A few days ago, while walking down the street, I saw from a distance a very successful progressive industrialist I have known since childhood. Life had changed him and left its mark. He appeared to be a true gentleman by birth, somewhat transformed into a nabob, and, paradoxically, somewhat proletarianized. As usual, his optimistic and relaxed expression suggested a friendliness that bordered on naivety. But an attentive observer would quickly notice something cunning and sharp hiding behind this simplicity. As I watched him, he was walking distractedly toward me. He recognized me when we were just a few steps apart. His expression immediately grew dry and reserved. The naivety vanished from his eyes and was replaced by a cold, metallic look. The cunning remained. We greeted each other, and he immediately said:
“Look, I don’t like the TFP campaign. You tend to provoke your opponents rather than defeat them. That’s not how you handle enemies. You invite them to a respectful dialogue. You make some concessions to them. For example, you agree with some of their criticisms. You agree with some of their goals. You listen to their arguments politely. This softens their attitude, gains their sympathy, and they eventually abandon their positions.
You at the TFP do the exact opposite. You openly express your disagreement with everything they believe. You refuse to compromise on anything. Naturally, this makes them more enraged than ever. Instead of easing tensions, you make them worse.
For this reason, I take a firm stand against the TFP. I disapprove of it. I advise everyone not to support it and to ignore its young men campaigning for their cause as if they were invisible.
I replied, attempting a friendly joke, “Are you an adversary denying us bread and water?”
“Exactly! If it were my decision, I would ban the TFP from hitting the streets with its flashy campaigns.”
Then, I objected, “I don’t understand you. If you truly believe in the power of our peaceful methods, why not try them against the TFP? Come on, dear friend, drop your frown, smile, tell us what good things you see in our ideas and campaigns; make tactical concessions to soften us up, and aim to dissolve and eliminate us from the Brazilian ideological landscape.”
This invitation to dialogue further upset my industrialist, who yelled in frustration:
It’s no use. Nothing’s working with you people. The only choice is to fight you on all fronts.
But then, I said, “Don’t come to me saying you recommend benign and conciliatory tactics toward every opponent. Dialogue for some, and a stick for others, right?”
“I have to be inflexible with the inflexible,” he replied.
“Who are these inflexible people? Just us at the TFP?” I asked.
“No. All extremists. I consider myself a man of the center.”
I objected: “But if you recommend inflexibility with extremists, why do you censure our inflexibility with communists? It is with them that we are truly inflexible. If you participate in this inflexibility, what are you accusing us of? Or are you inflexible only with us and not with communists? If it is only with us, I see who you are, my inveterate progressive. Deep down, you are not a centrist, but a leftist in disguise.”
Our long-standing friendship from the past set the tone for my response. He understood it clearly and broke free from the situation with an interjection: “Fascist!”
I then reminded him of the old days when a brave group of Catholics, gathered in the newsroom of Legionário, fought fiercely against the totalitarian right, which was then at its peak: Nazism, fascism, and integralism. I also pointed out that he had stayed out of that fight.
My progressive friend chuckled heartily at this reminiscence that reminded him of his youth. But while laughing, he thought of another argument:
Plinio, don’t avoid the issue by only discussing TFP’s stance on communism. There is also progressivism. You say I am a progressive, but that’s not entirely accurate. I even want to curb some excesses of progressivism. You’ll agree that my gentle tactics are the only effective way to handle these excesses. Look at what the Second Vatican Council did. It worked hard to appease progressivism, as seen from the early days of the unforgettable John XXIII.
“This isn’t the place for me to discuss the Council’s goals,” I replied, “but I don’t think anyone can claim that it appeased progressivism. Paul VI’s repeated complaints about what is happening within the Church show that progressivism is more aggressive than ever across the Catholic world.”
“Here you go again with your pompous expressions: ‘the Catholic world.’ Let’s set that aside and focus on Brazil. Isn’t it true that progressives stayed calm until your campaign, and that you reignited them again?”
“You’re definitely agitated. As for the calmness of the progressives before our campaign, nothing could be more natural, like someone getting angry when no one attacks them. So, do you progressives feel like you own the field and can’t tolerate any discussion? Do you feel entitled to lash out at TFP’s polite ideological objections? Why don’t you try to engage in dialogue?”
“You see? You’re falling back into your old habit of arguing. Look, there won’t be any progressivism if you stay silent.”
“And you fear the TFP will succeed if we speak out, right?”
“You are old-fashioned.”
“Yes, and we are so well received that you fear our actions more than those of your dear communists.”
“At any rate, you can’t deny that progressives are calm.”
Yes, they are calm, but not inactive. Progressivism is a universal phenomenon caused by deep ideological, social, and political factors that all countries experience. Don’t think you can eliminate progressivism by silencing us. That is, if you truly want to eliminate it. You believe you can surround Brazil with a Chinese wall so that outside ideological currents can’t influence us. However, no walls can block out ideas.
“Ideas and ideologies are not my world. I leave you with these illusions and go to work a little for Brazil. Production is our solution,” he said, extending his hand.
“I’ll stay here and think a bit for Brazil. What good is production without ideology? Both things must go together.”
When he was just a couple of steps away, he turned around and said:
“In an article a few days ago, you called ‘toads’ the bourgeois who drive by yelling insults at your young people. You called them leftists. Nothing will stop me from giving your boys a piece of my mind when they put me in a bad mood with their standards, capes, and smiles.” And he smiled.
