A big difference between Brazil and the USA is that until 1985, Brazil was a dictatorship. The kind that "disappears" and tortures journalists and political opponents.
So lots of people still alive today remember those days and understand the danger of politicians like Bolsonaro. People like the current president Lula, who was imprisoned during the dictatorship.
The USA on the other hand, has never had a dictatorship in living memory. It's even debatable whether pre-independence it was a dictatorship, and in any case it is so far removed from the present that it has no impact on everyday life.
Maybe for this reason there is a feeling of "it can't happen here". An exceptional ism that is not unwarranted given the incredible social and economic progress made.
But this attitude is perhaps the most dangerous one can have towards fascism.
You overestimate how much people remember of the dictatorship, my parents were very much pro-Bolsonaro and they lived through the dictatorship.
Fact is for most of the population, especially the poorest, the dictatorship was not as oppressive directly against them. The secret police was going after intellectuals and universities. And censoring media of course. The average person only cared because the dictatorship was running the country economy into the ground.
This is true as well, and in fact not uncommon for a dictatorship to have decent support as long as the economy is good. See: China (although unlike Brazil I have no direct experience there).
It's also a well worn play book at this point to have people vote against their interests when given some enemy: religious or ethnic minorities, atheists, immigrants, a foreign power, etc...
In any case I completely agree with all your points. Just that the situation is even more dangerous when the society has no experience dealing with dictators.
Yes. People in postcommunist coutries are always the first to give up on democracy. While they want own freedom, they tend to be bothered by freedom of others and many have nostalgia for "order". They see corruption as an opportunity and autocracy facilitates that.
Make no mistake here, Brazil is just not in the same situation as the US because Bolsonaro couldn't manage to equip the Superior Court with a majority of loyalists.
Also Alexandre de Moraes is crossing the line of his role responsibility (and power) a lot to go after everyone in Bolsonaro's gang.
So it is not quite a democracy, is just that Bolsonaro has stronger enemies than Trump.
And this brings the question if to fight someone who does not care about the rules, you must become them and break the rules as well.
Although the parallels are similar there is one big difference between US and Brazil political system: Dual-party system.
Trump bullied the republican party and purged anyone who is not loyal to him, and through his party he got a good chunk of the congress to be subservient to him.
Brazil has multiple parties and therefor Bolsonaro couldn't worm his way into having major legislative and judiciary power as well.
One big thing in Brazil is that the voting process is conducted in two phases: Phase 1 all candidates get votes, if no one got >50% of the votes then there is a Phase 2 where only the top 2 candidates can be voted on. So voting for a 3rd party on Phase 1 is not detrimental and the main parties need to make coalitions.
So it works a bit like you see in parliamentary systems, but once in power it is quite common for the coalitions to fade away or congress-people to vote against the coalition stalemating the legislative and reforms. It is also why there is so much corruption in Brazil's congress, vote-buying can be achieved on an individual-level instead of a party-level.
Also please don't praise the current Brazilian president, he is part of the problem and making the country politics even more like the US (increasing polarization through populist movements). He is just doing it from the left side of the political spectrum. He is just not insane wannabe-dictator like Bolsonaro.
The Trump playbook didn't work in Brazil because of the way the systems and institutions are set up. But these differences have both upsides and downsides.
Multiple parties that eventually devolve into a two-party system, for decades it was PT-PSDB until PSDB imploded, now it's PT vs whatever the right/center coalesces into(MDB for decades, PSC after that, now PL). In fact it's more of a two-personalities system at this point, with the right clinging desperately into Bolsonaro's fading popularity while the left clings onto Lula's image as much as they can after failing to make any successor popular.
And after elections, yes, it just turns into negotiation with center parties that will sell off their support for vote-buying projects.
You’re underselling the power and importance of other parties to democracy. To compare it to a two party system because some parties are stronger at times is incorrect.
Like you said, PSDB is a dead party today. PT has had only 20 years of presidential power, interrupted by a far right party. PL seems likely to split up in the next few years due to Bolsonaro.
There's no such thing as 60 years of two parties having mostly the same views and locked in one against the other, in every region of the country, like the US. That is incredibly harmful to democracy.
