By CHRISTIAN RIBEIRO*
Did you not notice the nationalist tone, with potential xenophobic bias, that the phrase “Brazil belongs to Brazilians” has?
1.
In times of systemic intolerance and the prevalence of an [ultra]conservative discourse in Brazil, which affects and reproduces itself as a social phenomenon from our most popular social classes, it is more than necessary that a government with progressive and social inclusion aspirations obtains means that directly engage with this population.
In this sense and from this perspective, seeking to establish new forms of dialogical insertions that respond to the ideological confrontation that is posed in the midst of the sets of social relations that constitute us as a contemporary society.
In short, it is up to the Lula 3 government to make itself understood, to be welcomed and to circulate among the most needy and marginalized populations. Who are today guided in the media and ideologically by more conservative, if not reactionary, sectors. Who are commonly guided by distortions of concrete data or by the creation and propagation of fake news. In a political interest to destabilize the federal government, not publicizing its social achievements, denying its virtues. Fixing it with the image of incompetence and unpreparedness to meet the demands of our country. Aiming at its electoral failure in the next presidential election.
This situation is evident due to the current administration's inability to achieve a positive evaluation that reaches one third of our population. In which the positive aspects achieved by government programs are not recognized even by their target audience. In which government communication was carried out in an archaic, traditional way and outside the dynamics of contemporary media interaction languages.
Always late in meeting its premise of establishing a reliable, fast, modern and direct public link. It is no coincidence that there was a change in the orientation and intention of the federal government's communication agenda.
To fill the gaps in dialogue already highlighted, as well as to seek to establish a dialogue with a more ideologically conservative public and – from the outset – resistant to any proposals or achievements that may arise from the Lula administration. Aiming to establish direct communication, eminently popular, easy to understand and share, quickly circulated and reproduced. Always expanding its informative reach. Thus breaking the defamatory and fallacious informative reactionism that blocks or distorts the access of socially peripheral populations to their own benefits and social rights.
2.
And here we come to the issue of the use of the blue cap, with its slogan “Brazil belongs to Brazilians”. As a form of acidic, biting parody, in the face of the supposed nationalist conservatives who are wearing the red cap of the Trumpist campaign.Make America Great Again”, as a symbol of a viral pride in subordinating itself to American supremacy before the world, including Brazil.
A testament to their intellectual and political mediocrity. And demonstrating and revealing this face of national conservatism is more than necessary and is part of a process of ideological dispute consistent with a class-based society. Even more so in one as tense as Brazil's!
The launch of the blue cap took place amidst the electoral rites for the presidencies of the Federal Chamber and the Senate. “Here, no one salutes the flag of another country. We value Brazil and Brazilians,” declared Alexandre Padilha, Minister of Institutional Relations. In a provocation that found an echo and showed that it had achieved its objective due to Eduardo Bolsonaro’s angry reaction to denouncing the use of anti-Trump caps by members of the Lula government.
This led to a wave of media coverage that even impacted the political debates taking place at the time. It even resonated with the most conservative populations, ideologically imbued with a biased and alienating nationalism. With an openly intolerant and xenophobic bias. An action intentionally carried out in a meticulous manner that exquisitely achieved its main objective of bursting the information bubble governed by reactionary electoral interests.
Thus, establishing communication through a discursive language that occurs from image references identified and accepted by the most conservative population spectrum of Brazilian society. It is through this logic of discursive communication that we point out disagreement and open divergence in relation to this political option of the current Lula government.
Highlighting that this disagreement is due to a progressive, ideologically left-wing bias, in the interest – and fear – of having the country once again guided by the dross of the fascist civilizing ideology and its naturalization of intolerance, prejudice and discrimination in which we have been immersed for a short time.
And although I recognize that such critical analysis has a provocative tone… I wonder…
Could it be that the only alternative for direct communication, and that can break through the dialogic barrier between the government actions of the current federal administration that do not reach our most popular classes, is to emulate and guide the everyday conservatism of these groups? In order to avoid a greater evil? Which would be a possible defeat in the next election, opening the country once again to the reactionary obscurantist rage?
3.
And in this sense, was the nationalist tone, with potential xenophobic, that the phrase “Brazil belongs to Brazilians” not perceived? Did no one really notice the prejudiced content inherent in this phrase? Do we always need to resort to nationalist tones, instead of contextualizing Brazilianness that is more inclusive and popular? Avoiding any and all comparisons to conservative or xenophobic extremism?
For example, having as its ideological basis the same discriminatory and racist logic employed by Donald Trump – whom the cap was intended to confront and unmask – who does not tolerate and much less respect coexistence with the “other”. Denying them any and all notions of humanity. Including expulsion or death from their land. Encouraging a praxis of supremacy that does not accept and respect the diversity of each person, of each people and culture, which makes us all, increasingly, human.
Is this the measure, is this the rule that will govern how the government will seek to establish dialogue with the most popular sectors of our society? Reproducing its alienating and discriminatory standards?
Instead of disputing discursive prevalence by demarcating its differences and ideological divergences with the opposing camp, in the sense of greater promulgation and circulation of its governmental goals and objectives for this term, without failing to highlight the works and achievements already carried out. It opts for a pragmatic, non-conflictive, conciliatory stance. So as not to further inflame the political tension in our society.
