Rumors and Misinformation

Subterms

    More stories

    • 125 Shares139 Views

      in Elections

      Republican Secretaries of State Walk a Minefield of Election Lies

      by

      FAYETTEVILLE, W.Va. — Standing before a dozen volunteer poll workers gathered in an old wood-paneled community auditorium that would soon be transformed into a polling place, Mac Warner invited his audience to look at his socks.They were stitched with the hashtag #TRUSTEDINFO2020: a souvenir of a campaign that Mr. Warner, West Virginia’s secretary of state since 2017, had waged with his fellow secretaries across the country before the last presidential election, an effort to raise awareness of disinformation efforts targeting voters.“Don’t get your information from Facebook,” he told the poll workers. “Don’t get it from Google. Don’t get it from social media. Get it from trusted sources.”A former officer in the Army with the Judge Advocate General’s Corps who has assisted government ministries running elections in Afghanistan, Mr. Warner earned the respect of his fellow secretaries of state — most of whom, like Mr. Warner, serve as the top election official in their states — in 2020 for his particular commitment to fighting misinformation and security threats at the ballot box.But some of them have been more reluctant to praise him since December 2020, when he climbed onstage at a rally outside the State Capitol in Charleston the month after Donald J. Trump lost the presidential election, holding up a sign that said “STOP THE STEAL.”“It’s so important to keep him in office,” Mr. Warner, speaking of Mr. Trump, told an interviewer from Right Side Broadcasting Network at the rally.Today, Mr. Warner walks a delicate line. He acknowledges that Joseph R. Biden Jr. “was elected,” in 2020, but questions whether the election was run fairly in some states. He has worked to debunk conspiracy theories about voting machines and laments the rise of fringe views within his party. But he also compares the voting rights bills congressional Democrats tried to pass this year to the foreign influence campaigns he fought in 2020, and he blames the Jan. 6 riot at the Capitol in part on the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear a long-shot challenge to the election from Texas’s attorney general, which he supported.“I believe that’s what spurred on the Jan. 6 people,” he said.In 40 states, secretaries serve as the chief elections officer, overseeing the voting process — a role that only rarely attracted attention until Mr. Trump and his allies, promoting a range of lies and conspiracy theories about his 2020 loss, thrust it into the center of partisan politics.Mr. Trump has continued to loudly blame his loss on secretaries of state in several states — most often Georgia, where Brad Raffensperger, a Republican, resisted Mr. Trump’s direct entreaties to overturn the election. A handful of secretary of state races have commanded national political attention and spending this year as Trump loyalists like Mark Finchem in Arizona and Kristina Karamo in Michigan have campaigned for the office on claims of the stolen election.“When I ran for this job in 2019, the first question I always got was, ‘What does your office do?’” said Michael Adams, the Republican secretary of state of Kentucky. “I don’t get that question anymore.”Testing voting machines in Fayette County in West Virginia. Voting machines are often a target of conspiracy theorists.Jeff Swensen for The New York TimesRegardless of how the most outspoken election deniers perform on Tuesday, the furious political climate has already transformed an office whose occupants have often prided themselves on their remove from partisan trench warfare. At a time when Republican and Democratic congressmen barely talk to each other, secretaries of state still speak with warmth about their colleagues from the other party. They socialize over cocktails at annual meetings and exchange text messages over election law cases they vigorously disagree about.But those relationships have been tested by the last two years, several secretaries of state said in interviews. Democrats have been offended by some Republicans’ sowing doubt without evidence about elections in other states. Republicans charge that Democrats have used Mr. Trump’s election lies as a pretext to paint legitimate conservative policy aims as threats to democracy.“It’s still a good working relationship,” said Steve Simon, Minnesota’s Democratic secretary of state. “But I would say it is fraught with the realities of what’s going on outside of us.”Secretaries of state, who are elected on party tickets in most of the country, have never been immune to partisan politics. Still, “as we were approaching Election Day” in 2020, said Maggie Toulouse Oliver, the Democratic secretary of state of New Mexico who at the time was the chairwoman of the national association, “we still felt very much on the same page.”But as Mr. Trump’s election claims persisted, fissures began to appear. Democrats were dismayed to see Mr. Warner and Jay Ashcroft, the Republican secretary of state of Missouri, speak at Stop the Steal rallies at their respective state capitols in late 2020.At a meeting of the National Association of Secretaries of State in August 2021, in response to a wave of highly partisan reviews billed as “audits” of the 2020 election results, a group of four Republican and four Democratic secretaries of state drew up a resolution setting clear standards for audits. The measure passed unanimously with the exceptions of Mr. Warner, who voted against it, and Mr. Ashcroft, who abstained, and shortly after that left the association entirely in protest of the measure, which he argues violated the group’s bylaws.Neither Mr. Warner nor Mr. Ashcroft