Breaking Out of the Vacuum – Folha de S. Paulo, November 5, 1972

 

by Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira

 

It seems that the possibility of a political ‘reopening’ in Brazil is taking shape again.

This naturally raises a question. The current order of things arose from the need to contain the rising tide of communism. If, after almost ten years of a special regime, the Brazilian people were asked to declare themselves for or against communism, which way would they lean?

I have no doubts in this regard. I believe the overwhelming majority of our electorate would vote to maintain the current state of affairs.

In fact, I do not see any possibility of a reactionary or leftist movement achieving an electoral majority in today’s Brazil. Reactionaries or leftists could possibly bring together tiny minorities that are significant for their enthusiasm or capacity for action. However, I do not see in the immense majority bloc the slightest tendency to be divided by the attraction of these opposing minorities. It is conservative and wants the current order as it is.

Of course, in human life—considered both individually and politically—nothing is absolutely stable. Therefore, I do not believe that the majority of the country is conservative in the strictest sense of the word, that is, that it desires total immobility. Everything that lives moves, and everything that moves has a direction. Thus, within the broad conservative center, there are tendencies to the right, just as there are to the left. But such tendencies, paradoxical as they may be, are not centripetal.

Let me explain. The right-wing conservative does not want the center to become right-wing. He only wants to give his centrist position a right-wing tinge. As for the left-wing conservative, he also does not want the center to move to the left. He is content to give his centrist position a left-wing color.

Of course, in the vast conservative majority I describe here, I do not include crypto-centrist leftists, that is, Christian Democrats, progressives, and many others whom the public imagines to be centrists because they are bourgeois and comfortably settled in life. Such elements are leftists and should be included on the left. Incidentally, they are few in number, so their expression in the present context is almost irrelevant.

The reality described above is clearly true, whether one likes it or not.

* * *

Based on the description, let us proceed to the commentary.

First, it is essential to emphasize that our conservatism is merely a national reflection of an international phenomenon.

Never before has communist propaganda been so astute, ingenious, and agile on a global scale. Never before has it failed so spectacularly.

One example is the failure of the massive guerrilla wave launched from Cuba across our entire continent. It lacked nothing in terms of money, weapons, and propaganda. The very organs of bourgeois society gave prominence to the myth of the heroic guerrilla fighter who risks his life to rally hungry masses to destroy inequalities. Nevertheless, the guerrillas died not because they lacked bourgeois support but because they lacked the masses’ solidarity. The most recent proof of this is the Tupamaros’ electoral failure in Uruguay.

Another failure of communism is the decline of Christian Democracy.

With the partial exception of the German party, Christian Democracy functions worldwide as a waterslide that aids the spread of communism. In some places, it has completely discredited itself in this regard. Consider the sad situation of Frei in Chile. In others, its decline has reached such a point that it no longer deceives or attracts anyone and is seen by all for what it is: an insignificant auxiliary line of Marxism.

In Italy, the majority of the electorate initially trusted the Christian Democrats. However, as suspicions grew that the party was merely a mechanism for draining the center to the left, it had to make a pirouette to the right. To avoid losing power, the CDP now governs Italy in a centrist manner, naturally on the lookout for the first opportunity to favor communism again.

I mentioned Chile in passing. In this regard, I cannot help but recall the enormous upheavals the country is experiencing in response to Allende’s policies, a clear manifestation of the Marxist government’s failure to win public support.

Finally, Pravda’s candidate for the US presidency—Richard Nixon—will certainly be re-elected. But this will not happen because the communists want it; it will happen because he has found ways to present himself in his country as a conservative. His victory will be a great conservative victory!

Thus, a wave of conservatism sweeps the world, and Brazilian conservatism is a local expression of global conservatism.

Is this ideological conservatism? Does this conservative avalanche stem from the strength of the principles on which current institutions are based?

I don’t think so. We are witnessing a phenomenon that is more psychological than ideological. The West has already experienced tremendous upheavals this century. There is a widespread belief that further upheavals could be fatal. For this reason, the vast majority of people want security above all else. They don’t want reforms or adventures. It’s better to stop.

* * *

What baffles me is that, both in Europe and America (where, incidentally, Canadian conservatives have just won the elections), almost the entire establishment seems to ignore this weakness of leftism and this strength of conservatism. With the exception of Nixon, almost all politicians act as if public opinion were leaning to the left and that the key to electoral success for any candidate were to create the illusion of moving at a greater or lesser speed down the road to socialism. The vast majority of politicians are obsessed with old myths: the working class is leftist, young people are leftist, and Catholics in general are leftist. This is because politicians commonly take union leaders as authentic expressions of the working class; they also take a handful of rebellious young people as if they represented all youth, and a few Comblins as if they were spokespeople for all Catholics.

Many people in the major Brazilian political parties fell into this trap. This is why conservatives, seeing them not as a bulwark against bedlam, watched the 1964 political changes with obvious sympathy.

If Brazil returns to full democratic normality, I wonder whether our politicians will understand the great lesson of the facts and, from now on, behave as resolute representatives of a declaredly conservative people. Or whether, on the contrary, they will fail to overcome the magic of old myths and will once again flaunt fictitious leftist sentiments to prepare for illusory electoral triumphs.

They may regain their prestige if they have the wisdom to avoid repeating past mistakes.

But if they court leftist minorities from the very first moments of political euphoria, they will fall back into the void. Into this terrible void from which they are struggling so hard to escape.