Successes of Conservative Centrism – Folha de S. Paulo, August 12, 1978
by Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira
Today, I continue to present significant symptoms of discontent in the US caused by President Carter’s leftist policies, as well as facts indicating the influence that conservative centrism has achieved in that country.
Expressions of discontent in the US and abroad with Carter’s conciliatory policy toward Communist Russia are not new. Back in April of this year, the well-known British newspaper, The Daily Express, published a remarkably lucid commentary on the subject that goes straight to the heart of the president’s diplomatic errors.
The Daily Express (April 21, 1978) wrote: “The great flaw in American policy is the assumption that by making concessions and seeking to please, it will win friends and allies.” The newspaper offers many examples of this and contrasts Carter’s approach with Russia’s, which “concedes nothing and always seeks to appear strong and ready to act.”
In my view, this fundamentally flawed approach can also explain subsequent American political missteps.
The article is titled: “The Weak Power of the US.”
Congressman Robert H. Michel accused the Carter administration of appointing an agitator to the board of ACTION, the federal social-service agency, which the appointee allegedly turned into a haven for radical leftists. Reporting on the controversy, prominent columnist Patrick J. Buchanan urged Congress to launch a special investigation (The Corpus Christi Caller-Times, March 29, 1978).
After months of a nationwide campaign, conservative groups that denounced federal “industrial inspection” laws as totalitarian won a major victory in the Supreme Court. Critics argued that these laws amounted to a kind of labor “Inquisition,” granting the federal government discretionary power to enter and investigate any workplace to assess conditions and safety. In Marshall v. Barlow’s, Inc. (1978), the Court ruled that such inspections may be conducted only with judicial authorization, as required by the Constitution (The Corpus Christi Caller-Times, May 24, 1978).
The conciliatory spirit displayed by the Carter administration in international affairs has also appeared in certain non-political domestic issues, which I now turn to. Supported by a current of advocacy dating back to the 1960s — described by The New York Times as “progressive” — legislation liberalizing abortion, advancing school desegregation, and promoting other social reforms has continued to expand. Among these measures, those concerning homosexuality have faced particularly strong resistance from the American conservative center, often with notable success.
In St. Paul, Minnesota, the city passed a law four years ago that prohibited the segregation of homosexuals in employment and housing. Conservatives presented a petition with enough voter signatures to call for a referendum on the matter. The election took place in a tense atmosphere, with supporters of the law shouting “fascists” at their opponents, who in turn called them what they deserved to be called: “perverts”! The result was decisively against the scandalously permissive law.
Previously, Miami voters had rejected a similar law by referendum. Similar referenda were scheduled in the municipalities of Seattle (Wash.), Eugene (OR), Wichita (KS), and St. Paul (MN). In California, a movement began to dismiss homosexual teachers.
This information was drawn from the April 30 edition of The New York Times.
The homosexual movement also suffered a defeat in the city of Wichita, where a law passed seven months ago that prohibited “discrimination” against homosexuals was now rejected by 47,000 votes to 10,000 (The New York Times, May 10, 1978).
After a lively campaign by civic and religious groups, the North Carolina State Assembly passed a law criminalizing sodomy. Pro-homosexuality organizations (!) appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that similar laws are in effect in thirty states. However, the Court refused to consider the appeal (The Review of the News, May 31, 1978).
If I were to list the achievements of the anti-abortion campaign in the US, I would probably need to ask Folha de São Paulo for a full page to cover the subject adequately. In the interest of brevity, I will limit myself to the following fact:
A protest march is held every year in the US on the anniversary of the day abortion was legalized in the country. According to Our Sunday Visitor of March 5, 1978, this year’s march was the largest ever, with more than 70,000 people arriving at the Capitol. Thousands of protesters entered the Capitol building, carrying armfuls of red roses symbolizing dead children. The protesters left the roses in the offices of pro-abortion members of Congress.
Such news is likely to “exorcise” the demon of pessimism among many Brazilian readers. They imagine that the march toward the abyss is irreversible in Brazil and the world, simply because it is driven by the prestigious winds of modernity.
In this case, for many people, “modernity” still means “Americanism.”
How wrong it is to view the United States as nothing more than a huge machine that drives disintegration and capitulation!
On the contrary, a healthy campaign is gaining broad support in the United States to reject all forms of permissiveness in both the political and moral spheres.
It would be desirable for the living forces of our nation to devote themselves, all together, to the same campaign.
But how dormant, apathetic, and fragmented are so many of the living, authentic forces in our country!
