Luis Miguel: Guedes cannot be spared for the political violence of destroying rights.
According to political analyst Luis Felipe Miguel, "the pedagogy is directed at the public, who must be convinced that the problem with Bolsonarism lies only in the followers of Olavo de Carvalho and other delusional individuals – and not in the violent policies of destruction of rights and the welfare state carried out with zeal by Guedes and his group."
By Luis Felipe Miguel, in his Facebook
When the Workers' Party (PT) began to become a relevant party in the mid-1980s, the press encouraged it to conform to the established order.
The Workers' Party (PT) members were divided into two groups - "PT light" and "PT zealot".
The PT (Workers' Party) in its "light" form received praise for its moderation and responsibility. It was even accepted as a supporting player in public debate.
The radical PT (Workers' Party) was treated as folkloric, outdated, and irrelevant. It only appeared in the news as a target of ridicule.
I don't know how to estimate the weight of the media's contribution, but the fact is that the so-called radical PT (Workers' Party) has been disappearing, and the PT has become a party basically made up of 50 shades of "light" supporters.
There is something similar, on the surface, in the treatment given to Bolsonarism. There is a sector that is folklorized and another that is taken seriously.
I read in the news, for example, that the likely new Minister of Education is being bombarded by the "ideological wing" of the government.
There is, therefore, an "ideological wing," which is bad. And a "non-ideological" wing which, by antithesis, should be good.
The fact that Feder is a radical privatizer, with a hatred for public education, does not make him ideological. Just like Guedes, incidentally – whom the press treats as the prime example of "non-ideology" in Bolsonarism.
Since ideology is the distortion of reality (a curious appropriation of the most superficial version of the concept in Marxism), whoever is not ideological is realistic.
What occurs, therefore, is an endorsement of the ultraliberal doctrine, presented not as an ideological and self-serving option, but as an imposition of the reality of the facts.
The comparison with the treatment previously given to the PT (Workers' Party) is only superficial because, I suspect, the objective is different.
In the case of the PT (Workers' Party), the goal was to tame the party, minimizing its more radical or principled elements.
Now, the pedagogy is directed at the public, who must be convinced that the problem with Bolsonarism lies only in the followers of Olavo de Carvalho and other delusional individuals – and not in the violent policies of destruction of rights and the welfare state carried out with zeal by Guedes and his group.