Um presidente mentiroso que quebra o seu próprio recorde de mentiras: quem seria?

Bem, pelo menos começaremos o ano com o presidente contado 0 km de mentiras. Vamos seguir para fazer como o Washington Post em relação ao super-hiper-mega mentiroso do Trump: ele consegue contar 15 mentiras POR DIA.
Nunca antes na história daquele país, o cargo de presidente tinha descido tão baixo na escala da mentira, das falcatruas, das manipulações, dos exageros, das trapaças deliberadas, um caso patológico, sem nenhuma dúvida.
Vamos criar um mentirômetro similar para o caso do Brasil...
Paulo Roberto de Almeida
Tubarão, 31/12/2018

A year of unprecedented deception: Trump averaged 15 false claims a day in 2018

Glenn Kessler

The Washington Post, December 31, 2018

President Trump’s year of lies, false statements and misleading claims started with some morning tweets.

Over a couple of hours on Jan. 2, Trump made false claims about three of his favorite targets — Iran, the New York Times and Hillary Clinton. He also took credit for the “best and safest year on record” for commercial aviation, even though there had been no commercial plane crashes in the United States since 2009 and, in any case, the president has little to do with ensuring the safety of commercial aviation.

The fusillade of tweets was the start of a year of unprecedented deception during which Trump became increasingly unmoored from the truth. When 2018 began, the president had made 1,989 false and misleading claims, according to The Fact Checker’s database, which tracks every suspect statement uttered by the president. By the end of the year, Trump had accumulated more than 7,600 untruths during his presidency — averaging more than 15 erroneous claims a day during 2018, almost triple the rate from the year before.

Even as Trump’s fact-free statements proliferate, there is growing evidence that his approach is failing.

Fewer than 3 in 10 Americans believe many of his most-common false statements, according to a Fact Checker poll conducted this month. Only among a pool of strong Trump approvers — about 1 in 6 adults in the survey — did large majorities accept several, though not all, of his falsehoods as true.

Similarly, a November Quinnipiac poll found 58 percent of voters saying Trump wasn’t honest, compared with just 36 percent who said he was honest. The same poll found 50 percent saying he is “less honest” than most previous presidents, tying his own record for the highest share of registered voters saying so in Quinnipiac polling.

“When before have we seen a president so indifferent to the distinction between truth and falsehood, or so eager to blur that distinction?” presidential historian Michael R. Beschloss said of Trump in 2018.

Beschloss noted that the U.S. Constitution set very few guidelines in this regard because the expectation was that the first president would be George Washington and he would set the tone for the office. “What is it that schoolchildren are taught about George Washington? That he never told a lie,” the historian said. “That is a bedrock expectation of a president by Americans.”

President Trump speaks at a roundtable in the Roosevelt Room of the White House on Dec. 18, 2018 in Washington. (Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post)

Trump began 2018 on a similar pace as last year. Through May, he generally averaged about 200 to 250 false claims a month. But his rate suddenly exploded in June, when he topped 500 falsehoods, as he appeared to shift to campaign mode. He uttered almost 500 more in both July and August, almost 600 in September, more than 1,200 in October and almost 900 in November. In December, Trump drifted back to the mid-200s.

Trump’s midsummer acceleration came as the White House stopped having regular press briefings and the primary voice in the administration was Trump, who met repeatedly with reporters, held events, staged rallies and tweeted constantly.

Trump is among the more loquacious of recent presidents, according to Martha Kumar, professor emerita at Towson University, who has kept track of every presidential interaction with the media, dating to Ronald Reagan. Through Dec. 20, Trump held 323 short question-and-answer sessions with reporters, second only to Bill Clinton through the first 23 months, and granted 196 interviews, second to Barack Obama.

More than a quarter of Trump’s claims were made during campaign rallies. On Nov. 5, the day before the midterm elections, for instance, Trump held three rallies, yielding a total of 139 false or misleading claims. A review of every statement made by Trump at two of his earlier 2018 rallies found that he exaggerated or made up at least 70 percent of his assertions.

Almost as many false claims came during remarks at press events, and about 17 percent were the result of his itchy Twitter finger.

