The senator gave a speech flawlessly. Not very short, but worth the read it in full. Highlighted excerpts.
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen senators
The Brazilian contemporary history moves in cycles. We had the military period, from 1964 to 1984, the return to democracy, from 1985, and the period after the Constituent Assembly, from 1988. In it we are there 23. Since then, no fewer than six direct presidential elections, in which two parties, which differ little in program content, alternated in power: the PSDB and the PT . Both parties present themselves as leftist bias - is a social democrat, the other professed a reformist socialism.
I remember some years ago a debate between Senator Cristovam Buarque, then the PT, and former President Fernando Henrique Cardoso, who both admitted that there was no substantial ideological disagreement between their parties. Only disputed, from Sao Paulo, spaces of power: not of ideas. Coincidences not sold out there. Also to come to power, they both earned the same strategy of seeking alliances conservative, they were doctrinally opposed him, but it favored the coming to power. The PSDB allied with the PFL, today DEM, while the PT has joined with the Liberal Party, José Alencar.
I remember some years ago a debate between Senator Cristovam Buarque, then the PT, and former President Fernando Henrique Cardoso, who both admitted that there was no substantial ideological disagreement between their parties. Only disputed, from Sao Paulo, spaces of power: not of ideas. Coincidences not sold out there. Also to come to power, they both earned the same strategy of seeking alliances conservative, they were doctrinally opposed him, but it favored the coming to power. The PSDB allied with the PFL, today DEM, while the PT has joined with the Liberal Party, José Alencar.
These alliances, however, did not open space for liberal thought to occupy, even partially, the political scene. The most favored was the division of posts in the state machinery. Liberal ideology, which has in the defense of individual freedom - not only in defense of the market economy - the epicenter, was never in the foreground. This type of partnership, moved only by the occupation of public spaces in the machine - not to defend - ideas, doctrinally marred the party question.
terminology right-left-center, with its shades of center-right and center-left, lost content and meaning. Former President Lula, before elections last year, hailed as a sign of progress and political progress the fact that all candidates for president, in his view, be left. But in the course of the campaign, his party's opponents called "right", a term left to appoint a respectable field of doctrinal thinking to become synonymous with ideological perversion, an artificial scenario, where the monopoly of goodness and virtue would be left.
terminology right-left-center, with its shades of center-right and center-left, lost content and meaning. Former President Lula, before elections last year, hailed as a sign of progress and political progress the fact that all candidates for president, in his view, be left. But in the course of the campaign, his party's opponents called "right", a term left to appoint a respectable field of doctrinal thinking to become synonymous with ideological perversion, an artificial scenario, where the monopoly of goodness and virtue would be left.
By then, one sees that this nomenclature has become completely empty, creating more confusion than clarification, giving the campaign a mere dispute contours marketing, where marketers are emerging as major players. The result is poverty and falsity in political debate, deepening the gulf between society and government. Today, parties are not identified by the offering, but by its position in relation to government: opposition or situation. At first, it does not say, the latter, say yes.
Whether what is at stake or not coincide with the program and the doctrine of each. Opposition will always say no, like a demolition company, while the allied base to undertake unconditionally yes. Needless to say indigence political, moral and philosophical in such circumstances. The politics became a mere struggle for power, which derives to a catch-all for unenforceable promises and demagoguery. No consolidating democracy, in this framework.
We must break this vicious circle, a legacy of authoritarianism still times that imposed on the Brazilian party under a bipolar character and attendant. In the military era, we had a front side of an alliance in favor of the regime, on the other, an opposition front, which went from right to left. On that occasion, the fight against dictatorship, was her way. But came the return to democracy and with it, the multiparty system, which, however, broke with the strategy of the hybrid front, which has since undergoing doctrinal consistency physiological and immediate interests exercise of power. The power for power, in which everyone pursues only his election victory, without the consideration of programmatic commitments, moral or philosophical. The growing number of abstentions and invalid votes (almost 36 million Brazilians) elections indicates that Brazilian society is already tired of this game artificial, insincere, and unproductive, which impoverishes and corrupts politics.
Whether the end of farce, or that the parties are that need to be: effective expressions of currents of thought in society, which converge from ideas and ideals - and not depending on the role or antagonism towards those who are circumstantially in power, as happens today. Only then the parties will meet and formulate the formative role they have in society as agents of the common good, changes and developments. With the current distortions that I'm just summarizing here, there is the slightest chance.Cumpre, because that would start now a new political cycle in Brazil, which gives doctrinal content of democracy, in which each agent to express political beliefs and be charged for the loyalty that has them - not the lower positions and interests. This not only solves reforms in laws governing political system. More than political reform, we must reform the mentality of political agents. Our mindset.
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen senators
is with this purpose - and in view of Brazilian society that cry for renewal in politics - that formalize here, from this rostrum, I left the Democrats, while declaring that I am joining the national leaders involved in creating the Social Democratic Party - PSD. This decision does not stem from disruption, fight or dissent, but the evidence that has run a cycle - not just a personal cycle, but cyclical, political party life cycle of a Brazilian. And you have to open another one, looking to the future. Democrats have the respect and recognition for its role in the process of democratization, since its inception in 1984, when the Liberal Front Party. It fell to him to ensure the election of Tancredo Neves and José Sarney of the electoral college, allowing the resumption of political power by peaceful civilians. Gave subsequently support to the two governments of Fernando Henrique Cardoso and held the opposition to the two governments of Lula. Met a beautiful historic role.
