Brazil’s political and economic woes are undeniably linked. As markets rise and fall with the starts and stops of President Dilma Rousseff’s impeachment, it appears the capitalists of the world prefer the demise of the Workers' Party. While proceedings against the nation’s top leader and massive unrest fueled by widespread socioeconomic injustice at a time of global economic instability weighs heavily on Brazil, the purge of Brazil’s socialist leadership will not solve Brazil’s troubles. It is only the purging of all corrupt leadership that will create a political environment conducive to constructive socioeconomic change.
Despite the annulment of Dilma’s impeachment due to procedural flaws, the drama has only begun. Impeachment is not a pleasant process, yet it is a necessary safeguard intended to protect democratic nations against corrupt, abusive, and/or inept leadership. Unfortunately, Brazil’s economy and society have long been corroded by massive corruption at the hands of self-serving political elites. A scandal involving Dilma Rousseff and a plot to divert money from state-owned oil company Petrobras to support her reelection bid by hiding a massive budget deficit are serious, yet not uncommon in Brazil.
Comments
Businesses and individuals can earn money when they solve problems or entertain others. While the world of politics has certainly become more entertaining, it has lost the ability to actually solve problems. There may be a significant number of people who find politics entertaining, but the audience is not large enough to sustain the enormous financial and social cost of political dysfunction. If those employed in the political industry expect their jobs to exist in the near future, they must become more useful by learning to offer better solutions to problems.
Instead of bemoaning the nomination of Donald Trump political figures need to provide what Trump gives his supporters and what he does not. On the economic front, Donald Trump’s strength stems from his business expertise and his opposition to unpopular policies like NAFTA, CAFTA, and TPP. Despite Bill Clinton’s embrace of free trade during his Presidency, Hillary Clinton has taken a position against free trade, thereby guaranteeing the halt of expanded free trade. A reversal of NAFTA could even be next. For free trade advocates and the biggest beneficiaries of free trade, the threat of a trade war is a nightmare about to come true. Republican Presidential hopefuls Ted Cruz and John Kasich have finally admitted defeat. Barring any schemes to usurp the decision of GOP voters and select another candidate, Donald Trump is the Republican Nominee for the 2016 Presidential Election. This is a major problem for much of the political establishment and the hordes of people Mr. Trump has managed to outrage. While the politicians, pundits, and plutocrats of the US political industry are busy calculating whether or not supporting Trump will be advantageous to them, the fact that Donald Trump could be the next US Presidents is now a reality that must be recognized.
Although Mr. Trump’s victory is no surprise, the fact that presumptive Democratic Nominee Hillary Clinton is still competing with Bernie Sanders, who has no chance of clinching the Party nomination, is a surprise. Favored by the political establishment, Hillary Clinton has long been treated as the presumptive Democratic candidate. Despite Sanders use of the nomination process to gain leverage over Clinton and the future Democratic policy platform, Hillary will be the Democratic Nominee. To boot, strong anti-Trump sentiments among Republicans could mean GOP support for Hillary, thus creating a true establishment versus non-establishment race. The Obama Administration sought to capitalize on the fifth anniversary of Osama Biden Laden’s death in an effort to cement the outgoing President’s foreign policy legacy. At the same time, the US was desperately trying to work with Russia to stop the Aleppo Offensive in Syria as protesters stormed Iraq’s highly secure “Green Zone.” Unlike the symbolic victory that was Bin Laden’s demise, the threat of globalized terrorism and self-serving, unresponsive governance are problems not easily solved. With President Obama about to retire, the Peoples of the world have serious concerns as to how, and if, the next US President will lead on these issues.
Obama’s response to top foreign policy concerns like the Arab Spring Revolutions, the Islamic State threat, the Ukrainian Crisis, and the South China Sea crisis draw criticism from both sides of the political spectrum. President Obama and his team have made mistakes, including critical ones such as their mishandling of the Benghazi embassy attack and the hollow “red line” threat issued to Bashar al-Assad over the use of chemical weapons. Recognizing the shortcomings of the Obama Administration, there is a chance to learn. That said, the cautious approach of the Obama Administration probably best fits the current mood of the International Community. |
Read old posts
April 2020
|