The president misled Americans about issues big and small. He told lies about payments that his now-convicted attorney says Trump authorized to silence women alleging affairs with him. He routinely exaggerates his accomplishments, such as claiming that he passed the biggest tax cut ever, presided over the best economy in history, scored massive deals for jobs with Saudi Arabia and all but solved the North Korea nuclear crisis.

He attacks his perceived enemies with abandon, falsely accusing Clinton of colluding with the Russians, former FBI Director James B. Comey of leaking classified information and Democrats of seeking to let undocumented immigrants swamp the U.S. borders.

The president often makes statements that are disconnected from his policies. He said his administration did not have a family separation policy on the border, when it did. Then he said the policy was required because of existing laws, when it was not.

The president also simply invents faux facts. He repeatedly said U.S. Steel is building six to eight new steel plants, but that’s not true. He said that as president, Obama gave citizenship to 2,500 Iranians during the nuclear-deal negotiations, but that’s false. Over and over, Trump claimed that the Uzbekistan-born man who in 2017 was accused of killing eight people with a pickup truck in New York brought two dozen relatives to the United States through “chain migration.” The real number is zero.

President Trump answers questions as he walks to board Marine One at the White House on Nov. 20, 2018. (Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post)

In one of his more preposterous statements of 2018, Trump labeled the Palm Beach Post as “fake news” for blaming him for traffic jams across the nation — when an article about the effect of low gas prices on driving habits never mentioned his name.

Sometimes, Trump simply attempts to create his own reality.

When leaders attending the U.N. General Assembly burst into laughter when Trump uttered a favorite false claim — that his administration had accomplished more in less than two years than “almost any administration in the history of our country” — the president was visibly startled and remarked that he “didn’t expect that reaction.” But then he later falsely insisted to reporters that the boast “was meant to get some laughter.”

In an October interview with the Wall Street Journal, Trump emphatically denied he had imposed many tariffs. “I mean, other than some tariffs on steel — which is actually small, what do we have? . . . Where do we have tariffs? We don’t have tariffs anywhere,” he insisted. The newspaper responded by printing a list of $305 billion worth of tariffs on many types of U.S. imports.

Trump exaggerates when the facts are on his side.

He routinely touts a job-growth number that dates from his election, not when he took office, thus inflating it by 600,000 jobs. And although there’s no question Trump can draw supporters to his rallies by the thousands, he often claims pumped-up numbers that have no basis in fact. At a Tampa rally, he declared that “thousands of people” who could not get in were watching outside on a “tremendous movie screen.” Neither a crowd of that size nor the movie screen existed.

The president even includes references to The Fact Checker in his dubious remarks.

On Oct. 18, in Missoula, Mont., Trump falsely said that no one challenges his description of the Democrats as the party of crime. “Democrats have become the party of crime. It’s true. Who would believe you could say that and nobody even challenges it. Nobody’s ever challenged it,” he said.

But then he had an unusual moment of doubt. “Maybe they have. Who knows? I have to always say that, because then they’ll say they did actually challenge it, and they’ll put like — then they’ll say he gets a Pinocchio.”

Meg Kelly and Salvador Rizzo contributed to this report.

Futuro chanceler: perto de Trump e longe da China - Lu Aiko Otta (OESP)

Futuro chanceler está perto de Trump e longe da China

Escolhido para chefiar Itamaraty diz que mudança climática é uma trama marxista para favorecer País asiático

Lu Aiko Otta, O Estado de S.Paulo 

16 Novembro 2018 | 05h00

O futuro chanceler brasileiro, o embaixador Ernesto Fraga Araújo, de 51 anos, acredita que a mudança climática é um dogma científico influenciado por uma cultura marxista que quer atrapalhar o ocidente e favorecer a China. “Esse dogma vem servindo para justificar o aumento do poder regulador dos Estados sobre a economia e o poder das instituições internacionais sobre os Estados nacionais e suas populações, bem como para sufocar o crescimento econômico nos países capitalistas democráticos e favorecer o crescimento da China”. 