directly claims that the election was stolen. Both have instead maintained that a significant number of ballots were cast “outside of the law” in key states on account of expansions in remote voting made in response to the Covid-19 pandemic, and that these issues have yet to be sufficiently settled in court.Although many legal challenges to the election were rejected by judges on the merits, others were dismissed on technical grounds. One postelection challenge, to the use of drop boxes for voting in Wisconsin, won in the state’s Supreme Court this year.Some Republican secretaries who stood by the outcome of the 2020 election have nevertheless given credence to lesser claims, directly or indirectly. Frank LaRose, the Republican secretary of state of Ohio, has publicly rebuked conspiracy theorists’ claims about the election in Ohio, but also raised questions about “things that happened in other states” in interviews. “Could it have changed the electoral count?” he said in an interview with The Columbus Dispatch in April. “Who knows.”In December, Louisiana’s Voting Systems Commission, a panel led by the Republican secretary of state Kyle Ardoin, invited Phil Waldron, a prominent election conspiracy theorist, to testify at a hearing. In January, Mr. Ardoin announced that Louisiana would no longer participate in the Electronic Registration Information Center, a cross-state information-sharing platform used to maintain voter rolls, which had lately become the subject of right-wing conspiracy theories.This has angered some Democratic secretaries of state, who note that election officials and often secretaries of state themselves have faced personal threats as a result of the conspiracy theories that their Republican counterparts have been reluctant to check.In October, a Nebraska man was sentenced to 18 months in prison for making threats against Jena Griswold, the Democratic secretary of state in Colorado, on social media.Colorado’s secretary of state, Jena Griswold, and her counterpart in Kentucky, Michael Adams, at a conference for secretaries of state this summer.Matthew Hinton/Associated PressBut some Democratic secretaries of state said they were sympathetic to the increasingly difficult position that colleagues like Mr. LaRose and Mr. Ardoin are in. Since last year, a grass-roots movement driven by right-wing conspiracy theories has put pressure on election officials, even those in deeply red states, to respond to convoluted claims of malfeasance.Mr. Adams of Kentucky and John Merrill, the Republican secretary of state of Alabama, have both been vilified by Mike Lindell, the MyPillow chief executive and influential election denier, over bogus claims of fraudulent votes in their states, both of which Mr. Trump won easily in 2020.In solidly Republican Montana, the state’s Republican secretary of state has had to fend off efforts to gain access to voting machines in several counties by activists and Republican state legislators who had attended an August 2021 conference hosted by Mr. Lindell.As recently as that August, “we didn’t really see election denialism happening in all 50 states,” Mr. Adams said, noting that it was limited to battlegrounds. Now, he said, “it’s gone everywhere.”Republican secretaries were also rattled this spring when Republican incumbents in South Dakota and Indiana lost primary elections to candidates who refuse to acknowledge Mr. Biden’s victory in the last election. Running to replace Barbara Cegavske, the term-limited Republican secretary of state of Nevada, is Jim Marchant, a member of the America First Secretary of State Coalition, a Trump-loyalist group funded by prominent election deniers. He is leading in the polls.Mr. Adams, who ran for office in 2019 on Republican priorities like strict voter I.D. laws and regular clearance of voter rolls, has found that his record on these issues counts for little with many in the crowds he now encounters at Republican events in his state, he said.“How do you reason with someone that really thinks that Venezuelan socialists are hacking into paper ballot counters that don’t have a modem?” said Mr. Adams, who is seeking re-election next year. “All I can do is just say all day, every day, that it’s not true. And just hope that I’ll survive.”Several secretaries of state said that, as the prospect of an election denier bloc emerging among their ranks drew closer to reality, it had drawn Democrats and Republicans closer together as they openly wondered what would become of their once-convivial interactions.“It may be very challenging to have some of these same conversations or bipartisan happy hours with people who are spewing nonsense about us or demonizing those of us who are not in their party,” said Shenna Bellows, Maine’s Democratic secretary of state.A preview of sorts was offered this July in Baton Rouge at the annual conference for the National Association of Secretaries of State. During a meeting there with federal cybersecurity officials, Cord Byrd, Florida’s newly appointed Republican secretary of state, launched into a speech condemning electronic voting, according to several people in attendance. (A spokesman for Mr. Byrd said this account was “unequivocally false.”)But the secretaries also took heart when Mr. Merrill, a generally Trump-friendly Republican, offered his own experience as an election observer in Russia as testimony that paper ballots were just as manipulable as electronic voting.Mr. Merrill is term-limited, and will be leaving his post this year. A spokeswoman for Wes Allen, the Republican running to replace him, said that Mr. Allen believed the 2020 election was “conducted in a safe and secure manner” in Alabama. Asked who Mr. Allen believed had won the 2020 election nationwide, she declined to answer. More

    • 63 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      America Can Stop Violent Extremism

      by

      Americans are right to be nervous about the coming midterm elections, and not only about the results. It will be the first time that the nation’s electoral machinery will be tested after two years of lawsuits, conspiracy theories, “audits” and all manner of interference by believers in Donald Trump’s lies about the 2020 election.I’m nervous for another reason as well: the embrace of violent extremists by a small but growing faction of the Republican Party. Today’s editorial, the first in a series on violent extremism, will explore this peril and what we can do about it.During the past five years, incidents of political violence have soared. Last month’s attack on Paul Pelosi, the husband of the speaker of the House of Representatives, is just the most recent example, and federal officials are deeply worried about the threat of violence around the midterms.That’s why it is so alarming to read about far-right extremists and paramilitary and anti-government groups planning to act as poll watchers. Masked, armed people in military gear were spotted last month in a parking lot in Arizona where early voting has been underway. This kind of intimidation is illegal under the Voting Rights Act, but it appears extremist poll watchers are undeterred even as they face lawsuits and restraining orders.It’s an ill omen that it has become routine to see heavily armed extremists at political events or harassing librarians or poll workers or members of Congress. It is even more concerning that some Republican politicians, in their own coded and not so coded ways, are encouraging it.To be clear, the overwhelming number of incidents of political violence in recent years has come from the right. Most Republicans oppose it without reservation, and we have seen conservatives targeted. Yet one faction of Republicans is using the threat of violence not only against their opponents on the left, but also in their battle to win control of the G.O.P.There are things we can do to push this violent extremism offstage, as the arrest of more than 900 people for the attack on Jan. 6 shows. Every state, for instance, has laws banning private paramilitary groups — they just rarely use them, as the editorial explains.In the past few years, there have been plenty of points at which it feels as if the future of the nation hangs in the balance. Peaceful politics are all we have to manage our deeply divided democracy. Lose that and the country is headed for a dark place — that’s what this series of pieces on extremism is trying to help avoid. More

    • 150 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      How the Right Became the Left and the Left Became the Right

      by

      One of the master keys to understanding our era is seeing all the ways in which conservatives and progressives have traded attitudes and impulses. The populist right’s attitude toward American institutions has the flavor of the 1970s — skeptical, pessimistic, paranoid — while the mainstream, MSNBC-watching left has a strange new respect for the F.B.I. and C.I.A. The online right likes transgression for its own sake, while cultural progressivism dabbles in censorship and worries that the First Amendment goes too far. Trumpian conservatism flirts with postmodernism and channels Michel Foucault; its progressive rivals are institutionalist, moralistic, confident in official narratives and establishment credentials.These reversals are especially evident in a pair of prominent headlines from the last week. If you had been told at any point from, say, 1970 to 2005 that a disturbed-seeming man living in the Bay Area with a history of involvement with nudist activists and the hemp jewelry trade had allegedly followed his paranoid political delusions into a plan to assault an important national politician, the reasonable assumption would have been that his delusions belonged to the farthest reaches of the left and therefore his target was probably some notable Republican.By the same token, if you had been told in George W. Bush’s presidency that a trove of government documents would reveal the Department of Homeland Security essentially trying to collude with major corporations to regulate speech it considers dangerous or subversive, an effort extending from foreign threats to domestic ones, you would have assumed that this was all Republican overreach, a new McCarthyism — and that progressives would be up in arms against it.In our world, though, things are otherwise. The man who allegedly attacked Paul Pelosi while hunting the speaker of the House did, seemingly, belong to left-wing, Left Coast culture in the not-so-distant past. But at some point in his unhappy trajectory, he passed over to the paranoias of the extreme right — probably not in some semi-rational radicalization process in which he watched too many attack ads against Nancy Pelosi but more likely in a dreamlike way, the nightmares of QAnon matching his mental state better‌ than the paranoias of the left.His journey’s violent endpoint was singular and extreme, but this kind of left-to-right migration has more normal correlatives: the New Age-QAnon overlap, the Covid-era migration of formerly left-wing skeptics of Big Pharma onto right-wing shows and platforms, the way that all doubts about the medical establishment are now coded as right-wing, Trumpy, populist.And the political right’s response to the Pelosi attack reflects these shifts as well. The ethos of Fox Mulder in “The X-Files,” “Trust no one,” is a now dominant value on the right, which in this case encouraged a swift leap from reasonable questions about the details of the assault, based on inaccurate initial reports, to a very specific narrative about a gay assignation that the cops and the Pelosis were presumably covering up.As of this writing, several public references to this theory from prominent conservatives have been deleted. But the cover-up narrative will probably survive indefinitely as a reference point, an underground “truth,” like the left-wing conspiracies of old.One of those deleted tweets belonged to Elon Musk, the new impresario of Twitter, and it inevitably became an exhibit in the case for liberal panic over his takeover: What could be more indicative of the platform’s imminent descent into a democracy-destroying hellscape than conspiracy theories spread by the Chief Twit himself?But the alternative to Musk’s reign was clarified by the second recent illustration of our left-right reversal: a story from The Intercept, by Lee Fang and Ken Klippenstein, detailing the Department of Homeland Security’s migration into the social-media surveillance and the pressure the department has tried to exert on internet companies to flag and censor content along lines favored by the national security bureaucracy.On the surface, this is not a partisan story: The Intercept is a left-wing publication, and the current version of the D.H.S. anti-disinformation effort got started in the Trump administration.But everyone understands those efforts’ current ideological valence. The war on disinformation is a crucial Democratic cause, the key lawsuit filed against the Biden administration on these issues comes from Republican attorneys general (joined by doctors critical of the public-health establishment), and the most famous flashpoint remains the social-media censorship of the Hunter Biden laptop story, which Fang and Klippenstein suggest followed from what one could reasonably call a deep-state pressure campaign.Meanwhile, according to a draft report from the D.H.S. obtained by The Intercept, the list of online subject areas that the department is particularly concerned about includes “the origins of the Covid-19 pandemic and the efficacy of Covid-19 vaccines, racial justice, U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan and the nature of U.S. support to Ukraine” — mostly areas where, whether in wisdom or in folly, the populist right is more likely to dissent from the establishment position.And for the future of Twitter, in particular, it’s notable that the Intercept story first points out that a committee advising DHS on disinformation policy included Twitter’s then-head of legal policy, trust and safety, Vijaya Gadde, and then notes that Gadde was one of the first people fired by Musk. It’s a tacit nod to the left-right switch: Under Musk the social-media giant is widely seen as moving “rightward,” but that could mean becoming less entangled with an arm of what was once George W. Bush’s national security state.The point of emphasizing this reversal isn’t to suggest that either side is likely to flip back. The evolving attitudes of right and left reflect their evolving positions in American society, with cultural liberalism much more dominant in elite institutions than it was a generation ago and conservatism increasingly disreputable, representing downscale constituencies and outsider ideas.But a stronger awareness of the flip might be helpful in tempering the temptations that afflict both sides. For progressives, that could mean acknowledging that the Department of Homeland Security’s disinformation wars, its attempted hand-in-glove with the great powers of Silicon Valley, would have been regarded as a dystopian scenario on their side not so long ago. So is it really any less dystopian if the targets are Trumpistas and Anthony Fauci critics instead of Iraq War protesters? And if it is a little creepy and censorious and un-American, doesn’t that make some of the paranoia evident on the right these days a little less unfathomable and fascist seeming, even a little more relatable?Then the Fox Mulder right might benefit from recalling the thing that conservatives — or this conservative, at least — used to find most insufferable about the anti-establishment left, which was not its skepticism but its credulity, not the eagerness to question official narratives but the speed with which implausible alternatives took root. (If parts of Oliver Stone’s “J.F.K.” make you understand where conspiracy theories come from, the part where the conspiracy gets “explained” should make you a Nixon Republican.)This is the key problem with the right today, whether the issue is the 2020 election or the Covid-vaccine debate or the attack on Paul Pelosi. Not the baseline of skepticism, not being attuned to weaknesses and inconsistencies in official narratives, not being open to scenarios of elite self-dealing and conspiracy and cover-up, all of which emphatically exist. It’s the swift replacement of skepticism with certainty, the shopping around for any narrative — even if it comes from Sidney Powell and Mike Lindell — to vindicate your initial theory, the refusal to accept that even institutions you reasonably mistrust sometimes get things right.Or to put this in terms of Musk and his hopes for Twitter: The ideal virtual town square would be a place where conservatives could discuss speculative, even conspiratorial theories of the day’s events — but also a place where they could be persuaded to abandon bad theories when the evidence dissolves them.Social-media and tribal incentives being what they are, that seems exceedingly unlikely. But if I had just paid billions to own a social media platform — and become both its main character and arguably the most important right-leaning figure in American life, pending the Donald Trump-Ron De‌ ‌Santis slugfest — I would be thinking about what it would take for a spirit of contrarianism and rebellion to aim, not simply at transgression, but at truth itself.In addition to my two weekly columns, I’m starting a newsletter, which will go out most Fridays and cover some of my usual obsessions — political ideas, religion, pop culture, decadence — in even more detail. You can subscribe here.The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTOpinion) and Instagram. More

