Are Brazilian Voters More Realistic?
Published in Folha
(Brazil) on 17 May 2012
by Verena Fornetti (link to original)
(Brazil) on 17 May 2012
by Verena Fornetti (link to original)
Translated from
by Jane Dorwart.
Edited by Jonathan Douglas.
Yesterday, a reader, Otávio Jorge Caldas, commented here in the blog [Folha.com] that the American electoral campaign is focusing on parallel themes (such as "bullying"), because the serious subjects — such as economics, health, education, and foreign policy — are not being discussed.
I asked the economist Kenneth S. Rogoff, a professor at Harvard, about this and he had a similar diagnosis.
The professor made two surprising points: First, a U.S. presidential candidate cannot criticize “America,” as it is practically a sacred entity for Americans. The second point was that the Brazilian electorate is more realistic than the American electorate in terms of macroeconomics, according to Rogoff, because they are willing to listen to difficult solutions. The difference is due to the country’s recent memories of inflation and economic crisis.
What follows is an excerpt from the interview: “There are few long term ideas being debated in the campaign. It is a society strongly oriented towards consumption. Everything has to be fast, and no one wants to stop and think about what road we want to follow.
This is very difficult in the political dialogue because a presidential candidate cannot be seen to be criticizing America. He cannot!
A presidential candidate has to say that we are the best country in the world, and that he will make sure the country remains the best in the world. He cannot say: ‘We are an incredible country, but we are getting old. We are changing, and we need to reinvent ourselves if we want to remain on top.’
Obesity is one example of an issue that is screaming to be addressed. Michelle Obama is trying to be a leader in this area, but there is still much to do. There are other areas: the health care system, energy, infrastructure, the educational system … All these things are deteriorating and people want to avoid difficult questions.
The public does not want to hear real solutions. The voters are easily persuaded that problems can be solved without sacrifice. This is clear in respect to the budget. The majority of the voters believe that the government wastes money, and there is no need to pay more taxes. They believe that the problems will be resolved if the government stops spending, and people stop being robbed. This is not consistent with the numbers, which show that expenses are very, very high and taxes are very, very low.
Because the U.S. has been able to borrow so much money until now, people have not needed to make difficult choices. In Brazil, the experience of a financial crisis and high inflation is more recent. At least when it comes to macroeconomics, Brazilians accept difficult choices more easily than Americans.
Clearly you [Brazilians] are facing many problems to reform labor laws and there is much protectionism. You have many problems, but in terms of macroeconomics, the Brazilian electorate is more realistic than the American electorate. They experienced the problems that Americans think will never happen.”*
*Translator's note: This was an interview, so the exact words cannot be verified.
I asked the economist Kenneth S. Rogoff, a professor at Harvard, about this and he had a similar diagnosis.
The professor made two surprising points: First, a U.S. presidential candidate cannot criticize “America,” as it is practically a sacred entity for Americans. The second point was that the Brazilian electorate is more realistic than the American electorate in terms of macroeconomics, according to Rogoff, because they are willing to listen to difficult solutions. The difference is due to the country’s recent memories of inflation and economic crisis.
What follows is an excerpt from the interview: “There are few long term ideas being debated in the campaign. It is a society strongly oriented towards consumption. Everything has to be fast, and no one wants to stop and think about what road we want to follow.
This is very difficult in the political dialogue because a presidential candidate cannot be seen to be criticizing America. He cannot!
A presidential candidate has to say that we are the best country in the world, and that he will make sure the country remains the best in the world. He cannot say: ‘We are an incredible country, but we are getting old. We are changing, and we need to reinvent ourselves if we want to remain on top.’
Obesity is one example of an issue that is screaming to be addressed. Michelle Obama is trying to be a leader in this area, but there is still much to do. There are other areas: the health care system, energy, infrastructure, the educational system … All these things are deteriorating and people want to avoid difficult questions.
The public does not want to hear real solutions. The voters are easily persuaded that problems can be solved without sacrifice. This is clear in respect to the budget. The majority of the voters believe that the government wastes money, and there is no need to pay more taxes. They believe that the problems will be resolved if the government stops spending, and people stop being robbed. This is not consistent with the numbers, which show that expenses are very, very high and taxes are very, very low.
Because the U.S. has been able to borrow so much money until now, people have not needed to make difficult choices. In Brazil, the experience of a financial crisis and high inflation is more recent. At least when it comes to macroeconomics, Brazilians accept difficult choices more easily than Americans.
Clearly you [Brazilians] are facing many problems to reform labor laws and there is much protectionism. You have many problems, but in terms of macroeconomics, the Brazilian electorate is more realistic than the American electorate. They experienced the problems that Americans think will never happen.”*
*Translator's note: This was an interview, so the exact words cannot be verified.