphold them—but they ceased to make sense a long time ago. I know you believe in them, but does the leader you defend believe in them? Does the journalist you defend believe in them?

The trend is to be left-leaning, ever since the right was mortally wounded, struck down by its association with the bloodiest dictatorships in Europe—the curious thing is that not even the bloodiest dictatorships in Asia managed to exterminate left-wing discourse. The right-winger, however, is being kept alive by life support. By the left-winger.

What does the right wing amount to today? Everything that deviates from the dominant ideology. All dissent is pushed into this dark and evil territory. The uncomfortable questioner, whoever they may be, whatever they say, is labeled right-wing, racist, reactionary, or any other derogatory term. Meanwhile, leftist ideology survives as a testament to correctness, or at least good intentions. Debate dies, to the delight of non-partisan businessmen and gambling operators who, without any prejudice, end up with the money.

Smoke screen. That's the role ideology lends itself to. Take the case of Argentina. Based on legitimate arguments—sovereignty among them—the Argentine government ignored a contract and seized an oil company from a foreign group. When the discussion moves into the ideological field, it sidelines the main questions: after all, was expropriation the best option? Will it benefit the country? The way the issue is being discussed, the effectiveness of the Kirchner government's measure matters little, since it is, above all, a reaction to the exploiter, and therefore correct, whatever the reason.

The funny thing is that the same concept of sovereignty that underpinned the decision of a "left-wing" government can be used to criticize the right. Let's look at France. For right-wingers, controlling (and even prohibiting) the entry of immigrants is a matter of sovereignty. For left-wingers, control stems from racism and discrimination, even if based on sovereignty.

In an attempt to get re-elected, President Nicolas Sarkozy shifted his rhetoric to align himself with a far-right candidate who was defeated in the first round. A smokescreen. The immigration problem will not be solved through ideological debate, but as a matter of social organization. Those who voted for Marine Le Pen saw through Sarkozy's ideological pirouette and are running away from him.

The point is: can France handle the immigrants? How many exactly? In what way? Most foreigners already live on the margins there — for more, the suggestion is... Intellectual terrorism, by Jean Sévillia, which tells the recent history, mainly of France, from another point of view. It is unsettling and thought-provoking.

The streetcar keeps passing by, full of white, black, and yellow legs, and we arrive in Brazil, where racial quotas have finally been deemed constitutional by the Supreme Court. Yes, they are permitted by the Constitution, which doesn't mean they're a good thing. Minister Joaquim Barbosa took the opportunity to poke fun and dismissed the "marginal character" of those who oppose the quota policy for Black people in universities. This whole ideology thing is quite funny.

It's obvious that racial quotas are a success here. Their effectiveness in combating racism in Brazil has never been in question. For them to be effective, you just have to believe they are effective, regardless of the effect. It's all symbolism. You can't measure it. They might do good, they might do harm. Let's hope for the best.

Well, here's a text for you to spit out all the ideology stuck in your throat. If you manage to purge it, think a little. When defending the right political banner becomes more important than taking the right action, something is wrong. Do you want rhyme or a solution?

Read more Real literature