O que é este blog?

Este blog trata basicamente de ideias, se possível inteligentes, para pessoas inteligentes. Ele também se ocupa de ideias aplicadas à política, em especial à política econômica. Ele constitui uma tentativa de manter um pensamento crítico e independente sobre livros, sobre questões culturais em geral, focando numa discussão bem informada sobre temas de relações internacionais e de política externa do Brasil. Para meus livros e ensaios ver o website: www.pralmeida.org. Para a maior parte de meus textos, ver minha página na plataforma Academia.edu, link: https://itamaraty.academia.edu/PauloRobertodeAlmeida.

quinta-feira, 14 de novembro de 2024

What Trump unleashed means for America - Francis Fukuyama Financial Times

Meu comentário ao final. (PRA)

What Trump unleashed means for America

Republican is inaugurating a new era in US politics and perhaps for the world as a whole

Francis Fukuyama

Financial Times, November 8, 2024

 

The blowout victory of Donald Trump and the Republican party on Tuesday night will lead to major changes in important policy areas, from immigration to Ukraine. But the significance of the election extends way beyond these specific issues, and represents a decisive rejection by American voters of liberalism and the particular way that the understanding of a “free society” has evolved since the 1980s.

When Trump was first elected in 2016, it was easy to believe that this event was an aberration. He was running against a weak opponent who didn’t take him seriously, and in any case Trump didn’t win the popular vote. When Biden won the White House four years later, it seemed as if things had snapped back to normal after a disastrous one-term presidency.

Following Tuesday’s vote, it now seems that it was the Biden presidency that was the anomaly, and that Trump is inaugurating a new era in US politics and perhaps for the world as a whole. Americans were voting with full knowledge of who Trump was and what he represented. Not only did he win a majority of votes and is projected to take every single swing state, but the Republicans retook the Senate and look like holding on to the House of Representatives. Given their existing dominance of the Supreme Court, they are now set to hold all the major branches of government.

But what is the underlying nature of this new phase of American history?

Classical liberalism is a doctrine built around respect for the equal dignity of individuals through a rule of law that protects their rights, and through constitutional checks on the state’s ability to interfere with those rights. But over the past half century that basic impulse underwent two great distortions. The first was the rise of “neoliberalism”, an economic doctrine that sanctified markets and reduced the ability of governments to protect those hurt by economic change. The world got a lot richer in the aggregate, while the working class lost jobs and opportunity. Power shifted away from the places that hosted the original industrial revolution to Asia and other parts of the developing world.

The second distortion was the rise of identity politics or what one might call “woke liberalism”, in which progressive concern for the working class was replaced by targeted protections for a narrower set of marginalised groups: racial minorities, immigrants, sexual minorities and the like. State power was increasingly used not in the service of impartial justice, but rather to promote specific social outcomes for these groups.

The real question at this point is not the malignity of his intentions, but rather his ability to actually carry out what he threatens In the meantime, labour markets were shifting into an information economy. In a world in which most workers sat in front of a computer screen rather than lifted heavy objects off factory floors, women experienced a more equal footing. This transformed power within households and led to the perception of a seemingly constant celebration of female achievement.

The rise of these distorted understandings of liberalism drove a major shift in the social basis of political power. The working class felt that left wing political parties were no longer defending their interests, and began voting for parties of the right. Thus the Democrats lost touch with their working-class base and became a party dominated by educated urban professionals. The former chose to vote Republican. In Europe, Communist party voters in France and Italy defected to Marine Le Pen and Giorgia Meloni. All of these groups were unhappy with a free-trade system that eliminated their livelihoods even as it created a new class of super-rich, and were unhappy as well with progressive parties that seemingly cared more for foreigners and the environment than their own condition.

These big sociological changes were reflected in voting patterns on Tuesday. The Republican victory was built around white working-class voters, but Trump succeeded in peeling off significantly more Black and Hispanic working-class voters compared with the 2020 election. This was especially true of the male voters within these groups. For them, class mattered more than race or ethnicity. There is no particular reason why a working-class Latino, for example, should be particularly attracted to a woke liberalism that favours recent undocumented immigrants and focuses on advancing the interests of women. It is also clear that the vast majority of working-class voters simply did not care about the threat to the liberal order, both domestic and international, posed specifically by Trump. 


==========


Comentário PRA:


Eu não teria muito a comentar a respeito do artigo do Fukuyama, a não ser o fato de que, tendo sido escrito por um intelectual, ele se sente na obrigação de oferecer argumentos elegantes, baseados em conceitos da ciência política (liberalismo, democracia, etc.), ao que nada mais é do que reações prosaicas e muito ordinárias (ou seja comuns) de um eleitorado preocupado majoritariamente com sua situação conjuntural ou momentânea, assim como reações ou adesões a impulsos veiculados nas redes e na midia de baixa qualidade. 
No último meio século, ou mais, o eleitorado da Europa Ocidental e da América do Norte alterna regularmente entre partidos e políticas social-democratas de um lado e conservadoras, de outro, segundo a satisfação imediata decseus interesses os mais anódinos.
Os primeiros são mais generosos por certo tempo (salários, beneficios sociais, assistência, etc.), e acabam provocamdo inflação e crises fiscais. Os segundos entram, corrigem os malfeitos, depois o eleitorado se cansa da austeridade e volta a votar pela generosidade social-democrata. E assim segue.
Os eleitores trumpistas podem não ter votade PELO maluco negacionista e autoritário, e sim CONTRA o inflacionista e leniente com a ameaça imigratória, agitada fraudulentamente como a causa dis problemas atuais.

Não creio em nenhuma elaboração sofisticada para explicar o voto num desclassificado, a não ser a busca ingênua de um bode expiatório a problemas correntes.
Gostaria de complementar minhas observações, não necessariamente sobre o artigo de Fukuyama, escrito muito em cima da vitória do Trump, mas mais especificamente sobre o grau de divergência de Trump e de seu futuro governo com respeito ao que se poderia esperar de qualquer governo bizarro, para os padrões normais para a política americana.
Mas, meus comentários, acima, são excessivamente centrados sobre a alternância regular e esperada entre tendências partidárias conservadoras e mais progressistas na Europa e nos EUA, o que não é, nunca foi e provavelmente sequer será, a qualquer título, o caso de Trump e de seu governo, que rompe com qualquer norma de civilidade na política. 
Quando Fukuyama escreveu, ele ainda não tinha ideia de quais, quem seriam os designados por Trump para cargos estratégicos, o que se revela agora da pior qualidade possível, com consequências inimagináveis nas áreas de segurança e defesa, de justiça, de saúde, de energia, de meio ambiente, ou seja, praticamente tudo o que há de mais relevante num governo.
Trump rompe com todos os padrões aceitáveis de competência na nomeação de assessores,  e na adoção de políticas cooperativas em escala regional ou multilateral.
Creio que, como no caso do Bolsonaro no Brasil, nunca a política americana foi tão desafiada, em sua forma e no seu conteúdo. Sequer podemos imaginar uma continuidade desse tipo de administração em mais um mandato depois deste, o que aliás já foi cogitado por Trump.
Talvez Fukuyama escreva mais algum artigo, esperando as primeiras decisões de Trump na área da política externa. (PRA)

 

 



Nenhum comentário: