“Toads,” the Epic, and the Operetta – Folha de S. Paulo, September 20, 1970

by Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira

A large part of the Brazilian public’s support for the TFP has been demonstrated again during our young and admirable volunteers’ campaign in the country’s major cities.

The eloquence of numbers.

In eight days, 4,319 copies of Fábio Vidigal Xavier da Silveira’s successful book were sold through editions by Catolicismo and Editora Vera Cruz. Around 325,000 copies of the article-manifesto I published in Folha de S. Paulo, titled “The Whole Truth About the Elections in Chile,” were distributed separately during the same period.

Don’t assume these figures come from automatic or meaningless acceptance. Debates on the streets are intense. In fact, wealthy “toads” and communists disliked the campaign. The most organized response came from the “toads.” With a surprisingly uniform attitude, like a slogan, these bourgeois, well-established in life, pass by TFP members and volunteers without noticing or hearing them. With eyes fixed on a distant point, faces subtly frowning, steps quickening, they don’t even nod in response to my friend Fabio’s best-seller offer, nor open their hands to accept my article.

The “toads” irritation is understandable. For them, private property is simply a fact of life, something to enjoy like a piece of fruit or a cigar. For the TFP, however, it is an ideal, a moral principle, a commandment of God’s Law, an essential condition for the Christian ordering of things. Pleasure-seekers who pursue prestige, power, or other delights have never felt comfortable alongside those who act purely out of idealism.

I see many “toads” jumping up in anger: “So, am I, who works from sunrise to sunset for the country’s development, a mere fun-seeker?” Slow down, I reply to my objector. I do not deny that your work benefits the country. Essentially, the TFP fights so you can freely develop it and prevent your company from becoming an indolent and moldy public office.

It remains true, my dear “toad,” that your work benefits both our country and your own pocket. I’m not criticizing you for this. It would be foolish to view proportional and legitimate individual profit as harmful to the common good. But compare your respectable and profitable position with the enthusiasm of these young people with empty pockets who fight for property and still go home with empty pockets. Isn’t it true they are performing a heroic act, an epic?

These young people, who live solely for the ideal, have been touched by the words of Our Lord Jesus Christ: “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.”

Do you revile young TFP volunteers so much because they think this way?

* * *

While “toads” and street communists act this way, young people whom the progressive clergy have turned into fanatics try to interrupt our work with countless little questions, objections, and jabs. Some even resort to violence. For instance, in Porto Alegre, a potential murderer threw a cobblestone at us but cowardly remained anonymous.

* * *

Opposition comes at us from both extremes with frowns, sarcasm, tricks, and stones. No arguments.

To the best of my knowledge, there’s only one exception on the “toad” side. When passing by and hearing our volunteers, the “toads” invariably responded with an admirably unintelligent objection: “This is Chile’s business and does not concern Brazil.” As if a fire in my neighbor’s house or an epidemic in my neighborhood weren’t domestic issues!

Left-leaning passers-by have offered another argument: the Chilean Christian Democrat Party participated in the elections with a platform similar to Allende’s. Therefore, its voters are as Marxist as those of Allende’s party. And since the combined votes of Christian Democrats and Socialists form a majority, most Chileans are Marxists. This is exactly the opposite of what I said.

The answer is simple. Similar programs are not identical, and those sharing some features with Marxism cannot simply be called Marxist.

Furthermore, party programs have little decisive influence on South American elections. For example, in Brazil, how many voters are genuinely familiar with ARENA or MDB platforms and consider them when voting?

This is especially true when voting for the Christian Democratic Party. Most voters whom progressive priests encourage to support left-wing candidates are not young people participating in protests but loyal parishioners who blindly accept what the priest says and dismiss as slanderous the claim that there are communist priests.

This, which is evident, refutes the claim that Tomic and Allende’s Pedecista voters are all Marxists or sympathetic to Marxism.

* * *

In any case, these facts show that the opposition was active in the streets, and the acceptance of TFP’s book and manifesto was met with friendly anticipation and genuine interest.

In line with what’s happening among us, the TFP campaign is spreading successfully throughout almost all of Latin America.

In Chile, the Christian Democratic Party, which holds the key vote for ratification in Parliament, has stated that it wants to negotiate with Allende, not Alessandri. This is not real negotiation but capitulation. Those who say they will vote for Allende are not negotiating but surrendering even before the Marxists accept their terms.

* * *

Someone might ask, but didn’t Allende win?

We have already analyzed the inconsistency of his victory. Astonishingly, some journalists continue to speak of Allende’s “triumph” even after the TFP manifesto clarifies the facts. Is a 1% win really a triumph?

Furthermore, what does that 1% truly signify, given the recent news of over 500,000 abstentions and blank votes?

* * *

This week’s news also revealed an interesting fact: Allende was defeated in the electoral districts where Frei’s land reform was carried out. In other words, the people tried it and didn’t like it.

* * *

Another interesting fact: Instead of holding a rally, Allende turned his victory celebration into a fun fair, with booths, regional dances, and more. This reflected his fear that a strictly partisan and ideological event would draw far fewer people, exposing the lack of ideological unity among his supporters.

* * *

That’s it for today, as we wait to see what the Christian Democratic Party will do when Congress chooses between the candidate who “won” by 1% and the one who was “defeated” by that pyrrhic margin.