By EBERVAL GADELHA FIGUEIREDO JÚNIOR*
Wide sectors of Brazilian society have an almost unhealthy relationship with American politics
Joe Biden's decision to give up his reelection bid and the subsequent rise of Kamala Harris as the Democratic Party's most likely new presidential candidate in the upcoming US elections provoked a whirlwind of reactions around the world, including in Brazil. It is extremely important to recognize that some of these reactions, especially among sectors of the Brazilian progressive left, demonstrate an almost obsessive fixation with the North American political scene.
Wide sectors of Brazilian society have an almost unhealthy relationship with American politics. There is a tendency to overvalue US political events as if they were direct determinants of the political and social reality in Brazil. Events and dynamics internal to Brazilian politics are often reduced to allegories or imitations[1] of supposed American correlates, such as the recent insinuation of José Luiz Datena's withdrawal from his candidacy in the São Paulo municipal elections, which predictably involved an allusion (one could say obligatory) to the American president's gesture. “If Biden can give up, why can’t I?”[2]
Perhaps the most ridiculous manifestation of this phenomenon is the passionate support for candidate X or Y in elections in which they don't even vote. With the recent turnaround in the Democratic candidacy, this has occurred in the form of support for Kamala Harris by sectors of the Brazilian progressive left (let's not touch on the subject of Kamala Harris' numerous defects, which have already been discussed on the Internet ad nauseam even before Biden withdrew, and which are not the focus of this article).[3]
There is talk, for example, of a supposed responsibility or global mission to defeat Donald Trump, as if this belonged to or concerned people with voting domiciles in places like Colatina, who have not even decided their votes in the next municipal elections.
This fixation can be explained in terms of the curious and eclectic concept of American tax system, developed by Yuen Foong Khong.[4] This is a reference to Chinese history, specifically to the tribute system that peaked in the Ming dynasty (册封体制 Cèfēng tǐzhì), configuring a model of international relations in which the Emperor of China was a monarch of universal jurisdiction, and it was up to other rulers to recognize his precedence and superiority through the offering of literal and symbolic tributes.
Just as the Chinese court and Confucian bureaucrats classified foreign nations into “civilized” and “uncivilized” based on their level of integration into the China-centered international system, American neoconservatives nestled in the State Department do the same. Just as the Emperor of China was called the “Son of Heaven”, the President of the United States is called the “Leader of the Free World™”, a world that doesn't have much of anything free: it is just a system of literal tributes and symbolic centered in the United States.[5]
But any insinuation that the world works like this is considered paranoid, when made by ordinary citizens like me or most readers, or as outrageous, when made by important people, like the time Emmanuel Macron said that “being an ally does not mean being vassal” of the United States.[6] Now, in principle, Emmanuel Macron's speech was nothing more than the affirmation of a self-evident truth: an ally is not a vassal. But then why the outrage?
Ultimately, the concept suggests that American politics and culture are the symbolic epicenter of a global order, influencing and shaping the political dynamics of other countries, often in ways that do not even make sense from an internal and/or pragmatic point of view. This often occurs through the erroneous, often unconscious, identification with the American as a kind of “universal subject”, almost like a delusional civic attachment to a foreign nation. This is how, for example, Brazilian right-wingers appear complaining about immigration, as if the issue had any relevance here, or seeing China as a “hostile nation”.
Similarly, we have the reaction of Brazilian internet users to the tensions resulting from the assassination of Iranian general Qassem Soleimani in an attack ordered by Donald Trump in early 2020, fearing a “Third World War” and asking the Iranians not to attack Brazil. The Iranians, in turn, simply found the Brazilian stance comical and unusual, an anecdote worthy of the news.[7] After all, why would Iran retaliate against a US attack by invading Codó in Maranhão? To this day, we don't know.
Symptomatic of this malady is precisely the way in which American domestic politics takes on a global character. No other country has a political process as spectacular as the United States. More than that, in a kind of forced empathy, foreign spectators enter the character of American citizens, following the process as if the interests of the American voter were the same as theirs. There will be those who accuse me of lacking empathy, and to that I respond: sometimes there must be limits to compassion. The average American voter certainly doesn't lose sleep thinking about my well-being or my country's internal politics.
