The images out of Brazil yesterday might've looked eerily similar to Jan 6th, but there are some extremely important differences between the two events.
I'll survey the big ones here. Altogether they suggest that Brazil's J8, scary as it was, was more tantrum than full J6.
1. AGENDA // Jan6 was executed with the explicit goal of overrunning Congressional vote certification so as to overturn Trump's election loss and keep him in office.
In Brazil, there was no ongoing certification to seize. Bolsonaro had already left. His loss was forgone.
On Jan6, the storming of Congress was just one part of a larger plot to overturn the election in an orchestrated autogolpe/self-coup.
In Brazil, there was no apparent larger plot. No electoral process to seize. It was just the riot.
2. ELITE SUPPORT // Coups don't succeed without heavy elite involvement. That was one of the most important parts of Jan6: the highly visible role of Trump and others seeking to overturn the election. That's how coups work: elites wield unrest, i.e. the capitol siege, as tools.
That elite involvement didn't materialize in Brazil. Even if it turns out some pols played a role in quietly encouraging the unrest, that's not the same thing as leaders visibly coordinating to seize power from the top.
In other words: Brazil appears to have been largely / entirely bottom-up. Whereas Jan6 was both bottom-up and top-down, and both need to happen for a coup to actually succeed.
3. INSTITUTIONS // This is really important. Coups need major political institutions to back them to succeed. J6ers, including Trump, knew this & spent weeks cultivating Congress, the VP, and SCOTUS.
In Brazil, the J8ers had only a very minimal & very weak version of this plan.
The Brazil J8ers plan appears to have been "cross our fingers and hope the military backs us." No plan at all.
Even if they had actually tried to cultivate the military, Lula foresaw this and spent months preemptively cultivating military elites first. ft.com/content/c71fa3…
4. COUP-PROOFING // US political institutions were mostly unable or unwilling to do the work to gird the system against a possible coup attempt.
Not so in Brazil. Lula, domestic groups, intl orgs & Biden admin all put heavy work into preparing every level of the system for a J6.
Brazil's coup-proofing worked. You can see it in how differently things played out there, vs in the US, since Bolsonaro lost in October. Instead of seriously challenging the election as feared, he effectively conceded and left the country. He got the message. A coup would fail.
So while Brazil's Jan8 is a scary reminder that grassroots far-right authoritarianism remains a potent force, it's also a (relative) success story in girding against those forces. After years of global democratic decline, that's actually a little encouraging.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
People really need to understand how mainstream it has become in some tech VC circles to argue that journalism itself is dangerous as an idea and should be abolished, and that it will be up to the tech world to carry this out.
It comes out of a Valley utopianism has said since the 90s that all legacy institutions are ultimately barriers to progress, but that the enlightened minds of the tech world, guided by the pure science of engineering, will one day liberate us by smashing the old ways.
The idea of rejecting institutions to build a purer society on the internet, in vogue in tech in the 90s, by the 2010s had become a mandate to abolish and remake those institutions in big tech's image
News: A major U.S. company is, through a factory in owns in Russia, quietly supplying vital materials used by Russia’s air and missile forces in Ukraine
Our investigation reveals the company’s terms with Moscow – and its struggle to keep its plant running nytimes.com/2022/05/20/wor…
We reconstructed the history of Alcoa/Arconic's involvement in Russia through financial filings, archival reports, and, chiefly, internal company documents provided by a whistleblower who had a moral objection to the company continuing this work amid Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
The company didn't seek out Russian military work. Rather, this was Moscow's condition for it to, in 2004, purchase a massive factory in Russia, which mostly produces basic commercial/industrial goods. The plant also had some machines that can make advanced aerospace materials.
Two stories today highlight that authoritarianism doesn’t come with a tank rolling up to the capital anymore. It comes with a leader promising to do whatever it takes to control the dangerous minorities or radicals in our midst, to protect “us” from “them.”
In El Salvador, Bukele’s iron-fist crackdown on crime is winning grudging public support, even as he hollows out the judiciary and independent institutions. If they try to check his power, they must oppose the people’s will or support the criminals, right? nytimes.com/2022/04/28/wor…
Hungary’s initial turn toward authoritarianism looked, @zackbeauchamp shows, a lot like parts of America today: a patriotic leader pledging to “take back” social and cultural institutions from the radical minorities who’d corrupted them. vox.com/policy-and-pol…
I would strongly urge people to wait for the context on Biden’s speech before repeating that he called for regime change in Russia, much less made this US policy. The nine-word quote being passed around does not, on its own, support this.
Maybe it will turn out that, in context, he did say this. But folks may be overinterpreting based on a very unusual stretch in 2011, when Obama said similar things to signal when the US was dropping support for MidEast leaders facing Arab Spring protests. Not really the same.
Unclear whether this was a case of lost context, a gaffe/misstatement, or a post-speech walkback. Maybe some combination.
If Moscow stops at DNR/LNR recognition, even with a bloody invasion to 2014 borders, it’s very easy to imagine certain European capitals using that as an excuse to declare the worst averted and walk away from Biden’s full sanctions proposal. Might be part of the calculus.
Berlin was already signaling its fear of sanctions blowback, and it was always going to be a stretch for Scholz to sell German voters on economic self-sacrifice for the sake of Kyiv, much less Mariupol ft.com/content/b23082…
Barely a few hours since the DNR/LNR announcement and already big cracks emerging in European unity behind sanctions
1) That it prevented an outbreak. In fact, their success was subduing an epidemic already underway 2) That Korea relied on special magical technology. In truth, its methods and containment tools are not prohibitively complex or expensive.
What blows my mind about Korea’s coronavirus success:
• The speed of its turnaround. The numbers are staggering.
• The simplicity of its model. No futuristic gadgets fueled by unobtainium. No China-style mass lockdowns. It’s mostly political will, public will, and some planning