Populist rulers face a dilemma. Since they embody “the people” and realize “the will of the people,” they cannot lose elections. The people cannot vote against itself. My Independent Review article on “The Impossibility of Populism” explained this in more details. But here is a current illustration.
Jair Bolsonaro, the Brazilian president, faces the same dilemma as Donald Trump did: there is a good probability that he will lose the forthcoming presidential election in October. So what does he do? Something similar to what Trump did in both 2016 and 2020: he warns his followers in advance that if he loses, it will mean that the election was rigged. The Economist explains (“Might Jair Bolsonaro Try to Steal Brazil’s Election?” July 14, 2022):
[Mr. Bolsonaro] is also sowing doubt about the electoral process. He tells supporters he can only be defeated if the contest is rigged. This suggests he may dispute the result if he loses. …
On July 7th Mr Bolsonaro insinuated that Mr Fachin [the president of the electoral court] “already knows” the outcome of the election. He peddles such twaddle while insisting that Brazil’s electronic-voting system is susceptible to fraud. The system has been used in Brazil since 1996 with no evidence of irregularities. …
His opponents fear that if the vote is close, he may claim he was robbed of victory and try to cling on by foul means.
READER COMMENTS
Jim Glass
Jul 16 2022 at 10:25pm
It’s like old times…
Pierre Lemieux
Jul 16 2022 at 11:18pm
Jim: But was it a widespread phenomenon in advanced countries? It may very well be that there was more fraud (think of the political machines), but I would think that a widespread refusal to accept the results was rare, except perhaps from Communists in Europe.
Craig
Jul 17 2022 at 11:52am
“widespread refusal to accept the results was rare”
There needs to be a foundation of trust and mutual respect that flat out does NOT exist. That’s the product of the divided society the US is. Not sure about Brazil of course because I don’t read about Brazil every day. Unpopular opinion of the day I am sure, but here’s the thing, I’m not personally willing to accept the consequences of losing anymore.
From my point of view, the lobster is being slow boiled so maybe roll the dice on Pinochet? I don’t know, I’m too busy to take part in any nonsense, but the blue cancer needs to be arrested. I emigrated from NJ to get away from it. I’d prefer it to be done democratically, but frankly I’m willing to go along with an extaconstitutional solution.
$30tn in debt, 9% inflation, confiscatory taxation, perpetual armed conflict. No, I don’t care what the result is anymore.
As far as I’m concerned the 1787 Constitution is effectively a dead letter. It was supposed to create a limited government of enumerated powers and what exists today clearly isn’t that. I’m very interested in democracy, I have no interest in what THIS PARTICULAR democracy has become. It is bankrupt, morally and fiscally, to the point where I genuinely don’t respect the institutions and obviously the individuals occupying those institutions.
” advanced countries”
Just as an aside I’ve been to Brazil and the term ‘advanced countries’ often refers to places like Canada, the US, Europe, Japan. I get it, but I must say that everything that exists here, ALSO exists there, there’s just obviously much more poverty. They make cars, jet engines, you name it. Sao Paulo is for real, not unlike NYC, but obviously there are slums and no, I didn’t go into them.
Monte
Jul 17 2022 at 6:53pm
I sympathize, but (if I understand you correctly) this type of attitude has dangerous undertones. We MUST be willing to accept the outcome of a certified election in the absence of any broad, concrete evidence of fraud. And any redress of grievances MUST be constitutionally indemnified. Otherwise…anarchy and, ultimately, the failure of the Great Experiment.
Again, I sympathize. There no longer seem to be consequences for those in government who violate the public trust. And that’s a problem that fair elections can’t fix.
Craig
Jul 17 2022 at 11:14pm
“I sympathize, but (if I understand you correctly) this type of attitude has dangerous undertones. We MUST be willing to accept the outcome of a certified election in the absence of any broad, concrete evidence of fraud.”
No, you don’t, that’s entirely up to you, but governments serve a purpose and if they don’t serve that purpose, the fact that it was the result of a democratic process is irrelevant because we’re not beholden to a mode of government.
“And any redress of grievances MUST be constitutionally indemnified.”
If you read the Philadelphia Convention notes and Madison’s views on the Articles of Confederation there were those who noted that the proposal didn’t comport with the previous compact and Madison’s response to that is that it was a dead letter because it wasn’t being adhered to.
The Constitution isn’t a suicide pact and the fact of the matter is that this is a post-constitutional era where the design of a limited government of enumerated powers simply doesn’t exist. You’re not beholden to it any more than Madison was beholden to the Articles of Confederation. Thus, extraconstitutional remedies are completely justifiable.
Jim Glass
Jul 18 2022 at 9:31pm
Jim: But was it a widespread phenomenon in advanced countries?