    • 100 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      With Falsehoods About Pelosi Attack, Republicans Mimic Trump

      by

      WASHINGTON — Speaking on a conservative radio talk show on Tuesday, former President Donald J. Trump amplified a conspiracy theory about the grisly attack on Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s husband, Paul Pelosi, that falsely suggested that Mr. Pelosi may not have been the victim of a genuine attack.“Weird things going on in that household in the last couple of weeks,” Mr. Trump said on the Chris Stigall show, winking at a lie that has flourished in right-wing media and is increasingly being given credence by Republicans. “The glass, it seems, was broken from the inside to the out — so it wasn’t a break-in, it was a break out.”There is no evidence to suggest that. Mr. Pelosi, 82, was attacked on Friday with a hammer by a suspect who federal prosecutors say invaded the Pelosis’ San Francisco home, bent on kidnapping the speaker and shattering her kneecaps.But Mr. Trump, a longtime trafficker in conspiracy theories who propelled his political rise with the lie that President Barack Obama was not born in the United States, has never let such facts get in his way.The reaction to the assault on Mr. Pelosi among Republicans — who have circulated conspiracy theories about it, dismissed it as an act of random violence and made the Pelosis the punchline of a dark joke — underscores how thoroughly the G.O.P. has internalized his example. It suggested that Republicans have come to conclude that, like Mr. Trump, they will pay no political price for attacks on their opponents, however meanspirited, inflammatory or false.If anything, some Republicans seem to believe they will be rewarded by their right-wing base for such coarseness — or even suffer political consequences if they do not join in and show that they are in on the joke.“LOL,” Representative Claudia Tenney, Republican of New York, who is up for re-election in a competitive district, tweeted on Friday night, circulating a photograph that showed a group of young, white men holding oversized hammers beside a gay Pride flag.On Sunday, Representative Clay Higgins, Republican of Louisiana, who is in line to helm a Homeland Security subcommittee if his party wins control of the House next week, also amplified a groundless and homophobic conspiracy theory hatched on the right about the attack. He tweeted, but later removed, a picture of Ms. Pelosi with her hands covering her eyes, with the caption: “That moment you realize the nudist hippie male prostitute LSD guy was the reason your husband didn’t make it to your fundraiser.”On Tuesday, Mr. Trump said he thought the federal complaint detailing the break-in and the attack was not telling the entire story.“I don’t know,” Mr. Trump said suggestively. “You hear the same things I do.”Mr. Pelosi, 82, remained in intensive care with a fractured skull, according to a person familiar with the situation who spoke on condition of anonymity.In Arizona, the Republican candidate for governor, Kari Lake, made the attack a punchline at a campaign event on Monday, noting that while Ms. Pelosi has security around her, “apparently her house doesn’t have a lot of protection.” She smiled as her supporters howled with laughter.Republican leaders have condemned the violence against Mr. Pelosi and have not shared the conspiracy theories or sinister memes, but they have not publicly condemned those who have done so or done anything to try to tamp down on the stream of lies. And over the past few years, they have consistently demonstrated to their colleagues in Congress that there are no consequences for making vitriolic or even violent statements.If anything, such behavior has turned those more extreme members into influencers on the right, who carry more clout in Congress.The intruder who attacked Mr. Pelosi had wanted to take Ms. Pelosi, whom he saw as “the ‘leader of the pack’ of lies told by the Democratic Party,” hostage and break her kneecaps. He entered her San Francisco home with rope, zip ties and a hammer, according to the federal complaint against him.There was a time when such an event would have led to unequivocal denunciation by the leaders of both parties, sometimes followed by a pause in the day-to-day mudslinging of a campaign — if only to ensure that no candidate would make a remark that could be construed as in any way offensive to the victim.This time, few Republicans made such moves.Former Vice President Mike Pence followed the old model, saying that the attack was an “outrage” and noting that “there can be no tolerance for violence against public officials or their families.” But what would have once been a run-of-the-mill statement stood out for being one of the few that was unqualified in its condemnation of the attacker, who Mr. Pence said should be prosecuted.“They don’t have any fear of reprisal,” said Douglas Heye, a former Republican leadership aide on Capitol Hill. “That’s because our politics have become so tribal that anything that is about owning the other side is somehow seen as a political message, even though it’s not.”It is a page out of Mr. Trump’s playbook. For years, he elevated online rumors by speculating about them, bursting onto the national political scene in 2011 with the unfounded “birther” theory about Mr. Obama. When Mr. Trump insulted Senator John McCain of Arizona for being taken captive in Vietnam, his popularity among Republicans suffered no discernible hit.The current crop of candidates and lawmakers who have grown in power through their allegiance to Mr. Trump have replicated his methods. Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, Republican of Georgia, tweeted that Mr. Pelosi was attacked by a “friend” and that the media was the source of disinformation. Her post has since been removed.Senator Ted Cruz, Republican of Texas, recirculated a Twitter thread stating that “none of us will ever know for sure” what happened at Ms. Pelosi’s house and complaining that the attack was being cited as an “indictment of Republicans.” More

