BRAZIL-Time to go WHERE?

The Economist has it wrong!

Telling Dilma Rousseff to renounce the presidency is tantamount to telling the Pope to renounce Catholicism! He simply cannot do it, and neither can she. Dilma operates from a set of deeply held convictions that cannot be shaken even by the protests of 5 million Brazilians.

I remember a conversation I had with one of Brazil's managing generals during the military regimes. We had visited a small town in the poverty-striken Northeast where he received a long line of people seeking help on one matter or another, ranging from requesting the hospitalization of a relative, to supporting the enlistment of a son into the military, a social security pension, etc. I foolishly remarked that it would be interesting if all those people had the means to achieve their objectives without intercession. He flashed a hard look at me and said "These people don't know what they want!" Persisting in my foolishness, I argued that I was the grandson of an Irish-American coal miner who had a third grade education, was orphaned at the age of 8 or 9 and went to work in the anthracite coal mines of Eastern Pennsylvania.  I added that while he was an ignorant man, he was far from stupid and pursued his life on his own terms. He knew what he wanted.

His brother became a dedicated Communist and Labor Union Organizer, fought against Franco in the Spanish Civil War, and on his deathbed said that if he had his life to live over, he would do the same damned thing! He, too, knew what he wanted.

I don't often disagree with The Economist (except when it treats the US as if it were still a British colony) but the suggestion that Dilma renounce the presidency is simply a non-starter. To do so would be to abandon a set of core convictions and fundamental premises on which her logic and life are built.

Like my friend the general, Dilma seems to believe that "the people" need to be guided and told what they want. The difference between an authoritarian and a liberal is that while the liberal embraces the freedom to choose the authoritarian seems to believe that freedom is so precious that it has to be "rationed" or it will be "used up".

There is, of course, a place for authoritarianism. The military is the prime example. Soldiers are taught (even brainwashed) into thinking collectively (i.e. protecting the "group"). When one is being shot at, the "normal" reaction is to hightail it in the opposite direction. Running foward into a hail of bullets is totally counter-intuitive and one must be trained to do it. I still remember my training sergeant telling me in a loud voice, "Wygand, when the US Army wants you to have an opinion, it will issue one to you!"

However, Adam Smith told us a couple of centuries ago that Man is directed by self-interest. He is inclined to "truck, barter, and trade" to achieve his objectives. Even the most ignorant among us knows what he wants and needs to survive and, as possible, prosper.

All that is needed for that to happen is an agreed-upon set of values and acceptable behaviors and the freedom to choose one's options subject to those constraints and Man will do the rest. It doesn't always work as desired or planned, but what does?

Because Dilma Rousseff appears to not accept that fundamental premise, she cannot be expected to think she has failed. And if she doesn't think she has failed, she has no reason to renounce the presidency.

So, unless Dilma is struck by some blinding flash of lucidity or like Saul, struck down on the road to Damascus and immediately converted, exhortations to "do the right thing" and resign are useless. She appears to believe that she is doing the right thing - the complaints of 5 million citizens notwithstandong.