Well – this wasn’t the point of that movie, to be sure – but in the years just before it was produced, what happened to the electoral systems in Spain, Italy, Germany, across eastern Europe down through China?
Populism involves a lot more than just not accepting a loss in an election result — it’s a lot more effective for it to destroy the electoral system. Mussolini won the popular vote elections in Italy using “techniques” that destroyed them. Populists can defy other election rules than just those for vote counting.
Of course, one could say those weren’t “advanced” countries by today’s standards — but then, there pretty much weren’t any. During most of the story of that movie women didn’t have the vote right here in the USA. Madison Square Garden in NYC hosted rallies for both Communists and Fascists in the 1930s. And of course great numbers of people here in the USA outright rejected the election result in 1860, and bitterly resented it for many decades after, winning elections on it well into the 20th Century.
“Thinking the old days were better is a terrible sickness.” — Jean Shepherd
Craig
Jul 17 2022 at 12:00pm
https://sports.yahoo.com/even-cia-fears-brazil-bolsonaro-150614104.html
https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/exclusive-cia-chief-told-bolsonaro-government-not-mess-with-brazil-election-2022-05-05/
“The head of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency in July urged top Brazilian government officials to put a stop to far-right President Jair Bolsonaro’s efforts to undermine the integrity of the country’s electoral system ahead of Brazil’s 2022 election, Reuters reported Thursday, citing anonymous sources within the U.S. government.”
Does anybody realize just how BAD that looks?
That suggests to me the CIA is messing with it and they don’t want Bolsonaro to question it because it would upset their apple cart.
Is the story true? I dunno, I wasn’t there, but its on Reuters which at least seems somewhat credible.
Do I think it plausible the CIA would mess around with Brazil’s elections?
Yes, yes, I do. And that’s not my fault for thinking the worse of them, that’s THEIR fault for doing it in the past.
Jon Murphy
Jul 17 2022 at 2:00pm
These sorts of populists (and their supporters) are frustrating. No evidence against them can convince them because that evidence must be manufactured (it’s all part of the conspiracy, you know). Any lack of evidence for their position just supports their claims as the conspirators are just that good at covering their tracks.
And all the evidence they put forth is usually just vague, semi-threatening statements like “my opponent certainly would do that!” or “Why wouldn’t they do it?”
Craig
Jul 17 2022 at 2:30pm
If we had a corporation together and I thought, rightly or wrongly, that you were rigging the vote or wrongfully voting unvoted proxy votes to ensure a “Murphy Board” to maintain you as CEO.
Evidence or not, the evidence exists that I wouldn’t trust you in this manner. In a corporation I sell the shares/divest.
With respect to the fiscally reckless, war mongering criminals? Well, shocker, i don’t trust them. Its on them to act beyond rapproach. They don’t.
They deserve to be relegated to the dust bin of history.
Jon Murphy
Jul 17 2022 at 3:00pm
And this sentence highlights the problem: with or without evidence, you have “evidence” that you couldn’t trust me. So, no matter what I said or did, it wouldn’t matter.
Furthermore, it is one thing for an individual to take an action that affects the individual (eg selling shares in a company). It’s a whole other thing to undermine a political policy and legal system based on no evidence. For obvious reasons, the burden of proof should be much higher for the latter.
Craig
Jul 17 2022 at 3:13pm
But you forgot that you had been convicted of fraud against my interests in the corporation and sexually harassed my wife, but now you insist you didn’t commit fraud with the proxy votes.
With respect to the election, who cares? You already gave me reaaon not to trusr you.
Jon Murphy
Jul 18 2022 at 7:05am
Further evidence of the weakness of your position. You just made that up (it wasn’t in your original hypothetical).
Again, there is all the difference in the world between choosing to sell shares and leave versus taking over the firm through illegal means. No amount of paranoia justifies crime. You need evidence, not nonsense.
I despise and fear electorial conspiracy and undermining liberal institutions. That is why I will fight tooth and nail to defend them from all sorts of paranoia, whether it be your “well, I have no evidence but it’s what they would do” or the Left’s “everyone is out to fet us so we must destroy the system”.
You’re not the hero, Craig. You’re the enabler.
Craig
Jul 18 2022 at 7:59am
“You just made that up (it wasn’t in your original hypothetical”
No, I did write above: “$30tn in debt, 9% inflation, confiscatory taxation, perpetual armed conflict. No, I don’t care what the result is anymore.”
You’re correct that I didn’t fully make the analogy to the corporate circumstance, but yes, its important that you be a bad faith actor prior to the election because that’s why I’m not deferring to the election.