    • 113 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Bolsonaro fue derrotado. ¿Brasil podrá volver a la cordura?

      by

      SÃO PAULO, Brasil — Cuatro años de locura están cerca de terminar. En una tensa segunda vuelta, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva se impuso sobre el presidente Jair Bolsonaro con el 50,9 por ciento de los votos. A menos que las cosas tomen un giro radical —el temido golpe de Estado que lleva meses cerniéndose sobre el país—, Da Silva será, el 1 de enero, presidente de Brasil.No fue fácil. El mes pasado ha sido una síntesis de la era Bolsonaro. La desinformación ha estado desenfrenada. (El comité de campaña de Da Silva tuvo que confirmar, a raíz de los rumores difundidos en las redes sociales, que “no ha hecho un pacto con el diablo, ni ha hablado nunca con Satán”). También ha habido amplios debates sobre canibalismo, de francmasonería y de la supuestamente deseable política de la época medieval. Y, por supuesto, ha estado presente la amenaza de la violencia política, con la aparente bendición de las altas instancias.Al menos, por el bien de nuestra salud mental colectiva, podemos decir que Bolsonaro ha sido derrotado. No es que el país esté demasiado en sintonía con Da Silva y la política de centroizquierda del Partido de los Trabajadores, que gobernó el país durante 13 años, hasta 2016. Se trata más bien de que los últimos 4 años con Bolsonaro nos han demostrado lo bajo que puede caer un país, y estamos desesperados por salir de la ciénaga del abatimiento político.Hay muchas cosas que no echaré de menos de este gobierno: su desatención asesina, su arraigada corrupción, su fanatismo. Uno de los grandes alivios es que ya no tendremos que hablar de cosas demenciales. Brasil, al menos, puede volver a algo parecido a la cordura.Es difícil creer lo mucho que ha cambiado el debate público. Hace 9 años, los brasileños salieron a la calle a manifestarse en defensa del transporte público gratuito. ¿Cuánto nos hemos alejado hoy de ese tipo de mentalidad cívica? Ahora nos pasamos buena parte del tiempo afirmando (cada vez con más exasperación) que la virología existe y que el cambio climático no es un bulo globalista.Nos da miedo salir a la calle a manifestarnos y que eso le dé al gobierno una excusa para intentar dar un golpe de Estado. Creemos que cualquier civil que pasa a nuestro lado en coche puede ir armado. Sabemos que vestir de color rojo se considerará una declaración política. (Hace poco, un cardenal católico brasileño fue criticado por su tradicional vestimenta roja, lo que demuestra que ni siquiera el clero está libre de sospechas). No nos atrevemos a comentar las noticias con nuestros vecinos, por temor a lo que puedan decir. Nunca hubo tanto silencio en los ascensores.Lo cierto es que en la sociedad brasileña siempre han dominado las fuerzas conservadoras. Ninguno de los avances de las dos últimas décadas se consiguió con facilidad: el programa de ayudas sociales Bolsa Família, la discriminación positiva en las universidades y el sector público o el matrimonio igualitario. Todos fueron objeto de burlas, si no de la franca indignación, de la mayoría de los conservadores. Pero estas batallas las libraron la centroizquierda y la centroderecha, que entonces eran lo bastante razonables para entablar un debate democrático. Eso cambió cuando llegó Bolsonaro a la escena nacional. Poco a poco al principio, y luego súbitamente, estalló una represa de extremismo derechista reprimido.Día tras día, la integridad del discurso público se ha ido diluyendo con las afirmaciones conspirativas, turbopropulsadas por las redes sociales y alentadas por Bolsonaro. Nos hemos visto obligados a perder el tiempo refutando públicamente la teoría de que las vacunas contienen nanorrobots, o que la selva amazónica “no se puede incendiar”, como dijo él. Toda esa energía, que se podría haber dedicado a exigir un mejor sistema de salud pública, o unas medidas más rotundas contra el cambio climático, se perdió en combatir espeluznantes sinsentidos.Pero Bolsonaro no nos dejó más remedio en ningún momento, hasta las elecciones. Existen pocas dudas de que él aspiraba a la autocracia y que aprovecharía cualquier oportunidad para mantenerse en el poder; la necesidad de derrotarlo se volvió absoluta, con prioridad sobre cualquier otra preocupación. Eso explica la amplitud de la coalición en torno a la candidatura de Da Silva, compuesta incluso por antiguos adversarios del centroderecha. La contienda electoral se redujo a una simple disyuntiva: a favor o en contra de Bolsonaro.En realidad, no es tan sencillo. Para empezar, no existe una solución tangible al problema de que las redes sociales parezcan empujar a los ciudadanos a posturas más extremas, agravando así la polarización. Después, los políticos avalados por Bolsonaro son hoy parte consolidada del paisaje político. Más de una docena de gobernadores pro-Bolsonaro, de los 27 del país, ganaron las elecciones, y su partido es el mayoritario en el Senado, tras obtener 8 de los 27 escaños que se disputaban. (Algunos de los nuevos senadores, que permanecerán en el poder los siguientes 8 años, son exministros del gobierno de Bolsonaro.)La extrema derecha también ha aumentado su influencia en el Congreso: el partido del presidente obtuvo 99 escaños en la Cámara Baja, compuesta por 513 miembros. Puede que Bolsonaro abandone su cargo, pero el bolsonarismo no está ni mucho menos acabado.Esto plantea graves desafíos para el gobierno entrante. No solo una derecha envalentonada será una molestia constante para Da Silva, sino que además lo obligará a depender de los partidos de centro, lo que despeja el camino al intercambio de favores —que con frecuencia genera corrupción— que ha perjudicado a la democracia brasileña desde su origen. Aun así, no se debe infravalorar esta oportunidad para emprender una nueva trayectoria política. Se podría desplazar a la extrema derecha de vuelta a los márgenes, tras haber ocupado la presidencia. Como mínimo, quizá tengamos un gobierno más preocupado por la creciente desigualdad y el hambre que por el número de seguidores en sus carreras en motocicleta. Eso por sí solo ya es un bálsamo.Y lo que es fundamental: los brasileños deberían poder volver a hablar de temas más urgentes, como el déficit de vivienda del país, la educación pública, la policía militar y el racismo. Tal vez podríamos incluso hablar de cosas que nos interesan y nos asombran, que nos resultan placenteras. (Tortugas y astronomía, ¿se apunta alguien?) Después de todo lo que hemos pasado, nos merecemos disfrutar de un cierto respiro de la locura.Vanessa Barbara es editora del sitio web literario A Hortaliça, autora de dos novelas y dos libros de no ficción en portugués y colaboradora de la sección de Opinión del Times. More