believe, however, that the partnership that joined us over. Acting party today is different from my conception with regard not only to the internal practice of democracy, but the stance of independence from the present context of Brazilian politics. I accept and respect, but I do not feel in tune. Not changed my ideas or identity, but I see no means to implement them where I was. I was criticized here when I voted for the minimum wage of $ 545. But at the same time, I voted against an interim measure that sought to capitalize on the BNDES. On both occasions, voted in order to defend a principle that the DEM and I always postulate: fiscal responsibility. And so I believe it should be. A party must, above all, have character, be faithful to your program. There is no ethics without character.
not complain when I see that the simplistic attitudes to join the "yes" or "no." There is no greatness in it. I was asked whether the PSD will resist or will be part of the government coalition. It is not so trivial. If it were, we would not need to create it. It is clear that the political forces that support the current government affiliate themselves with a stream of thought different from mine. In essence, we differ, the fact remains that, at times, can converge. They accused the new party, we even got off the ground, to serve the personal purposes of furthering the careers of its organizers. If it were so, it would be better not to create it. Easier would be to stay where we were, since the creation of a party in Brazil, actually rooted in society and with definite purpose - and that's what you want the PSD - is a laborious undertaking, expensive and risky. Leaders like Gilberto Kassab, Mayor of São Paulo, and Guilherme Afif Domingos, vice governor of Sao Paulo, would means a lot more comfortable sequence to give his personal projects where they are. Occupy positions of great influence, have their own light and not need to be exposed to challenges of this magnitude.
What we find is that Brazil is on the threshold of a new era - and that can only flourish if the policy to assimilate the new paradigms that you are ready. And the main thing is this: we need clarity of commitments. It is unacceptable for a fifth of the world economy, with the broad horizon that currently it unfolds on the world stage, does not pursue dialogue with its own society. There is a large segment of about 110 million middle-class Brazilian orphan that dialogue. Our defense enshrines the ideals of the market economy as the only system capable of generating wealth and sustainability, without which not eradicate poverty. We do not believe in the state as entrepreneur, we consider a brilliant fake. The experience of real socialism in different countries that have adopted it, demonstrates. Have become poorer than before. Our stance and votes in the Legislature, will always take that into account. When these postulates are favored, we can not oppose. When they are thwarted in attacking. But not only. The defense of capital and free enterprise is not Brazilian greater urgency, as have their own defenses and were not even threatened by the governments of the PSDB and the PT.
What we see as urgent - and that's part of the reform of mentality in politics - is the defense of individual liberty, freedom of thought, freedom to make their choices (Liberalism = Freedom). We see the country increasingly being subjected to the action of the patrols of thought, which impose the dogma of political correctness, criminalizing those who differ from them. Freedom of thought is civilized coexistence with the ideas with which we disagree, even with the dread that eventually, within the limits of the law. Being tolerant is to tolerate the intolerable. It is this intolerance that threatens the democratic practice, impoverishes the debate and prevents the free circulation of ideas in society, not allowing it to judge those who compete for your vote. It is this intolerance that stigmatized those who see in socialism a doctrine anachronistic, inefficient and failed, joining the liberal fascist totalitarianism, which is antipodal.
Socialism and Fascism, yes, they have something in common: the cult of the state, which in both cases, the server leaves the citizen to become its owner, is now increasingly intruding on issues related to privacy and choice for families. stigma is against this ideology, false as a three dollar bill, which will fight. The term "social" we add the party's name indicates that this concern with the low-income families with no income or no is not the monopoly of anyone and is far from the owner.
as a farmer and chairman of the Agriculture and Livestock Confederation of Brazil, I can say - and the figures are eloquent in this sense - that capitalism is the most effective field factor in eradicating poverty in this country. If today we are continuing and growing surpluses in trade balance if we now have an expanding middle class rural if we offer the best and cheapest food in the world, today we import food, as we did four decades ago and are running for this segment international trade - there is no doubt that this is due to the environment of free competition that was established in the field.
And this despite the systematic assault who suffer from ideological groups, who insist on associating ourselves to backwardness and political perversion, as alleged heirs of a colonial mentality. The facts conspire against that version, which, however, continues to be sustained by inhibiting the free flow of ideas, forging them. The hegemony of liberal thought, the Gramscian strategy of cultural revolution was inoculated at the academy, established the dictatorship of thought. Who now feels at home, at universities and cultural backgrounds, to present himself as being right or liberal? Will be denied and excluded from the debate as a pariah. And that is tragic. Makes democracy a sham, a debate between equals, which comes to a fight for positions. Nothing more. It is to break that paradigm and allow Brazilian society - Particularly its middle class - which has shown behavioral averse to the agenda of political correctness, that the PSD comes into play.
entities representing civil society have their role, their value and their space. But they can not monopolize the discussion or guardian. Represent parts of society, but not all. Minorities, environmentalists and farmers are not isolated segments, with overlapping interests to the whole of which they belong. Their demands have to be in tune with the whole and submit it. Are not untouchable, nor unquestionable. Proposals that include - and some of these bills passing this Congress - can not take the sacred status, immune to criticism, rejection or even weights, if any. And is that currently occurs in the face of the dictatorship of thought, incompatible with the essence of democracy. It is in pursuit of libertarian values, which hover above any other - and that should shape them - that PSD announces its entry into this new stage of life political party in Brazil.
We will not be the cons: we are, and will always be in favor of Brazil: its people, in their multidiversidade - ethnic, cultural and religious. We will fight in the field of ideas, always on the side who is willing to endorse them and strengthen them. The PSD will be literally true to his principles and his partisan ideals. I invite all Brazilians to follow in overseeing the actions that the PSD is available.
http://coturnonoturno.blogspot.com/2011/04/entre-o-discurso-do-aecio-eo-discurso.html
0 comments:
Post a Comment