A tese publicada em seu blog, o Metapolítica 17, no último dia 12 de outubro, revela a aversão à esquerda do futuro ministro das Relações Exteriores. Em ensaios e artigos, Ernesto Araújo coloca a China como um inimigo do desenvolvimento do Ocidente. Ele afirma que o “globalismo” tem entre seus projetos “transferir o poder econômico” do Ocidente para o País asiático e que esse movimento era algo que o presidente dos Estados Unidos, Donald Trump, estaria tentando evitar. 

O “globalismo”, diz o futuro chanceler, “surgiu quando alguém entendeu que o consumismo era o melhor caminho para o comunismo” e a ideia de um mundo onde não haveria fronteiras para o comércio e o investimento avançou para um mundo no qual os países não têm mais identidade. “É a globalização econômica que passou a ser pilotada pelo marxismo cultural”. 

O futuro chanceler afirma que o “marxismo cultural” estaria transformando os seres humanos em uma “paçoca maleável” incapaz de assumir um papel social ou ter ideias “que não sejam os chavões politicamente corretos veiculados na mídia”. Esse processo estaria enfraquecendo o Ocidente não do ponto de vista econômico ou militar, mas do ponto de vista da identidade, do “espírito”. Por isso, ele afirma que o “globalismo” é “anti-humano” e “anticristão”. 

Em artigo publicado na revista do Instituto de Pesquisas de Relações Internacionais (Ipri), ele sustenta que Trump é um raro líder que identificou o processo de decadência do Ocidente e decidiu reagir. É nesse contexto que Trump estaria travando sua guerra contra a China. 

A China, diz ele num post, está até hoje sob um sistema de dominação “disfarçado de pragmatismo e abertura econômica”. Em outro post, ele menciona o maoísmo. “Haddad é o poste de Lula. Lula é o poste de Maduro, atual gestor do projeto bolivariano. Maduro é o poste de Chávez. Chávez era o poste do Socialismo do Século XXI de Laclau. Laclau e todo o marxismo disfarçado de pós-marxismo é o poste do maoísmo. O maoísmo é o poste do inferno. Bela linha de transmissão”, escreveu. Ernesto Laclau era um teórico político argentino identificado como “pós-marxista” que viveu entre 1935 e 2014. 

No artigo, Araújo diz que, além de uma política externa, o Brasil precisa de uma metapolítica externa, “para que possamos situar-nos e atuar naquele plano cultural-espiritual em que, muito mais do que no plano do comércio ou da estratégia político-militar, estão-se definindo os destinos do mundo.” 

O quanto das ideias de Araújo será transferido para a prática da política externa brasileira ainda não se sabe. A sua escolha não foi propriamente uma surpresa no Itamaraty, já que ele era cotado há várias semanas para o cargo. Mas avaliava-se que, pelo fato de ser um diplomata recém-promovido a embaixador, ele deveria perder o posto para algum colega mais experiente e ocupar alguma outra posição na equipe do presidente eleito. 

A ruptura dessa lógica causou mal-estar e preocupação. Porém, os diplomatas são treinados para seguir instruções com um rigor semelhante ao dos militares. Até para proteger a instituição, o sentimento predominante é o de “dar uma força” ao jovem chanceler. 

Procurado, Araújo não se manifestou. As assessorias do Itamaraty e da equipe de transição informaram que, por ora, ele não concederá entrevistas.

Grande Guerra (1914-18) e as pequenas guerras contra Trump (2017-18)

Macron’s pyrrhic victory over Trump

BY ISHAAN THAROOR

The Washington Post, November 12, 2018

It was another embarrassing European visit for President Trump, who traveled to Paris on Friday for ceremonies marking the 100th anniversary of the end of World War I. It might have been an easy opportunity to mend fences and honor the sacrifices of Washington’s traditional allies. Instead, Trump only underscored the widening gulf between the United States and its European partners.

Before he even landed, Trump provoked controversy by attacking French President Emmanuel Macron over comments Macron made on international security.

Then, on Saturday, Trump skipped a planned visit to the Aisne-Marne American Cemetery, which honors U.S. soldiers killed in the Battle of Belleau Wood — because of rain in Paris. The decision sparked a furious reaction from American commentators and observers elsewhere, who believed the inclement weather should not have stopped Trump from doing his duty. A host of other leaders and dignitaries, including Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, braved the elements to pay their respects.