This was the choice, this is the bet! With the aim of a rapid improvement in the polls regarding the popularity of the Lula 3 government. With the expectation of a high popularity, with its equivalence in votes. Is this all we should, or do we have to, wait for until the next elections? To limit ourselves to tolerating and reproducing the conservative manifestations of our daily lives, of our day to day, so as not to radicalize the spirits. Thus ensuring an artificial harmony, in which the ideas and the political debate managed by the winds of progressivism, should no longer blow too strongly. So as not to hinder the greater good of institutional politics, to the detriment of the politics of praxis.
Historically, whenever progressive political forces have had to adapt their premises and aspirations to the detriment of their conservative counterparts, reactionism always comes out stronger in its reach and impact. While emancipatory political facets sometimes end up losing their identity.
Political pragmatism, guided by a utilitarian and results-oriented partisan logic, is the bureaucratic current that atrophies the historical processes of effective social transformation. Progressivism is unable to put its ideological premises into practice. Much less establish a dialogue that is satisfactory to the most conservative social field. As already mentioned, its existential and power-based logic is independent of any form of dialogue that progressive forces extend in its direction.
And a government, even if formed on the premise of a national front against fascism, but which has as its ideological and discursive basis being progressive, is a mistake, or at least a very dangerous move, this signaling to the other side of the force. It is worrying, almost desolating, this way of signaling the worst that we have among us, such as the intertwining of xenophobia and racism, as hope for new political breath in the current Lula administration. So much hatred faced, so much ignorance overcome, and now we are reverberating the precepts of this evil that never sleeps.
It is one thing to be intolerant of intolerant people, but quite another to believe that we can emulate prejudice and discrimination without losing our soul. Without forgetting who we really are!
There is no need to copy discourse, or discriminatory or prejudiced speech, to assert intentions or premises. Nor does it need to legitimize the inadmissible in order to seek to increase the influence of a discourse. There is no such thing as a lesser evil. It must always be combated in all its forms and expressions.
This does not prevent the government from seeking to establish a form, an image and discourse of Brazilianness, as an instrument of institutionalized dialogical communication. A logical precept, which is increasingly justified. But it cannot become hostage to a political pragmatism that always ends up leaving terrible marks on those who think they can tame the stormy and uncontrollable forces of reactionism to their own advantage.
4.
To be the protagonist of exchanging caps during official sessions of the Legislature, in order to gain more views and likes than your political rivals. As if this were the only answer to popularize government actions, is incredibly sad. Scenes of Dantesque melancholy. Is this how one intends to qualify the political debate?
We do not deny the complexities of Brazilian politics, nor the tangle of interests and tensions that develop daily in international geopolitics and of which Brazil is one of its prominent actors. Much less do we disregard the historical importance, even in a civilizing sense, that Lula's victory in 2022 represented. One of the most beautiful and important moments in our entire history.
We are also aware of the delicate political balancing act that this government must constantly play in order to avoid succumbing to the interests and predatory fury of an increasingly unscrupulous “political center.” In addition, it must also resist the visceral hatred of the destructive and vengeful electoral reactionism of Bolsonaro politicians. They are willing to destroy everything and everyone to ensure the failure of Lula’s third presidential term. A whole set of relationships that ultimately result in processes of political recompositions and rearrangements that are not to everyone’s liking, not even the federal government.
We recognize this reality, all of this. But even so, there are limits that should not be crossed. For these are paths of no return, cursed in their essence and direction.
Using a xenophobic slogan to then try to show relevance in the national political scene and at the same time establish a bridge for dialogue with our popular classes, including their most conservative sectors, is an example of how we can lose everything without necessarily gaining anything in return! The aim is to gain likes and visibility in a media dispute, to make the Bolsonaro opposition angry!
This is far from being political rhetoric, in fact – at best – it is a simplistic way of infantilizing the art of politics. And to have such a practice endorsed and applauded uncritically, as the response to our inability to dialogue with our most popular classes, is a very worrying sign, which should actually put us on alert.
And if this is the mediocrity we now have to wallow in to remain relevant in the current political scenario, perhaps it is a sign that we are already defeated before we realize it. So chained to our failures and soulless of any light. This, in itself, is the greatest confession of our failure! A foretaste of the misfortune that is already hanging over us.
And I truly believe that we can be more and better than that!
We don't need to be like our enemies and tormentors to make a difference in the world, to leave our mark!
Or to political pragmatism, anything goes and everything is possible?
A Brazil for everyone and by everyone, that is the goal! This is the discourse and practice that led to the defeat of the fascist Bolsonaro project in the last presidential elections. It is this that we must focus on and emphasize at all times and moments! Finding new forms of language and media circulation that make it reach an ever-increasing number of Brazilians.
The rest is reactionary discourse that yesterday, today and always we must fight, and never emulate or copy! For no justification or reason!
Much less for any blue cap.
*Christian Ribeiro it's dPhD student in Sociology at Unicamp.
the earth is round there is thanks to our readers and supporters.
Help us keep this idea going.
CONTRIBUTE