“Again, there is all the difference in the world between choosing to sell shares and leave versus taking over the firm through illegal means. No amount of paranoia justifies crime. You need evidence, not nonsense.”
The American Revolution was illegal under English law of course. Right now extraconstitutional means are 100% justified because the natural right of revolution has been triggered, well before the election.
The 1787 Constitution should be relegated to the dust bin of history where it belongs.
#nationaldivorce
vince
Jul 18 2022 at 3:22pm
Craig, would end-to-end auditable voting give you the confidence you lack–at least for a voting outcome? It would for me.
Craig
Jul 18 2022 at 6:51pm
It would help, though at the end of the day a legitimate election doesn’t bolster the legitimacy of an illegitimate government. Honestly we have garbage people in garbage institutions. Garbage in, garbage out, frankly I believe it to be irredeemable.
Craig
Jul 18 2022 at 8:21am
“You’re not the hero, Craig. You’re the enabler.”
I’m only a hero to my children. I’m nobody else’s hero, I’m out for me and my family.
I’d love to be able to hit the Easy Button and enable #nationaldivorce, but I’m not an agency here. I support secession but I’m not going to be the guy at the secessionist convention.
Monte
Jul 18 2022 at 11:33am
Someday you’ll find yourself asking for whom the bell tolls, my friend.
Craig
Jul 18 2022 at 4:51pm
It did, that’s why I left the People’s Republic of NJ.
Walt
Jul 17 2022 at 6:24pm
The problem for American voters is that everything that happened after election day 2020 was behind closed doors and relayed to the public second hand by a less than unbiased press who labeled any hint of possible fraud as The Big Lie while forwarding the opposite Big Lie: that 2020 was THE cleanest election in American history. Thus, both sides stretched the other’s credulity. Meanwhile, the public never got to see the ostensible evidence or hear its reasonable refutation. Leaving the whole thing open to speculation and doubt. Nor have the various government agencies shown tnemselves to be either neutral or honestly reliable players. (See the fix on Russiagate,) And none of that has anything to do with Trump’s own crazed post-election behavior.
I know little about Brazilian politics but have heard that a left wing media there is as opposed to Bolsonaro as the press in America was to Trump and that his opponent in the race is an authoritarian socialist— like the others of his ilk who’ve tended to cause South American misery.
Pierre Lemieux
Jul 18 2022 at 3:33pm
Walt: If one seeks perfect knowledge, one will not get it. However, we can approach the truth with incentive-compatible theories and with empirical information relayed by serious and credible sources, including by some who don’t mimic our opinions. The relays are important because, of course, few people have the time to look, for example, at all the court submissions of the Trump campaign and the text if the respective rulings. See my posts of November 16, November 27, and December 3, 2020.
Walt
Jul 18 2022 at 5:19pm
Pierre: my point was simply that real case by case transparency would have —at least could have—ended the speculations whereas grandly dismissing everything out of hand merely fanned flames. Nor does it matter if some of those speculations were outright crazy. What matters is establishing widespread (not just one-sided) trust in the electoral process. As for “conspiracies,” I’ve always liked the line about “Never ascribe to clever conspiracy what could equally be ascribed to individual stupidity.” Or, as with the seemingly homogenous media, to individual bias.
Dan of the Patuxent
Jul 19 2022 at 11:01am
Dangerous rhetoric indeed. Yet is it any more dangerous than the claim that a man who proved never to have a large public following, who spent most of the 2020 campaign not campaigning, who now enjoys record low unpopularity as America’s president, that this man, Joe Biden, captured nearly 25% more votes than any American presidential candidate ever before?
The more I see the less confident I become that national elections, even those with the “electoral college” can be conducted fairly and honestly. My answer is a logical one. Let Congress choose the president – wouldn’t this invariably reflect the electoral college anyway?
Furthermore, I would revoke the 17th amendment and have senators appointed by state legislatures. Let the people have a direct say in the members of the House. Let them have an indirect say in the composition of the Senate, President and Judiciary. Let us please reduce the notion of direct democracy in the Federal government and rather increase the expectation that the Federal government be restrained by the Constitution, and that the entirety of the Federal government be accountable to Congress – a body selected by the people and by the states.
Craig
Jul 24 2022 at 10:38am
“Dangerous rhetoric indeed.”
Watched a video where Thomas DiLorenzo from the Mises Institute was discussing socialist destructionism and his opinion is that democracy will inevitably lead to socialism. IF we assume that is true then at some point the inference is that the democratic result is going to have to be rejected. Between Pinochet and Allende, I’ll roll the dice on Pinochet. The blue cancer has to be stopped. Dangerous, yes, but giving presumptive legitimacy to the democratic result can be equally as dangerous.
Comments are closed.