“Rain was a regular feature on the Western Front,” quipped Tobias Ellwood, a conservative British parliamentarian and the country’s minister for veterans, in a tweet. “Thankfully it did not prevent our brave heroes from doing their job.”

On Sunday, Trump — as well as Russian President Vladimir Putin — skipped a procession of dozens of world leaders, who walked together down the Champs-Elysees toward the Arc de Triomphe. The symbolism was not lost on the watching press. Then, by that famous monument, Macron delivered a pointed rebuke of Trump’s “America First” agenda.

“Nationalism is a betrayal of patriotism,” Macron said. “By putting our own interests first, with no regard for others, we erase the very thing that a nation holds dearest, and the thing that keeps it alive: its moral values.”

Whatever “bromance” once existed between Trump and his French counterpart has long faded, no matter a few polite tweets shared this weekend. Trump withdrew from both the Paris climate accord and the Iranian nuclear deal, ignoring Macron’s efforts to persuade him otherwise. He has cheered the rise of right-wing populists throughout Europe, including domestic rivals of Macron. Meanwhile, the French president has consciously styled himself in opposition to Trump.

“I think [Macron] has shed any illusion about Trump that flattering him will be a way of getting concessions,” said Thomas Wright of the Brookings Institution to The Post. “But he is hesitant to push back hard because he’s not sure what that will get him. It’s cautious realism.”

In an interview with CNN’s Fareed Zakaria, Macron insisted that his beliefs are not those of the jet-setting “globalist” caricature evoked by Trump and his far-right counterparts in Europe, but are instead those of a pragmatic internationalist aware of the shared challenges facing world leaders.

“I would say I’m a patriot. I do believe in the fact that our people are very important and having French people is different from German people. ... But I’m not a nationalist,” Macron said. “I’m a strong believer in cooperation between the different peoples, and I’m a strong believer of the fact that this cooperation is good for everybody, where the nationalists are sometimes much more based on a unilateral approach and the law of the strongest, which is not my case. That’s probably our difference.”

In that belief, Macron is joined by German Chancellor Angela Merkel — arguably the most important establishment figure in Europe but a diminished leader now clearly in the twilight of her career. “It’s easy to destroy institutions, but it’s incredibly difficult to build them,” Merkel said on Sunday, once more defending the post-World War II international order that has guaranteed much of Europe decades of peace and prosperity.

On Saturday, Macron and Merkel went to Compiègne, where the armistice that ended World War I was signed — and where Hitler compelled France’s surrender in 1940. At a site of national victory and defeat for both countries, they rallied for unity.

But such an emotional scene may not quite reflect the spirit of the present. Like Macron, Merkel has warned of Europe’s need to strengthen itself collectively in the face of an unreliable America. Yet both leaders face stiff political tests at home.

Macron’s approval ratings slumped to record lows in recent months. A poll last week placed Macron’s centrist ruling party behind the French far-right ahead of next year’s elections for the European Parliament. And Merkel’s announcement that she will not seek reelection as German chancellor was seen as a mark of the waning clout of liberal centrism on the continent.

As both the far-right and the left gather strength, European leaders are struggling to find common ground on issues ranging from monetary policy to immigration and how to confront the Kremlin.

“Europeans are too deeply divided among themselves — and on the fundamentals,” said Dominique Moïsi, a foreign policy analyst at the Institut Montaigne in Paris and former Macron campaign adviser, to my colleague James McAuley. “He’s weakened by the fact that he’s orphaned by Merkel and he’s weakened inside by the spectacular fall of his popularity.”

These divides — and his own domestic travails — hobble Macron’s attempts at global leadership, analysts suggest. “There is a clear north-south division over the euro crisis and an east-west division over migration and Russia,” said Mark Leonard of the European Council on Foreign Relations to The Post. “You also have highly polarized societies in most member states, and that does mean that having a single leader of Europe is kind of utopian at the moment.”

As part of the pleasantries of the visit, Macron declared his “great solidarity” with Trump. But the true bond they share may simply be that of presidents fighting uphill battles.

