The Good Lad – Folha de S. Paulo, November 7, 1971
by Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira
A few days ago, I ran into a young man I know. Well, maybe not so young anymore, since he’s around thirty-five. Relaxed, athletic, cheerful, he shook my hand warmly. In his environment, everyone likes him with some enthusiasm because he is entertaining, and he always spreads optimism and good humor. He embodies what, in some environments, is known as the good fellow.
We were alone in the waiting room of a doctor’s office with nothing to say. Instinctively, we both stared at a newspaper on the table. A large headline announced the acceptance of Communist China into the UN and Taiwan’s expulsion. The “good fellow” chuckled happily and looked at me, seemingly expecting to see his own satisfaction reflected in my face. Masking my feelings, I asked him in a neutral tone, “So you like it?” He repeated his laugh and said, “The blow to old Chiang Kai-shek was a little strong. But I think everything will turn out fine in the end.”
I asked him why, and he explained: “Communist nations have so far been treated ineptly by the Western world. They have a questionable philosophy and way of life, with which I disagree, as I was educated in a different environment. But, anyway, that’s how they are over there. And they have the atomic bomb. The result is that we have to live with them, or risk having the atomic bomb dropped on our heads. So, we should have appeased them with well-studied concessions from the beginning to make them understand that we are brothers, and that between brothers, everything can be worked out. It wouldn’t take long before they would be inclined to a great general settlement.”
I kept a neutral expression as much as I could. I was curious to see how far the “good lad” would go. In a conciliatory tone, I wondered: “But the West also has nuclear weapons. Why aren’t the communists afraid of us? Why don’t they make concessions to us as well? Any policy of concessions must be based on reciprocity. And I don’t see that in them.”
The “good lad” had an answer on the tip of his tongue: “The core of my beliefs is that the Western world is cultured, civilized, and rich,” he explained. “The communist world is barbaric, poor, and rebellious. The barbarian does not know how to make concessions. It must begin on the civilized side. So it is up to us to give in, and give in a lot. The impact of major concessions will inevitably produce a great thaw in the minds of the communists. Negotiations will follow, and the world will have peace.”
The “good lad” had a friendly and confident air about him as he explained all this to me.
Remaining neutral, I asked:
But in the end, do you think these negotiations, bought at the cost of many concessions, will succeed? Couldn’t the neo-barbarians demand the impossible?
The “good lad” still had answers on the tip of his tongue: “Dr. Plinio, we must trust in the common sense and kindness of all people. Without this trust, the world becomes hell. It is more generous to admit that many concessions will move the communists. You are skeptical about negotiations. Everything is negotiable and fixable in this world. When one doesn’t want to, two don’t fight.”
However, some of his friendliness had faded because of my restrictions. A hint of insecurity was beginning to show in him. With the same kindliness, I asked, “Is it really true that everything in this world is negotiable? Should we give in if the neo-barbarians want to stop us from practicing our religion? Should we accept if they try to distort the natural order of things by destroying the family and private property? Should we agree if they open prisons and concentration camps everywhere to impose their unnatural regime? What if the communist regime causes the widespread misery that exists in Cuba and is spreading to Chile? Should we accept that, too? What other concessions do you imagine?”
Deeply shocked by my arguments, the “good lad” stammered, red in the face: “You’re a professor and much older than me. I’m not sure how to respond. But, after all, Richard Nixon, the 20th century’s greatest man, follows exactly the path I sympathize with. Analyze each of his actions, and you will see that they are only justified by the generous hope that the adversary will eventually be moved and accept a grand agreement. You cannot imagine understanding diplomacy better than the greatest man of our century.”
Cornered, the “good lad” shifted from logical reasoning to merely appealing to authority. At this point, his entire argument relied on a single point: Nixon’s “infallibility.”
I continued, gently: “But this ‘greatest man’ of our century didn’t always think that way. In previous election campaigns, he flaunted a militant anticommunism.” The “good fellow” said, “That’s true. However, he was defeated and realized he was wrong. His compatriots, the world’s leading people, showed him how to compromise. He accepted their philosophy and is now sailing smoothly toward a solution. Do you think Nixon is really that upset about that UN vote? No way! It relieved him of the responsibility for many concessions he wanted to make but didn’t dare to. Some say the UN vote has undermined the goals of his trip to Beijing and Moscow. I think the opposite. With this, the path has been smoothed, and he can go further than he wanted. It will be a total thaw.”
The “good lad” looked happy again. I asked him, “But then, what concessions would that be?” Enlightened like a prophet of optimism, he said, “Dr. Plinio, the world is moving toward convergence. We need to find a middle ground between our system and the communist one. There is no peace among those who are different. It only exists among those who are alike. Let us take a few steps, and they will meet us halfway, somewhere in a highly advanced socialism, with a very flexible and streamlined family structure. It will be a world of peace, built on the renunciation of all doctrines, ideologies, and rigid systems.” A spark of harshness cut through his joy, and a threat brutally emerged: “Everyone will have to conform, and those who do not will be crushed.”
My turn had arrived. I said to the “good lad”: “So far, I’ve let you talk nonstop. Since you’re enthusiastic about dialogue, let me speak for a few minutes.”
The “good lad” felt insulted when I argued against Nixon and him. He smoked nervously, pretending to pay more attention to the spirals of smoke he exhaled than to what I was saying.
“My ‘good lad,’ human society is like a living organism. Its stability relies on subtle yet powerful rules. To grasp these rules, philosophers, theologians, sociologists, and economists have devoted considerable effort throughout history. Organized into schools, they have spent centuries engaged in a debate that stands as one of the greatest achievements of the human mind.
“Among the various schools, we must choose the one that teaches the true natural order created by God. If we cannot find it, everything will fall apart. Returning to the comparison of society with a living body, a sick person who thought like you, placed between two doctors who disagree on the diagnosis of his illness, would dismiss both of them, saying they are just men of theory. He would look for “practical” solutions, mixing the medicines from both and taking them. That would be suicide. Wouldn’t such contempt for doctors seem more typical of an ignorant person, or even a barbarian, than of a civilized individual?
The “good lad” became furious: “Positively, Dr. Plinio, there is no possible agreement with you and your TFP people. The only remedy is to silence you. I don’t like doctrinaire and reasoning people. We are in the age of practical men, who solve everything by their daily experience.”
“My dear friend, that is exactly how a witch doctor views a scientist. You are ushering in the age of witch doctors. Forgive my bluntness. I’ll go even further: you are bringing about the era of barbarians. To declare logic outdated and thought abolished is to create among men a confusing existence, torn apart by mysterious and endless struggles driven by the savage rhythm of greed, resentment, and hatred that no one understands and therefore cannot stop.
“You think the barbarians are only on the other side. Now, look at yourself and those who think like you, and compare. The barbarians on the other side think wrongly. You and the barbarians on your side both believe that one should not think. Which are the most barbaric? You!
The “good lad” fell silent, and so did I. At that moment, an elderly lady appeared from the office, leaning on a beautiful, delicate cane. The doctor who accompanied her said, “It’s a matter of medical school. My colleague “X” follows a different path. You need to decide.” “I’ll pray and think about it,” said the old lady. “All my life, I’ve prayed and thought before making a decision, and it always worked.” The doctor smiled. “That’s why you’ve reached this age so strong…” I looked at the “good lad.” He kept smoking casually and nervously biting his nails.
