Why Foreign Commentators Keep Getting Brazil Wrong

Hey everyone,

I pushed this article out on Linkedin the other day about the Brazil elections last Sunday, and it’s been fairly well received so I’ve decided to push out via my newsletter list as well. I know we have a lot of Brazilians and Brazil-interested readers on this list so hopefully you find my point of view helpful.

-AWS

By this point, you have surely heard — and will continue to hear — a lot of bad, uninformed takes about the Brazilian elections.

Too much foreign commentary on Brazil starts from the assumption that Lula deserves to win, then works backwards to explain what is wrong with the people who disagree.

After another strong showing by the Bolsonaro movement, we can expect plenty more talk about failing democracy, the plight of the Amazon, Trump/US imperial ambitions in Latin America, Chinese influence, etc: familiar subjects that completely leave the Brazilian voter out of the picture.

Having spent a significant amount of time in Brazil in recent years, I think this is a remarkably poor (and neocolonialist) way to understand the country.

The Bolsonaro right wing put forth a historic showing in Sunday’s elections. There is no rationalizing this away by arguing that Flavio Bolsonaro was the least bad of two bad options — a common talking point we saw from mainstream foreign commentators before and after the election.

To understand Brazil, you need to accept the simple fact that — in spite of all its flaws – the Bolsonaro movement is, in fact, highly popular. Observers should take that popularity seriously instead of treating it as an embarrassing mistake Brazilians keep making.

Start with something basic. People want to afford groceries, pay their bills and leave their home without worrying about being assaulted and having their phone stolen. Those simple concerns deserve far more attention than they get from commentators who would rather discuss what a Brazilian election means for their preferred global cause. These voters do not resonate with many of the “luxury beliefs” held by the foreign pundit class.

Similarly, Lula understood the importance of material improvement during his first two terms. His government helped millions escape poverty. Communities that had spent years being completely ignored finally felt someone was paying attention. He earned a great deal of loyalty that persists to this day, and dismissing that loyalty is just as foolish as dismissing the appeal of the right.

ChatGPT is insanely powerful.

But most people waste 90% of its potential by using it like Google.

These 1,000+ proven ChatGPT prompts fix that and help you work 10X faster.

Sign up for Superhuman AI and get:

Claim your free prompts

There is also a parallel with part of Trump's appeal in 2016. Voters who feel continuously ignored will put up with a lot of nonsense from someone they believe actually notices them and might improve their lives. Listing that person's flaws usually gets you less far than understanding why the flaws haven't put those voters off.

In my conversations with Lula supporters, corruption concerns aren't some devastating revelation waiting to change their minds. Everybody in Brazil understands that politicians are self-serving. Voters acknowledge that and vote for the candidate that they expect will personally benefit them the most. That is a practical calculation.

The saintly, progressive luminary version of Lula that circulates abroad bears little resemblance to the case his own supporters make for voting for him.

But the new-car smell is gone. Lula's first two terms ended in 2010. The memory of a better life and Brazil’s emergence as a BRICS power twenty years ago cannot indefinitely substitute for making life better now. Voters are entitled to ask what they are getting today, however much that irritates people still emotionally invested in his earlier successes.

This is where the insistence that Brazil's economy is doing well becomes so unhelpful. Growth, employment and real earnings have improved. An incumbent can point to those numbers, but he cannot expect them to settle the argument for a middle class family whose income disappears into bills and debt repayments.

An August survey found that 29.9% of families had overdue bills; 12.5% said they couldn't pay their arrears. Online betting sites have ravaged household finances. The majority of the country is struggling just to get by. Lecturing these people about GDP growth doesn't make their overdue bills disappear.

Still, some analysts sound genuinely baffled by an electorate they claim to understand.

The same goes for safety. You don't get to decide that someone's fear of being robbed is politically unsophisticated because you'd prefer them to vote on climate policy. Anyone serious about understanding the right's appeal should begin by taking those everyday concerns seriously.

While it’s a convenient lifeline, reaching for Trump or some other foreign villain to blame for supposedly duping Brazilians into voting for the wrong candidate isn’t going to work. Whatever role outside actors play, they cannot substitute for an explanation of why Brazilian voters find this movement appealing. Brazilians have their own interests, frustrations and political agency.

Even if Lula pulls an upset in the October 25 runoff election, millions of Bolsonaro voters will still be here afterward. If your analysis depends on them eventually realizing they should share your politics, Brazil is going to keep disappointing you.