Fernando Gabeira, entre o identitários e o universal na política (OESP)

Artigo desta sexta-feira, 2/11/2018 de Fernando Gabeira no Estadão. Ele sublinha possíveis similaridades entre a vitória de Trump nos EUA e a de Bolsonaro no Brasil, como tendo origem no esquecimento, pelos partidos "progressistas, do homem comum, em benefício das minorias estridentes e reivindicantes.
Eu já tinha sublinhado isso, embora rapidamente, numa das minhas postagens. O cidadão comum ficou esquecido, durante anos, na propaganda e nas políticas dos companheiros, preocupados em defender e promover as minorias: mulheres (que não são minoria, mas são "oprimidas"), negros, gays, e vários outros grupos que se sentem merecedores de "direitos", que podem acabar virando privilégios, como cotas e programas especiais, com o dinheiro de todo mundo.
Em 1932, no meio da Depressão americana, Franklin Roosevelt, impulsionado por um assessor, também começou a falar do "Forgotten Man", os esquecidos da grande tragédia que foi a crise seguida da depressão econômica.
Acho que foi mais ou menos isso que ocorreu com Bolsonaro: ele falou para o homem "esquecido", o desprezado nas propagandas (geralmente mentirosas) e nas políticas (equivocadas) do PT.
Deu no que deu. O homem esquecido deu o troco, e o PT perdeu muito mais do que aparentam os 47 milhões de votos. Grande parte desses votos, que não são do PT, ainda sofreram o efeito de sua propaganda viciosa, viciada, deformada, mistificadora, sobre a "ameaça do fasismo", o "retorno à ditadura", a misoginia, o racismo, e outras bobagens, das quais não escaparam sequer os grandes jornais estrangeiros, convertidos involuntariamente em "mortadelas internacionais" do PT.
Pois bem, acho que pouco a pouca a visão correta das coisas vai se impor.
Gabeira ajuda nessa tarefa.
Paulo Roberto de Almeida
Brasília, 2/11/2018

Sonhos e realidade

Associação entre o PT e as minorias trouxe para elas a desconfiança do homem comum

Fernando Gabeira

O Estado de S. Paulo, 2/11/2018

A vitória de Bolsonaro não é idêntica à de Trump. Mas antes e depois das duas eleições há pontos de contato. Não servem para explicar tudo, mas ajudam. 

Um dos livros em que encontro as semelhanças é de Mark Lilla, uma crítica aos liberais com um subtítulo interessante: Depois das políticas de identidade. A julgar pelo livro de Lilla (The Once and Future Liberal: After Identity Politics), a vitória de Trump suscitou o mesmo movimento nos EUA e no Brasil: resistência. Lilla põe essa palavra entre aspas, pois significa uma oposição a tudo o que Trump representa, sem ainda uma visão clara de futuro. 

A vitória de uma figura controvertida acabou despertando nos EUA uma grande solidariedade entre os derrotados, campanhas, marchas, abaixo-assinados. Mas ainda são raras aqui, no Brasil, onde Bolsonaro acaba de vencer, as visões críticas do período que abriu o caminho para que ele triunfasse. 

Lilla fala no descaminho dos democratas por se terem fixado nas políticas identitárias: mulheres, homossexuais, indígenas e negros. Não que seja contra essas lutas. 

Sua análise da campanha republicana mostra que na maior parte do tempo ela se fixava em temas nacionais, que interessam a todos. O exame do site democrata, no entanto, revela grande peso às lutas fragmentárias, que interessam a setores bem específicos do eleitorado. 

Lilla considera um erro a fixação nas lutas identitárias porque elas afastam um pouco as pessoas dos temas mais amplos, que envolvem o bem comum. As pessoas mergulhadas nessas lutas têm tendência menor a defender temas nacionais, sair para uma conversa nas ruas sobre o que ele chama o bem comum. 

Coincidência ou não, eu já tinha manifestado em artigos a mesma reserva quanto ao alcance das lutas identitárias na eleição brasileira. Também na minha crítica ressaltava a ausência da ênfase no bem comum, só que nos meus textos não usava essa expressão, mas a adesão a um projeto nacional. 

