North American liberals promise a better life for people who vote for them. If he had the power and will to help the poor, presumably to elevate themselves out of poverty rather than sustain them in it, why didn't he do so during his two previous presidencies, from 2003 to 2011? Did no one in the media, or his opponent, bother to ask him that question? And what about the voters? Why would they vote for someone who failed to perform on two previous occasions? In this failed philosophy, intentions matter more than outcomes. It doesn't matter whether an idea or program works, only that people feel good about themselves by advocating for them. I think it has something to do with intentions and feelings. Liberalism, even socialism extending in some countries to communism, continues to spread in South and Central America. Latin America's largest country is gambling again on left-wing populism that has failed so often in the past."ĭid that last part strike you as familiar, because it is so often replicated here? To repeat: "left-wing populism. Here's how The Wall Street Journal reported the result: "Brazilians elected Luiz 'Lula' da Silva to the presidency again on Sunday, ousting incumbent Jair Bolsonaro by less than 2 percent of the vote. Brazil held a presidential election last Sunday.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |