Next week the Western Hemisphere will see a tale of two elections: two elections that have a number of key features in common, and some key points of divergence. In common: The incumbent center-left faces a challenge from the right. The head of state, the incumbent leader of the center-left, will not be on the ballot, but the election is widely viewed as a referendum on his policies.
Election Day is "the poll that matters," but the key divergence is that on Sunday in Brazil, the center-left is forecast to coast to victory, while on Tuesday in the U.S., the right is widely forecast to make big gains, with better than even odds of taking the House.
What explains this divergence?
There are many factors, of course, but there is one key cause: In Brazil, Lula brought home the bacon, in economic indicators of the quality of life, for the Workers Party's electoral base -- working people. Measured unemployment in Brazil is now at a record low of 6.2 percent.
When the majority of voters in Brazil ask themselves, "are we better off now than we were before the Workers Party came to power," this is the reality that they reflect on: the Brazilian economy has performed much better for working people during the Lula years than during the eight years of opposition candidate Jose Serra's party. Per capita income grew by 23 percent from 2002-2010, as opposed to just 3.5 percent for 1994-2002. The minimum wage, in real terms, grew by 65 percent during Lula's presidency. This is more than three time the increase during the prior eight years.
In Brazil, as in the U.S., a significant rise in the real value of the minimum wage lifts not just the workers who are at the very bottom of the wage distribution, but the much larger group of workers whose wages are near the bottom.
Lula's government has also expanded the Bolsa Familia program, which provides small cash grants to poor families while requiring school attendance and health immunizations for participation. The program has significantly reduced illiteracy, and now reaches about 13 million families. More than 19 million people have been brought across the poverty line in Brazil since 2003. A new program of subsidies for home ownership has benefited hundreds of thousands of families.
One can certainly argue that in a sense Obama also delivered for his base: Thanks to Obama's economic stimulus, unemployment is much lower than it would be today as a result of the economic crash that occurred before Obama took office, and Obama's health-care reform will eventually give millions of Americans access to health care that they would not have had otherwise.
But, as we all know, in general, the mass of humanity tends not to think like this when they go to the polls (or don't). They tend to think in terms of: Am I better off now than I was? And that's the question that the majority of Brazilians can easily answer in the affirmative, and the majority of Americans cannot easily answer in the affirmative. The measured unemployment rate in the U.S. is currently 9.6 percent. Unemployment was at 7.7 percent in January 2009 when Obama took office.
It's important to understand that the difference isn't that Obama compromised with centers of economic power and Lula did not. Lula made a lot of compromises with the economic elite in Brazil, generating a lot of anger on the left wing of the Workers Party. But at the end of the day, he made sure not to make compromises that prevented him from delivering for his base, in a way that they could taste in the present. That's what Obama and his Wall Street economic advisers didn't do when they caved to the Republicans and Wall Street on the stimulus and backed an economic stimulus that was knowably too small to counteract the fall in employment resulting from the collapse of the housing bubble; and when they backed a health-care-reform bill whose benefits most people will only taste in the future.
Of course, most progressive and liberal activists in the U.S., in the next few days, will be focused on playing the hand that they've been dealt, as they should. The predictable negative consequences of a return to power of Republicans in Congress, across a number of fronts, from protecting Social Security benefits to ending the war in Afghanistan, are far too great to do otherwise.
But on Wednesday morning, if we wake from uneasy dreams to confront Speaker John Boehner, and the corporate media tell us that the reason why is that President Obama moved too far to the left and that therefore now Obama needs to move to the right, we need to be clear that this is a lie. In the U.S., as in Brazil, if the center-left wants to hold power sustainably, it has to deliver for the majority of working people on economic policy. The center-left will have to demand majority rule in the Senate, and demand government action to boost employment. Cutting Social Security benefits during an employment recession might win Obama praise from the Washington Post editorial board, but it isn't going to bring people to the polls to vote for the center-left.
Follow Robert Naiman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/naiman
So, for those commenters who asked, from the very beginning Lula started kicking butt and taking names. Corruption is still pretty bad in Brazil. But it is a thousand percent better than it was. Compare that to when Obama was elected. This country had the same sense of excitement. Eric Holder "suggested" that some members of the Bush administration might be investigated. And then what happened? Obama bent over for the banks, the Bushies and the Clintonistas and in the process bent us over.Which is why Lulas party is in power and the Dems are afraid of losing power. Fight for what's right from the beginning.
One explanation might be money (the huge sums spent in the campaigns) and another may the unwillingness of Brazilians to vote against their own self interest.
prescription drugs, low unemployment all paid for as a national social contract. Yes taxes are higher but ask yourself this, If all these things and the security they bring to families are paid for through taxes then how much more money would you need to survive anyway? America is the only country in the world where a social contract is a bad word. It's the media and the American laws that allow it to concentrate ownership into the much too few hands of billionaires.
See, for example:
Brazil’s First Woman President Overcomes Opposition, Hostile Media
http://www.cipamericas.org/archives/3495
In general, we believe in the Constitution, it is that clear.
If the answer was no, Serra would win the elections. Fortunately, the answer is yes.
As for believing in the Constitution... I don't want to be offensive, but believing is not enough. You have to respect it e enforce it. If Bush was so fond of the Constitution would the "Patriot Act" ever exist?
P.S. - The Brazilian candidates actually were former rebels, so they arguably have committed (pardoned) treason. You lose.
Unemployment is lower as a result of the stimulus. Unfortunately, the temporary jobs "created" by the stimulous created jobs at a cost of $1 million dollars per employee ... it would have been more effective to not borrow the money to spend it so badly. More jobs were eliminated because of the governments tax burden to pay the exorbident costs of the stimulus ... on borrowed money.
Health care "reform" has done nothing except increase the costs of actual health care thus making more people dependent on the government for support.
You want to believe government is the answer. You'll keep borrowing money from the banks for more stimulus and more government deficits because you are too stupid to see what the banks are doing to you and the economy.
Stop borrowing money to pay for government programs. Stop pretending the government can spend money efficiently.
But, alas, voters are lost in a sea of misdeeds from 80 years of abuse from the central bank system. Awas in fiat currency that continues to be devalued to benefit international companies and investors and keep wages in America depressed.
I don't know whether to laugh at your pathetic behavior ... or ... nope, just laughter left for your slavery. Enjoy.
$2 trillion?
2,000,000,000,000.00
At $25 trillion?
At $100 trillion?
How much money do they have to steal so you will start to care about their blatant abuse of the American taxpayer? How much money do they have to steal before you start calling it treason?
Since Lula and the triumph of the Worker's Party the country has had a near miraculous renaissance. Everything works better. Everything looks better. The cities and the people look more prosperous. There are huge infrastructure improvement and development projects everywhere you go. Better roads, better transit, more sewage treatment, more kids in school uniforms, better housing, and a much reduced crime rate. It's not a wealthy country yet, but you get the sense that Brazil is well on its way to First World status. All of my relatives down there are optimistic about the future.
What happens when you raise the minimum wage, tax the wealthy fairly and proportionately, invest in better education, medical care and infrastructure, and stay the hell out of other country's affairs....you prosper in a profoundly widespread and wonderful way. A progressive agenda produces widespread prosperity. Period.
Fanned & Fav'd
In the rest of the world, Obama and the Democrats would be center-right conservatives, including Brazil.