I’m old enough to have seen changes in our political system. The center parties, while mostly not center and corrupt, give our system a sort of chaotic nature where compromises and alliances are necessary. That in itself has value in a democracy.
> In fact it's more of a two-personalities system at this point
Yes, well put. This is what I meant that the current president is not making things better. But it is still fundamentally different from how the US works, centrist parties get a decent amount of votes. You almost never see elections where there is not a 2nd round of votes because no one got >50% on the first one.
It looks very weird if a congress-person in the US votes against the party, isn't it?. In Brazil it is not that unnusual.
In Brazil vote-buying happens through suit-cases full of dollars, in the US it happens through lobbying and promises of cushy jobs after you leave congress. Both are bad but suit-cases are much worse.
This is also why it is so hard to actually enact reforms in Brazil, literally impossible to pass any big reforms without bribing a lot of people. Some politicians will actively vote against passing bills just because they didn't get a kickback.
Lobbying is just corruption legalized. The only reason they use suit-cases and underwear filled with money in Brazil is because the corruption hasn’t developed the same veneer of legality yet.
The ideal amount of corruption is not 0, but equating lobbying to suit-cases is disingenuous. Suite-cases are far more damaging and cheaper way to get congress votes and only brings the most unscrupulous people who want to plunder the most out of government intervention.
There are of course multiple ways to do multi-party systems, and the Brazilian system is quite different from some other multi-party systems.
IMHO the state of things in the US seems unique dysfunctional. None of the major institutions really work as were intended. The constitution is so hard to change that it's effectively ossified, which results in the Supreme Court deciding on huge swaths of life. In a healthy democratic system, many of these should be decided by democratic vote and not a tea-leaf reading of a vague 250-year old sentence.
> Then the insurrection failed, the ex-president faced a criminal investigation and prosecutors put him on trial for plotting a coup.
The Americans impeached this president once and nothing happened, and then also didn't they find him guilty of a ton of other crimes, and nothing happened?
Do Americans have optimism that Trump won't be their first dictator for life and will actually face consequences for his crimes? As for me I'm so confident that Trump is America's last president that I'm trying to find ways to put money on it.
> The Americans impeached this president once and nothing happened,
Twice; there have been four impeachments of US Presidents, two of which were of Donald Trump during his previous term.
> Do Americans have optimism that Trump won't be their first dictator for life and will actually face consequences for his crimes?
I'm pretty confident that he WILL be a somewhat [0] dictatorial leader for life, but I think there are pretty good odds that this does not involve exceeding the maximum term limit set by the 22nd Amendment.
[0] somewhat only in that I don't think the total destruction of institutions that would make it an absolute dictatorship rather than an aspirational one that still struggles against things like courts that, while mostly tame, still give some effect to Constitutional rights and limits is likely to be completed before Trump is, though not for lack of trying.
I'm curious what makes you believe Trump won't attempt, and succeed, to exceed the term limit set by the 22nd Amendment? There's a pretty obvious loophole with the word "elected," so he can circumvent by preventing elections.
I'm also just not sure where faith comes from that the constitution won't at this point just be interpreted per the needs of the administration, or simply ignored with no consequence.
> I'm curious what makes you believe Trump won't attempt, and succeed, to exceed the term limit set by the 22nd Amendment?
I think the sentence in which I express that is pretty clear on why (emphasis added): “I'm pretty confident that he WILL be a somewhat dictatorial leader for life, but I think there are pretty good odds that this does not involve exceeding the maximum term limit set by the 22nd Amendment.”
I'm with you. America is already a failed state, a dead man walking, and people are still pretending like it can be fixed. There's only one way this country can be saved and, regardless of the process to get there, it would culminate in a new constitution.
He wasn't found guilty of many other crimes at all, because Americans (with less experience in such matters) didn't understand the need to move fast. In the most severe case IMO, where he tried to subvert the Georgia election, the indictment came down almost three years after the crime.
