by Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira
I want to address, once again, the centrist mentality as it appears in Brazil today.
I’ve already briefly explained the reason for my particular interest in this subject in Monday’s article. I will repeat it here as an introduction.
In North America, the expression “decisive center” is used in a way that does not precisely align with what I will give it here.
By “Brazilian decisive center,” I mean a powerful, albeit undefined, current of opinion that, by disposition, spirit, and Weltanschauung, recognizes that the most pronounced differences of opinion and direction can be resolved through compromise—and since they can be resolved in this way, they should be.
Indeed, disagreements that go beyond a friendly exchange of ideas or even stimulating yet friendly competition wear down the centrist temperament.
Moreover, the centrist does not believe that implementing a program to its ultimate consequences is truly indispensable to the common good. To him, the country’s great national stability and natural opulence seem sufficient to move everything forward roughly with a generally sensible orientation, even if inconsistencies and errors may occur here and there. This is a luxury the country can afford.
According to our “decisive center,” for Brazil to continue, it will suffice to remain firm (though not necessarily consistent, as we said) in professing and practicing certain truths and norms.
I will mention a few. First and foremost, the Roman Catholic and Apostolic Faith. Then, the institution of the family and the continuity of the current order, provided that it is gradually improved through reforms that broaden the scope of its beneficiaries as much as possible without destroying or distorting it.
This conception makes the centrist prone to choosing eclectic paths that avoid conflict.
* * *
True centrism, as described above, in which I see no intransigence except in matters of national sovereignty, constitutes an enormous force in Brazil, to such an extent that it deserves to be called “decisive.” I emphasize that this unrivaled power derives not only from the fact that it includes people in whose hands lie the real levers of the country’s religious, intellectual, and economic life, but also from the vast number of Brazilians it encompasses.
Hence, the capital importance of this centrism in our panorama.
* * *
Naturally, this centrist position contains many truths, which, so to speak, are innate to our people’s privileged lucidity of thought and characteristic dexterity of action.
Obviously, I do not agree with everything. For example, I cannot imagine the Catholic religion being professed and practiced half-heartedly, with the laxity so often seen among us. But I will not go into details, as my opinion on centrism is of little importance in this article. I want to analyze national centrism as it is, not as it should be.
One can imagine various forms of centrism beyond this one, and I am well aware that they exist among us. They wield significant influence. However, even when combined, these forms do not add up to the “decisive center.”
What is the touchstone for assessing the centrist authenticity of one or the other? There are several. Perhaps the easiest to describe is the centrist’s attitude toward socialism.
The authentic and consistent centrist owes it to himself not to lean left or right. The inconsistent centrist leans toward the stronger side. The consistent centrist knows the strength of the center. The inconsistent centrist is unaware of it and lives in fear of being defeated by the extremist opponent he imagines to be stronger. The consistent centrist is not prone to concessions. For the inconsistent centrist, nothing is easier than giving in. “Give in some so as not to lose all” is his motto.
It follows that, for the consistent centrist, socialism is the dangerous slope down which the country can easily slide into communism. For the inconsistent centrist, socialism is precisely the middle ground on which he must stand to make concessions to communism, dampen its fervor, and prevent it from taking power.
In short, for the consistent centrist, anticommunism is antisocialism. For the inconsistent centrist, anticommunism is labeled socialism.
Well aware of the distinction between consistent and inconsistent centrism, I favor the former because it is consistent and antisocialist.
I want to mention an impressive fact that consistent centrists should cite in their arguments with inconsistent ones.
As is well known, France has one of the most powerful communist parties in Western Europe (can one correctly say that a cancer is powerful?). If the socialists, also very powerful in France, join forces with the communists in the 1978 elections, they will very likely win. This will spell disaster for Europe and the world.
According to news reports from France about two weeks ago, Socialist leaders Gaston Deferre and François Mitterrand told the press that the alliance between their party and the Communist Party is as solid as a death pact, valid for the elections and beyond. This remains true whether the CP-SP coalition wins or loses.
In other words, the socialists enthusiastically throw France into the jaws of communism.
In view of this, let the incoherent centrists respond:
Is socialism a barrier to communism or a waterslide toward it?
* * *
Summary:
What is the Brazilian “decisive center,” and why is it important? A coherent centrist is not prone to concessions, whereas an inconsistent one lives by “giving in some so as not to lose all.” Here is a fundamental question to distinguish one from the other: Is socialism a barrier to communism or a dangerous ramp toward it?