The president stated on the Truth Social network, on Tuesday (23), that voting in Brazil will be his next challenge. And he declared himself — who would have thought — concerned about the integrity of the country’s electoral system and the need for the dispute to be free and fair. For him, this will be the case if Brazil “joins the growing list of nations moving to the right.”
It couldn’t be more explicit: it plays in favor of the right-wing candidate. How, for now, we don’t know. But the American president has already aligned himself with the Bolsonaro family’s tactic of raising suspicions about our voting system and the rules that ensure the necessary conditions for free competition at the polls.
The extemporaneous declaration takes another step towards placing relations between Brazil and the USA as one of the important themes of the electoral debate. Very different from what happened in the past, when foreign policy was not part of the list of relevant issues for defining the image of presidential candidates, much less for the choice of voters.
If so, it is worth looking at how potential voters view Yankee interference in national affairs. Also on Tuesday, this newspaper published the Datafolha research on the White House’s decision to include the criminal factions Primeiro Comando da Capital and Comando Vermelho in the list of foreign terrorist organizations that would threaten US national security. The unilateral act paves the way for Washington’s direct interference in our domestic affairs.
Datafolha shows the great repercussion of this fact, measured by the high percentage of Brazilians who believe they are informed about the American initiative. The majority is also the portion of those who consider that “terrorist organization” is an appropriate label for the two factions.
Still, public opinion is divided almost half and half when it comes to characterizing American intentions, seeing them as a well-intentioned gesture to help Brazil in the fight against organized crime or, conversely, an excuse to rule the country.
Differences in evaluation are associated with party preference; to self-classification on the left-right gradient; religious belief and support for pre-candidates and . The latter’s supporters believe more in the altruism of Americans, while Lulistas believe that the former are guided by the raw ambition for power.
Electoral preferences thus seem to organize Brazilians’ vision of US intentions. The differences disappear, however, when faced with the question about the acceptable limits of American intervention.
Almost 3 in 4 respondents dispute Trump’s right to unilaterally attack organized crime, without notifying the Brazilian government.
By analogy, the results of the aforementioned survey suggest that there are limits to speech that mobilizes the defense of sovereignty in the face of possible Trumpist interference in this year’s electoral process.
However, they point out that a reckless and arrogant intervention — the hallmark par excellence of the White House incumbent — could harm their preferred candidate.
LINK PRESENT: Did you like this text? Subscribers can access seven free accesses from any link per day. Just click the blue F below.