> Do Americans have optimism that Trump won't be their first dictator for life
Yes! It's a very real and very big concern, and preventing it from happening is my primary political commitment for the next four years, but I'm pretty confident we'll succeed. I really want people to understand that when you declare he's already the dictator and nothing can change that, you are taking Trump's side, even if you shake your head sadly while you say it.
I am sorry, but this article is a bag of lies. It is just buying and broadcasting the official story from human rights violator Justice Alexandre de Morais, who is persecuting opposition and making up trials as Moscow did in the great purges.
Unfortunately, that counter-argument lacks the understanding that the tariffs aren't meant to be a retaliatory tool against countries. The President's power to use tariffs is (supposed to be) meant as an emergency measure against unfair trade practices.
A nation has the sovereign right to implement tariffs. In response, other countries may exercise their right to apply retaliatory tariffs. Fairness and unfairness are subjective.
Notice “nation” part, not “president”. Tariffs power in the US vested in Congress, and Congress created laws which regulate it. What Trump is doing is outside of his legal powers, regardless to some conceptual reasoning why countries can do retaliation tariffs.
A big difference between Brazil and the USA is that until 1985, Brazil was a dictatorship. The kind that "disappears" and tortures journalists and political opponents.
So lots of people still alive today remember those days and understand the danger of politicians like Bolsonaro. People like the current president Lula, who was imprisoned during the dictatorship.
The USA on the other hand, has never had a dictatorship in living memory. It's even debatable whether pre-independence it was a dictatorship, and in any case it is so far removed from the present that it has no impact on everyday life.
Maybe for this reason there is a feeling of "it can't happen here". An exceptional ism that is not unwarranted given the incredible social and economic progress made.
But this attitude is perhaps the most dangerous one can have towards fascism.
You overestimate how much people remember of the dictatorship, my parents were very much pro-Bolsonaro and they lived through the dictatorship.
Fact is for most of the population, especially the poorest, the dictatorship was not as oppressive directly against them. The secret police was going after intellectuals and universities. And censoring media of course. The average person only cared because the dictatorship was running the country economy into the ground.
This is true as well, and in fact not uncommon for a dictatorship to have decent support as long as the economy is good. See: China (although unlike Brazil I have no direct experience there).
It's also a well worn play book at this point to have people vote against their interests when given some enemy: religious or ethnic minorities, atheists, immigrants, a foreign power, etc...
In any case I completely agree with all your points. Just that the situation is even more dangerous when the society has no experience dealing with dictators.
This makes me feel so doomed and sad about US future meh.
Yes. People in postcommunist coutries are always the first to give up on democracy. While they want own freedom, they tend to be bothered by freedom of others and many have nostalgia for "order". They see corruption as an opportunity and autocracy facilitates that.
50% tariff on Brazil so they stop offering lessons in democratic maturity.
We need to protect and reshore our own domestic lessons in democratic maturity. We can produce these hard lessons in the US again if we try!
Don't worry, the hard lessons are already being set up as we speak!
In two weeks we're going to have the biggest, most beautiful lessons.
"You put your arm around your friend when there's something like this going on, and talk about what we're prepared to do together"
https://archive.is/20250828090209/https://www.economist.com/...
I hope Brazil sorts itself out, economically and in regards of crime and opportunity.
I hope it does that, as I hope the same for USA.
Depends whether they support the working class or the ownership class. All politics is about this.
"Oh there you go, bringing class into it again."
Brazil is a melting pot. It's completely impossible.
Make no mistake here, Brazil is just not in the same situation as the US because Bolsonaro couldn't manage to equip the Superior Court with a majority of loyalists.
Also Alexandre de Moraes is crossing the line of his role responsibility (and power) a lot to go after everyone in Bolsonaro's gang.
So it is not quite a democracy, is just that Bolsonaro has stronger enemies than Trump.
And this brings the question if to fight someone who does not care about the rules, you must become them and break the rules as well.
Although the parallels are similar there is one big difference between US and Brazil political system: Dual-party system.
Trump bullied the republican party and purged anyone who is not loyal to him, and through his party he got a good chunk of the congress to be subservient to him.
Brazil has multiple parties and therefor Bolsonaro couldn't worm his way into having major legislative and judiciary power as well.
