Steady Course, on the Ship of Indecision – Folha de S. Paulo, July 26, 1970

by Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira

In my latest article, I examined the psychology of a Pedecista [member of the Christian Democrat Party]. However, I did not reach the end of this vast and complex subject because the core traits of Pedecista psychology stem from a fundamental and chronic indecision in temperament and intellectual disposition. Nothing is more complex than indecision.

So, let us delve into the subject.

First, I want to clarify that I am not referring to any specific Pedecista. This analysis would lose all its interest if limited to a single individual. I describe Pedecistas in general, highlighting a few psychological traits they all share that make them a spiritual movement or family of souls, even before being a political movement, as they are. Therefore, what I write here about Pedecistas applies immediately to those in Brazil but would be similarly relevant to those in Ibero-America or Europe. I only exclude, to some extent, the Christian Democrats of Germany from this picture. I believe it is unnecessary to add that, in describing the psychology of Pedecistas in general, I am aware that some do not fit this pattern. As is well known, large communities always include individuals who deviate from the main rule.

* * *

A fundamental lack of energy to choose is what makes a Pedecista indecisive.

From the start, we all bear the heavy weight of a division within our souls. This fundamental split shapes our times of change, crisis, and tragedy. We hold within us the remnants of two thousand years of Christian tradition, struggling with five hundred years of religious, moral, cultural, political, social, and economic turmoil. This crisis has grown more severe from Luther to today through the French Revolution. Its most intense expression is seen in the opposition between Catholicism and communism.

Feeling this intense division within themselves, coherent individuals recognize the need to resolve their internal tension through a logical solution. If the truth lies with communism, it must be accepted and followed to its ultimate logical consequences. If the truth is with the Catholic Religion, it must be embraced and followed to its ultimate logical consequences.

Faced with the need to make this fundamental and complete choice, which clearly requires a long and careful inner effort, some souls shudder and pull back. This pullback involves a refusal to explore deeply the issues, recognize today’s major ideological crisis, and take a stand by supporting one of the two opposing banners.

There are many reasons for this trembling, retreat, and refusal. Some have a basic dislike for certainties, instinctively preferring the vague, undefined, or approximate. Others avoid confrontation, finding it easier to live with uncertainty since certainties often lead to struggle. Still, others, with a frivolous and capricious nature, feel drawn to both Jesus Christ and Marx simultaneously. They don’t want to give up Jesus Christ when they support Marx, nor do they want to abandon Marx when they kneel before Jesus Christ.

Although these multiple factors are theoretically distinct, they are not mutually exclusive in practice and often accumulate. The result is a strong antipathy—or perhaps I should call it aggressive remorse—toward orderly, dynamic, and coherent minds, and a rejection of any entirely logical solution to current problems.

The key for this family of souls is that logic doesn’t mean finding a clear and consistent way to prove a truth, defend a good, refute an error, or punish an evil.

For them, the main goal is to find pretexts that “justify” their actions. They want to maintain the “status quo” between conflicting ideas and avoid struggle, conflict, and drama. Peace is what matters most.

They do not see peace as tranquility based on order and coherence. Instead, they view it as stagnation resulting from a compromise between irreconcilable ideas and the adoption of so-called “intermediate” programs aimed at pleasing everyone. This is as absurd as passengers on a stormy ship, who, disagreeing about the route to the port, agree on an intermediate course that everyone knows will lead nowhere. This comes from a fear of being direct, logical, argumentative, or making choices.

How would the passengers on that ship—let’s call it the ship of compromise—view the advocates of an objective and logical approach? They would surely label them as eggheads, foolish, fanatical, intransigent, and troublemakers who disrupt the overall harmony on board. Killjoys. How much more comfortable daily life would be without them on the ship of compromise!

This is exactly what a real Pedecista thinks of a TFP member: how easy daily life would be without these killjoys…

According to the mindset of these compromise-loving idolaters, solving the inner division of modern man and the conflicts it causes would be very simple: making agreements with communists, not with the uncompromising ones, of course, but with the accommodating ones. One would have to make some concessions to communism as long as it would not become full communism. For instance, immediately implementing a highly socialist and confiscatory land reform would calm the communists, put them to sleep, and protect urban and business property. This would bring a period of peace. When the communists woke up from their lethargy and made new demands, we would give in a little more, roughly half of what they asked for. A new period of lethargy would follow, and so on.

To these people, it doesn’t matter whether socialist and confiscatory land reform is fair or unfair or whether it promotes or hinders prosperity. These issues only concern “logical” minds. For the friends of lethargy, there is only one truly supreme value: preserving lethargy.

* * *

Is this really the Pedecista mentality, and therefore, that of progressives? Yes, definitely.

But not only that. Would the reader want proof? I ask: Does a Pedecista see the TFP the same way he views communism? Does he promote reconciliation, kindness, and compromise with us? Or, instead, does he attack us fiercely, constantly waging a guerrilla war filled with sarcasm, suspicion, and all sorts of nuisances caused by trivial reasons?

Let us examine this point further, as it will lead us to a curious conclusion about the true nature of a Pedecista’s indecision: It involves a profound, sometimes subconscious, decision to move toward the left.

In other words, we will see that the Pedecista’s initial hesitation leads him to a decision: to shift to the left without admitting it to others—and often not even to himself.

We’ll explore how this occurs in the upcoming article.