Num artigo afirmava que as lutas que ainda chamam das minorias tendem a criar a necessária solidariedade de grupo, regras e objetivos próprios. Mas ela se dá em oposição a uma sociedade que ainda não reconhece esses direitos. 

Torna-se muito difícil conversar com o homem comum, encontrar um assunto que mobilize todos, e não apenas alguns setores da sociedade. No caso brasileiro, os três grandes temas nacionais em jogo passaram um pouco ao largo das forças de esquerda. Um deles era a corrupção. A esquerda o subestima de modo geral e o escamoteia especificamente quando o PT é o maior acusado. 

Um segundo grande tema nacional foi a segurança. A visão clássica e tradicional da esquerda é condicioná-la à melhoria das condições econômicas, da educação, da renda. Como a expectativa é de respostas em curto prazo, o discurso cai no vazio e é facilmente ironizado. 

Um terceiro tema, mais intelectualizado, foi a discussão sobre o tamanho e o papel do Estado na economia. Também aí a perspectiva privatizante pareceu mais atraente. E não só pela teoria. As manifestações de 2013, em parte, revelaram a precariedade dos serviços públicos. 

A corrupção também passou a ser uma chave para explicar o fracasso do governo. Tenho a impressão de que é a conversa na rua quando não se tem nada a dizer sobre aqueles temas. 

Uma das características da luta identitária é a autoexpressão: sou gay, negro ou indígena e tenho orgulho de minha condição. Isso é irretocável na posição pessoal. No entanto, Lilla observa em seu livro que numa campanha eleitoral não é a autoexpressão que conta, mas a persuasão. 

O exemplo que usa para definir o comportamento dos liberais nos EUA talvez seja aplicado também à esquerda brasileira. Lilla compara as eleições à pesca. É preciso acordar cedo e pescar até tarde, lá onde o peixe existe, e não onde você gostaria que estivesse. Se o peixe morde a isca e se debate, dê linha e espere que se acalme. 

Mas, para o escritor, os liberais ficaram na praia discorrendo sobre os problemas do mar, sobre a necessidade de a vida aquática abrir mão de seus privilégios. Tudo na esperança de os peixes confessarem coletivamente seus pecados e nadarem mansamente para ser pescados. Se esse é o seu enfoque da pesca, lembra Lilla, o melhor é se tornar vegetariano. 

Nesta altura, não se podem comparar totalmente as táticas. No caso brasileiro, se, de um lado, a luta identitária pode ter dificultado um pouco a conquista da maioria, o caminho eleitoral das minorias acabou comprometendo o seu futuro. Isso simplesmente porque no tema central, a corrupção, o PT, embora não seja o único, é o maior acusado. A associação entre o partido e as minorias acabou trazendo para elas também a desconfiança do homem comum. 

Não sei ainda como as coisas se vão recompor. Se as lideranças minoritárias fizerem uma análise do que se passou, creio que um dos seus passos será libertar-se de governos. Para isso é preciso ter uma nova visão da importância dos recursos materiais na política. O período que se encerra foi marcado por campanhas milionárias. O PT venceu com uma em 2002 e não reaprendeu o caminho da austeridade. 

A vitória de Bolsonaro, a julgar pela de Trump, deve suscitar um grande movimento, que até lembrou aos liberais americanos que eles têm mais energia do que suspeitavam. 

Aqui, no Brasil, enquanto estiverem gravitando em torno de um partido acusado de corrupção, os simpatizantes da esquerda podem até descobrir uma energia insuspeitada. No entanto, a chance de essa energia se dissolver em vão é muito grande, sobretudo se as pessoas não pararem um segundo para pensar, achando que o momento é como a Quarta-Feira de Cinzas em Salvador, onde todos saem às ruas cantando e dançando as mesmas músicas do carnaval que passou. 

Faria bem um tempo de reflexão, estudos e debates. Foi tudo tão rápido e, para alguns, tão surpreendente que, a rigor, nem o governo nem a oposição sabem precisamente o que fazer. 