One big thing in Brazil is that the voting process is conducted in two phases: Phase 1 all candidates get votes, if no one got >50% of the votes then there is a Phase 2 where only the top 2 candidates can be voted on. So voting for a 3rd party on Phase 1 is not detrimental and the main parties need to make coalitions.
So it works a bit like you see in parliamentary systems, but once in power it is quite common for the coalitions to fade away or congress-people to vote against the coalition stalemating the legislative and reforms. It is also why there is so much corruption in Brazil's congress, vote-buying can be achieved on an individual-level instead of a party-level.
Also please don't praise the current Brazilian president, he is part of the problem and making the country politics even more like the US (increasing polarization through populist movements). He is just doing it from the left side of the political spectrum. He is just not insane wannabe-dictator like Bolsonaro.
The Trump playbook didn't work in Brazil because of the way the systems and institutions are set up. But these differences have both upsides and downsides.
Multiple parties that eventually devolve into a two-party system, for decades it was PT-PSDB until PSDB imploded, now it's PT vs whatever the right/center coalesces into(MDB for decades, PSC after that, now PL). In fact it's more of a two-personalities system at this point, with the right clinging desperately into Bolsonaro's fading popularity while the left clings onto Lula's image as much as they can after failing to make any successor popular.
And after elections, yes, it just turns into negotiation with center parties that will sell off their support for vote-buying projects.
You’re underselling the power and importance of other parties to democracy. To compare it to a two party system because some parties are stronger at times is incorrect.
Like you said, PSDB is a dead party today. PT has had only 20 years of presidential power, interrupted by a far right party. PL seems likely to split up in the next few years due to Bolsonaro.
There's no such thing as 60 years of two parties having mostly the same views and locked in one against the other, in every region of the country, like the US. That is incredibly harmful to democracy.
I’m old enough to have seen changes in our political system. The center parties, while mostly not center and corrupt, give our system a sort of chaotic nature where compromises and alliances are necessary. That in itself has value in a democracy.
> In fact it's more of a two-personalities system at this point
Yes, well put. This is what I meant that the current president is not making things better. But it is still fundamentally different from how the US works, centrist parties get a decent amount of votes. You almost never see elections where there is not a 2nd round of votes because no one got >50% on the first one.
Thank you for sharing the insights. I always wonder how multi-party system would work and seems like it's not all rose-y like I thought they are...
Side note, the individual-level vote buying also happens in the US system unfortunately.
It looks very weird if a congress-person in the US votes against the party, isn't it?. In Brazil it is not that unnusual.
In Brazil vote-buying happens through suit-cases full of dollars, in the US it happens through lobbying and promises of cushy jobs after you leave congress. Both are bad but suit-cases are much worse.
This is also why it is so hard to actually enact reforms in Brazil, literally impossible to pass any big reforms without bribing a lot of people. Some politicians will actively vote against passing bills just because they didn't get a kickback.
Lobbying is just corruption legalized. The only reason they use suit-cases and underwear filled with money in Brazil is because the corruption hasn’t developed the same veneer of legality yet.
The ideal amount of corruption is not 0, but equating lobbying to suit-cases is disingenuous. Suite-cases are far more damaging and cheaper way to get congress votes and only brings the most unscrupulous people who want to plunder the most out of government intervention.
There are of course multiple ways to do multi-party systems, and the Brazilian system is quite different from some other multi-party systems.
IMHO the state of things in the US seems unique dysfunctional. None of the major institutions really work as were intended. The constitution is so hard to change that it's effectively ossified, which results in the Supreme Court deciding on huge swaths of life. In a healthy democratic system, many of these should be decided by democratic vote and not a tea-leaf reading of a vague 250-year old sentence.
I think this is overly optimistic, as PL is still wildly popular and the situation could easily reverse over the course of the next two elections.
Not to mention nobody in Brazilian politics is lily white and a mature democracy would not be lead by Lula.
Right, so lets talk about the government banning speech they dont like?