It is clear that completely ignoring the global importance of events such as the attack on Donald Trump or Joe Biden's withdrawal and the rise of Kamala Harris would be naive and reckless. Such events, however, must be interpreted and responded to in other ways, not as has been done. Even the relative pragmatism of rooting for the American candidate who most favors Brazilian domestic policy in some aspect, whether in electoral terms or in terms of customs (or any other factor that does not directly concern foreign policy), also configures, in its own right, own way, a genuflection, tacit acknowledgment of vassalage.
In practical terms, American politics has much less direct influence on Brazilian internal affairs than is commonly imagined. Thus, Brazilian policy must be designed and developed based on its own needs and contexts, not in mere response or reaction to US internal dynamics. Excessive focus on North American events distracts us from our own specific, urgent issues.
Brazil must cultivate a more autonomous approach focused on its own realities, thus strengthening its political identity and its ability to deal with its internal challenges. Symbolic dependence on the USA weakens Brazilian political identity (see strange and lazy comparisons such as “Trump is the American Bolsonaro”, “Hillary is the American Dilma” and vice versa), limiting the potential development of creative solutions endemic to the national problems.
That is why it is crucial that the Brazilian imagination begins to symbolically detach itself from American politics. This decoupling does not mean ignoring international events, but rather establishing an analytical and political independence that allows for a more autonomous understanding of the Brazilian and global reality.
*Eberval Gadelha Figueiredo Jr. holds a degree in Law from USP.
Notes
[1] It is clear that there are instances in Brazil and the rest of the world that in fact constitute narrow-minded imitations of American phenomena, such as our January 8th, clearly inspired by their January 6th that occurred two years earlier (no matter how much our institutions responded better to the challenge).
[2] Datena's statement was widely reported: https://www.cnnbrasil.com.br/eleicoes/datena-sobre-candidatura-se-biden-pode-desistir-por-que-nao-posso/; https://www.cartacapital.com.br/cartaexpressa/se-biden-pode-desistir-por-que-eu-nao-diz-datena-sobre-candidatura-em-sp/; https://www.infomoney.com.br/politica/datena-se-o-biden-pode-desistir-a-qualquer-momento-por-que-eu-nao-posso/.
[3] I am referring here mainly to the deleted tweet by journalist Cynara Menezes: https://www.bnews.com.br/noticias/politica/axe-kamala-brasileiros-fazem-piada-apos-postagem-polemica-de-jornalista.html.
[4] For more information, see: Khong, Yuen Foong (2013). “The American Tax System”. The Chinese Journal of International Politics. 6 ( two:10.1093/cjip/pot002.
[5] It is notable that the comparison between the current international order centered on the United States and the tribute system of imperial China was made explicitly by none other than the inveterate neoconservative Henry Kissinger, when questioning the naturalness of equilibrium paradigms of power in international relations, such as the Westphalian one (he even states that a system of this type never existed in the Western Hemisphere, revealing his ignorance, among other matters, of Mesoamerican history): KISSINGER, H. Diplomacy. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1994. p. 21.
[6] Emmanuel Macron's statement, made in the context of the dispute over Taiwan, was also widely reported: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-65258129; https://www.lepoint.fr/monde/propos-sur-taiwan-emmanuel-macron-assume-12-04-2023-2516118_24.php/; https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/04/25/france-macron-europe-defense-us/.
[7] Incident reported in: https://extra.globo.com/tv-e-lazer/memes-de-brasileiros-sobre-terceira-guerra-mundial-viram-noticia-em-site-iraniano-24172461.html; https://gauchazh.clicrbs.com.br/cultura-e-lazer/noticia/2020/01/memes-brasileiros-viram-noticia-na-tv-iraniana-ck54acacm024p01odciuqxxyg.html;https://revistaforum.com.br/blogs/segunda-tela/2020/1/6/memes-brasileiros-vo-parar-em-tv-iraniana-66935.html.
the earth is round there is thanks to our readers and supporters.
Help us keep this idea going.
CONTRIBUTE