JORNALISTA

Eleicoes no Brasil = eleicoes nos EUA? Isso pode ser muito preocupante... - Annabelle Timsit (Quartz)

Quartz, Nova Iorque- 27.9.2018

Brazil’s presidential election is so crazy that it’s even drawing comparisons to the US

Annabelle Timsit

Faced with two bad choices, people often go for the lesser of two evils. But Brazil’s voters are so unhappy with their options in this year’s presidential election that they may opt out entirely.

On Oct. 7, more than 147 million Brazilian people will be eligible to vote in the first round of state and federal elections. (In the likely event of a second round, the next vote is set for Oct. 28.) The two presidential frontrunners are Jair Bolsonaro, a far-right, evangelical politician and member of the Social Liberal Party (PSL), and Fernando Haddad, the former mayor of São Paulo and a member of the center-left Workers’ Party (PT).

The choice is less than thrilling for a lot of Brazilian citizens: The Financial Times reports that 11% of voters plan to vote null or blank—the highest figure in 16 years—and another 5% are undecided.

High voter abstention rates are not unusual in Brazil, according to Anthony Pereira, director of King College’s Brazil Institute in London. He says there’s a much bigger problem with this election, one that will sound familiar to many Americans: Whatever its outcome, a large part of the population is going to hate their president from the get-go.

Bolsonaro, the far-right candidate, has been called the Brazilian Donald Trump. Much like Trump, he markets himself as an “authentic” candidate and a straight talker who refuses to bend to political correctness, while critics accuse him of misogyny, homophobia, racism, and xenophobia. And much like Trump, political analysts see Bolsonaro as a symptom of his country’s deepening democratic crisis. Much of his popular success is owed to the corruption scandals that have plagued the Brazilian government in recent years as well as its recent recession, the worst in the country’s history.

Bolsonaro’ candidacy is evidence of the rise of an ideological right in a country that has long gone without one. ”You’ve got a campaign that’s about God, and patriotism, and guns–all the kind of stuff we’re used to seeing in the Tea Party in the US—that’s coming into Brazilian politics now,” says Pereira.

But while many Brazilians are loathe to vote for Bolsonaro, some say the other top candidate is no better.Fernando Haddad, the former minister of education and mayor of São Paulo, suffers from his association with the Workers Party (PT) and its former leader, Lula Da Silva, who is currently serving a 12-year sentence for corruption and money laundering. “Some people fear that, if Haddad wins, he could pardon Lula, or he could lead some attempts for the PT to get revenge,” says Pereira, “because they have this discourse of the impeachment of 2016 having been a coup … and there may be some fear that they would try to settle scores.”

Pereira warns that if voters are left with a choice between a far-right extremist and a man seen as a symbol of establishment-sanctioned corruption, Brazilian democracy may suffer: ”Even if people vote, and if we have the second round that everyone is predicting now … you’re going to have up to a third, maybe a slightly larger, portion of theelectorate that doesn’t accept the election of one of these two candidates.”

Given the tight poll numbers, if even some voters who would normally vote for the center-left Haddad decide to abstain in order to protest their choices, that could swing the election in favor of Bolsonaro. The Economist rather dramatically declared earlier this month, “Bolsonaro, whose middle name is Messias, or ‘Messiah,’ promises salvation; in fact, he is a menace to Brazil and to Latin America.”

Helsinki meeting Putin-Trump: establishment americano estarrecido

O Belfer Center da Universidade de Harvard dedicou todo o seu boletim desta quinta-feira ao mais "extraordinário" encontro jamais protagonizado por um "presidente" (sorry pelas aspas) americano, em toda a história da república americana.
Paulo Roberto de Almeida 

Russian President Vladimir Putin, right, gestures while speaking as U.S. President Donald Trump, left, looks on during their joint news conference at the Presidential Palace in Helsinki, Finland. (Pablo Martinez Monsivais/AP)

Assessing the Helsinki Summit

Ash Carter joins with other Belfer Center experts in commenting on the significance and fallout of the Trump-Putin summit. Read more »

Announcements Michael B. Greenwald Named Fellow at Harvard Kennedy School’s Belfer Center » Midterm Campaigns Get Timely Cybersecurity Training in New Belfer Center Video »