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      O Brasil pode ter finalmente se livrado da loucura de Bolsonaro

      by

      SÃO PAULO, Brasil — Quatro anos de loucura chegaram praticamente ao fim. Em um segundo turno tenso, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva prevaleceu sobre o presidente Jair Bolsonaro, com 50,9 por cento dos votos. Exceto por uma reviravolta dramática — o temível golpe que há meses paira sobre o país, por exemplo — Lula se tornará, em 1 de janeiro, o presidente do Brasil.Não foi fácil. O último mês foi um resumo da era Bolsonaro. Houve uma quantia desenfreada de desinformação. (A campanha de Lula teve até de confirmar, em resposta a boatos insanos que circularam nas mídias sociais, que o candidato “não tem pacto nem jamais conversou com o diabo.”) Houve ampla discussão sobre canibalismo, maçonaria e o sistema político supostamente preferível da Idade Média. E, é claro, houve a ameaça de violência política, aparentemente encorajada pelo topo.Finalmente, para o bem da nossa saúde mental coletiva, podemos dizer que Bolsonaro foi derrotado. Não é que o Brasil esteja fortemente alinhado com Lula e a política de centro-esquerda do Partido dos Trabalhadores, que governou o país por 13 anos, terminando em 2016. É mais que os últimos quatro anos de gestão Bolsonaro nos mostraram o quão baixo uma nação pode ir, e estamos desesperados para emergir desse pântano de desalento político.Há muita coisa dessa gestão que não vai deixar saudades — a negligência assassina, a corrupção arraigada, o fanatismo. Um dos maiores alívios será não precisar mais participar de discussões loucas. O Brasil, enfim, pode voltar a ter uma aparência de sanidade.É difícil acreditar no quanto o debate público mudou. Nove anos atrás, os brasileiros foram às ruas para pedir a gratuidade no transporte público. Quão longe estamos desse tipo de mentalidade cívica hoje? Agora passamos boa parte do tempo garantindo (de uma forma cada vez mais exasperada) que a virologia de fato existe e a mudança climática não é uma farsa globalista.Temos medo de ir às ruas protestar e dar ao governo um motivo para tentar um golpe. Achamos que qualquer cidadão passando em um automóvel pode estar armado. Sabemos que usar vermelho será visto como uma declaração política. (Recentemente um cardeal católico brasileiro foi levado a prestar contas sobre suas vestimentas tradicionais, o que mostra que nem mesmo o clero está acima de qualquer suspeição.) Não ousamos discutir as notícias com os vizinhos, por medo do que eles poderão dizer. Os elevadores nunca estiveram tão silenciosos.A verdade é que a sociedade brasileira sempre foi dominada por forças conservadoras. Nenhum dos avanços das últimas duas décadas veio com facilidade — o programa de assistência social Bolsa Família, as cotas nas universidades e no setor público, ou o casamento entre pessoas do mesmo sexo. Todos foram recebidos com escárnio, se não com total indignação, pela maior parte dos conservadores. Mas foram batalhas travadas entre a centro-esquerda e a centro-direita, que então eram suficientemente razoáveis para se empenhar em um debate democrático. Isso mudou quando Bolsonaro entrou na cena política nacional. Primeiro aos poucos, e então de modo súbito, uma barragem de extremismo de direita reprimido se rompeu.Dia após dia, a integridade do debate público se liquefez em alegações conspiratórias, impulsionadas pelas mídias sociais e encorajadas por Bolsonaro. Fomos obrigados a gastar nosso tempo combatendo publicamente a teoria de que vacinas contêm nanobots ou que, como o presidente declarou, a floresta amazônica “não pega fogo.” Toda essa energia, que podia ser gasta exigindo a melhoria do sistema público de saúde ou uma resposta mais enérgica à mudança climática, foi, em vez disso, dissipada no combate a tolices obscuras.Mas Bolsonaro não nos deu outra chance, inclusive até o momento das eleições. Não há dúvida de que ele tinha como meta a autocracia e iria aproveitar qualquer oportunidade de se manter no poder; a necessidade de derrotá-lo se tornou uma prioridade absoluta, tomando precedência sobre qualquer outra preocupação. Isso explica a amplitude da coalizão em torno da candidatura de Lula, que incluiu até antigos oponentes da centro-direita. A batalha eleitoral foi reduzida a um binarismo: contra ou a favor de Bolsonaro.Na realidade, não é assim tão simples. De um lado, não há solução tangível para o quanto as redes sociais parecem empurrar os cidadãos a posições extremas, aprofundando a polarização. De outro, os políticos endossados por Bolsonaro agora são parte estabelecida do cenário político. O povo elegeu mais de uma dúzia de governadores que apoiam Bolsonaro, das 27 unidades da federação, e seu partido obteve maioria no Senado após ganhar oito dos 27 assentos à disposição. (Muitos dos novos senadores, que ficarão no poder pelos próximos oito anos, são ex-ministros da gestão Bolsonaro.) A extrema direita também aumentou sua influência no Congresso: o partido do presidente ganhou 99 assentos na Câmara, formada por 513 deputados. Jair Bolsonaro pode até deixar o cargo, mas o bolsonarismo está longe de acabar.Isso representa sérios desafios à próxima gestão. Não só porque uma extrema direita encorajada será um obstáculo constante para o lado de Lula, mas também porque irá forçá-lo a recorrer aos partidos do Centrão, abrindo caminho para a troca de favores — muitas vezes corrupta — que desfigurou a democracia brasileira desde sua concepção. Ainda assim, a oportunidade para uma nova trajetória política nacional não pode ser menosprezada. Após ocupar a Presidência do país, a extrema direita pode ser empurrada de volta às margens da política. No mínimo teremos um governo mais preocupado com o aumento da desigualdade e da fome, em vez do número de seguidores em suas motociatas de apoio. Só isso já é um alívio.De modo crucial, os brasileiros poderão voltar a discutir assuntos mais urgentes do país, como o déficit de moradia, a educação pública, a polícia militar e o racismo. Talvez também possamos falar de coisas que nos interessam e nos surpreendem, que nos dão satisfação. (Tartarugas e astronomia, alguém?) Depois de tudo o que passamos, merecemos algum respiro dessa loucura.Vanessa Barbara é a editora do sítio literário A Hortaliça, autora de dois romances e dois livros de não-ficção em português, e escritora de opinião do The New York Times. More