Both countries do it:
a. trump trying to ban burning of american flags
b. brazil banning elon musk tweets
The difference is a. will not stand up in court and is protected free speech, while b. will never be overturned.
If a. goes to SC these days, there is no telling how the ruling would go.
> Then the insurrection failed, the ex-president faced a criminal investigation and prosecutors put him on trial for plotting a coup.
The Americans impeached this president once and nothing happened, and then also didn't they find him guilty of a ton of other crimes, and nothing happened?
Do Americans have optimism that Trump won't be their first dictator for life and will actually face consequences for his crimes? As for me I'm so confident that Trump is America's last president that I'm trying to find ways to put money on it.
> The Americans impeached this president once and nothing happened,
Twice; there have been four impeachments of US Presidents, two of which were of Donald Trump during his previous term.
> Do Americans have optimism that Trump won't be their first dictator for life and will actually face consequences for his crimes?
I'm pretty confident that he WILL be a somewhat [0] dictatorial leader for life, but I think there are pretty good odds that this does not involve exceeding the maximum term limit set by the 22nd Amendment.
[0] somewhat only in that I don't think the total destruction of institutions that would make it an absolute dictatorship rather than an aspirational one that still struggles against things like courts that, while mostly tame, still give some effect to Constitutional rights and limits is likely to be completed before Trump is, though not for lack of trying.
I'm curious what makes you believe Trump won't attempt, and succeed, to exceed the term limit set by the 22nd Amendment? There's a pretty obvious loophole with the word "elected," so he can circumvent by preventing elections.
I'm also just not sure where faith comes from that the constitution won't at this point just be interpreted per the needs of the administration, or simply ignored with no consequence.
> I'm curious what makes you believe Trump won't attempt, and succeed, to exceed the term limit set by the 22nd Amendment?
I think the sentence in which I express that is pretty clear on why (emphasis added): “I'm pretty confident that he WILL be a somewhat dictatorial leader for life, but I think there are pretty good odds that this does not involve exceeding the maximum term limit set by the 22nd Amendment.”
I'm with you. America is already a failed state, a dead man walking, and people are still pretending like it can be fixed. There's only one way this country can be saved and, regardless of the process to get there, it would culminate in a new constitution.
> There's only one way this country can be saved and, regardless of the process to get there, it would culminate in a new constitution.
NYT op-ed from 8/14 agreeing: "Abolish the Senate. End the Electoral College. Pack the Court. Why the left can’t win without a new Constitution."
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/14/opinion/trump-democracy-t... https://archive.is/uNIPL
> impeached this president ~once~ twice.
With two acquittals in the Senate.
He wasn't found guilty of many other crimes at all, because Americans (with less experience in such matters) didn't understand the need to move fast. In the most severe case IMO, where he tried to subvert the Georgia election, the indictment came down almost three years after the crime.
> Do Americans have optimism that Trump won't be their first dictator for life
Yes! It's a very real and very big concern, and preventing it from happening is my primary political commitment for the next four years, but I'm pretty confident we'll succeed. I really want people to understand that when you declare he's already the dictator and nothing can change that, you are taking Trump's side, even if you shake your head sadly while you say it.
I mean, almost every country could offer America a lesson about democracy nowadays.
Some countries build walls to keep people out. Some countries build walls to keep people in...
I am sorry, but this article is a bag of lies. It is just buying and broadcasting the official story from human rights violator Justice Alexandre de Morais, who is persecuting opposition and making up trials as Moscow did in the great purges.
Counterargument (in portuguese)
https://x.com/mortony13/status/1960261642014339524?s=46&t=36...
Unfortunately, that counter-argument lacks the understanding that the tariffs aren't meant to be a retaliatory tool against countries. The President's power to use tariffs is (supposed to be) meant as an emergency measure against unfair trade practices.
A nation has the sovereign right to implement tariffs. In response, other countries may exercise their right to apply retaliatory tariffs. Fairness and unfairness are subjective.
Notice “nation” part, not “president”. Tariffs power in the US vested in Congress, and Congress created laws which regulate it. What Trump is doing is outside of his legal powers, regardless to some conceptual reasoning why countries can do retaliation tariffs.