The Helsinki Summit Beyond (T)reason? Graham Allison | TV Interview | RT   Ein PR-Erfolg für beide Seiten (in German) Cathryn Clüver Ashbrook | Interview | Deutschlandfunk Nova   Trump's Refusal to Criticize Russian DNC Involvement 'Extremely Negative' Nicholas Burns | TV Interview | CNBC More from Nicholas Burns: US-Russia Relations: Here's What's at Stake | CNBC I Think Trump 'Walked Into a Russian Trap this Morning' | CNBC Trump Picks Putin | Atlantic Council In Helsinki, Trump Takes ‘Do No Harm’ Approach to Russia on 2 Issues: Syria and Energy Nikolas K. Gvosdev | Op-ed | Russia Matters   "Who Do You Believe?" A Reporter Asked Trump. His Answer Was Stunning. David Ignatius | Op-ed | The Washington Post   Former Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz Reacts to President Trump’s Remarks in Helsinki Ernest Moniz | TV Interview | MSNBC Andrea Mitchell Reports   "Difficult for Any Progress to be Made" Rolf Mowatt-Larssen | Op-ed | CNN Anderson Cooper 360˚ More from Rolf Mowatt-Larssen: Helsinki Summit: A Time for Choosing—Three Observations by Former Senior CIA Officer | Just Security Confronted With Evidence of Russian Hacking, Trump Reverts to Conspiracy David E. Sanger | Op-ed | The New York Times   Mike Rogers, Former House Intel Committee Chairman, On Trump-Putin Mike Rogers | Radio Interview | NPR Morning Edition   What Can We Expect From the Trump-Putin Summit? Russia Matters Experts | Round-up | Russia Matters More from Russia Matters: Trump on Russia: In His Own Words | Russia Matters Trump Wouldn’t Owe Putin a ‘Thank You’ for Selling More Oil Meghan L. O'Sullivan | Op-ed | Bloomberg Opinion   Trump and Putin Face an Urgent Arms Control Deadline in Helsinki Gary Samore and Alex O'Neill | Op-ed | The Boston Globe   Why Trump Is Getting Away With Foreign-Policy Insanity Stephen M. Walt | Op-ed | Foreign Policy

More Analysis & Opinion President Trump Launches Diplomatic Warfare with America’s Closest Allies Nicholas Burns | Radio Interview | WNYC More from Nicholas Burns on NATO: Trump's NATO Spray Playing to Supporters at Home | ABC AM How Trump’s Turbulent Europe Trip Affects his Putin Meeting | PBS NewsHour Former U.S. Amb. To NATO Discusses America's Place In The Alliance | NPR All Things Considered Putin Is Running a Destructive Cybercrime Syndicate Out of Russia  John P. Carlin | Op-ed | The New York Times More from John P. Carlin: Mueller's Former Chief of Staff Responds to Indictment of 12 Russian Officers | CNBC Job One for Space Force: Space Asset Cybersecurity Gregory Falco | Report | Belfer Center   Trump's Mayhem Allows Putin's Russia to Take Over the Middle East, One Country at a Time Chuck Freilich | Op-ed | Haaretz   Combating Information Operations Simon Jones | Paper | Belfer Center   How Russia is Trying to Disrupt the 2018 Election Juliette Kayyem | TV Interview | PBS NewsHour More from Juliette Kayyem: Post-Helsinki, All Eyes Are On Robert Mueller's Russia Investigation | WGBH Boston Public Radio Story of Trump-Russia Investigation Hasn't Changed | CNN Tonight Trump has Undermined NATO | CNN Outfront The Sobering Reasons Congress Must Step Up on Arms Control Martin B. Malin | Op-ed | The Hill   The Secret Service Protects Candidates Physically. Why not Digitally? Robby Mook | Op-ed | The Washington Post   Military Alliances like NATO "Are at Risk" James "Sandy" Winnefeld | Interview | CBS Intelligence Matters

Quote of the Week “In my almost four decades with national defense starting in the Pentagon under Ronald Reagan, I never saw or imagined so uneven a handover of American security interests and principles with nothing in return at a meeting.  It was like watching the destruction of a cathedral.” - Ash Carter on the Helsinki Summit