Game of Thrones: The One Where Everyone Contemplates Imminent Death

Every week for the eighth and final season of Game of Thrones, three Atlantic staffers will be discussing new episodes of the HBO drama. Because no screeners were made available to critics in advance this year, we’ll be posting our thoughts in installments.

---

David Sims: Last week’s episode of Game of Thrones was all about the human stakes of the conflict ahead, and the unlikely alliances and friendships that had been forged over the past seven seasons. “Winterfell” existed to build up serious dramatic tension ahead of the climactic clash with the Night King and his army of the dead. This week’s episode, titled “A Knight of the Seven Kingdoms” and written by series mainstay Bryan Cogman, served the exact same purpose. Set on the eve before battle, it saw almost all of the show’s friendly characters gather at Winterfell to hash out old grievances, pursue long-simmering romances, and generally cast a wistful glance back at all the crazy circumstances that brought them together.

I’m not opposed to such a notion—Thrones has always been as much about the interpersonal dynamics as it is about the big-budget fights. I’d gently suggest, though, that perhaps audiences didn’t need most of last week’s dire episode, which suffered from molasses-slow pacing and an excess of interest in the Jon-Daenerys relationship (one of the least compelling bonds in the series, which exists only for plot purposes). Smoosh that episode together with this one, and you could distill from them a good hour of fan service. But with one-third of the season now spent, I can’t deny I’m eager for everyone to get to the fireworks factory already.

Cogman, who has served as the writing staff’s foremost expert on the deep lore of George R. R. Martin’s books, was best-suited to tackle the action of this episode, which amounted to a bunch of meaningful fireside chats. Some characters who finally got to hash things out, like Jaime and Bran, essentially hadn’t interacted since the Game of Thrones pilot. Other long-awaited reunions—between Brienne and Tormund, or Sansa and Theon—had previously been interrupted by the usual Game of Thrones plot contrivances (war, subterfuge, throne-room politics).

The most vital and best-handled bit of “satisfying payoff”? When Davos Seaworth made a big pot of onion soup for everyone. Kidding. It was Jaime’s knighting of Brienne, which functioned both as a way for him to try and repay her for the good she saw in him, and an acknowledgement of the ludicrousness of the chivalric traditions of Westeros, which elevated him to godlike status while largely ignoring or marginalizing her. Jaime, even in his diminished state, is a legend walking into the halls of Winterfell at the beginning of the episode, his notoriety built up in a world that is likely going to be swept aside in the coming weeks. In knighting Brienne, he not only acknowledged his obvious love for her, but also nodded at a potentially bright future if everyone can make it through this darkest night.

The “fireplace club” (which also included great characters like Tyrion, Tormund, Davos, and Podrick) was a nice assemblage of Game of Thrones’ reliable middle-management workhorses—politicians and brawlers alike who have made their mistakes and scored a few big triumphs, and who will all soon be tossed into the blender by the Night King (and whatever battle for the throne follows). As Thrones wraps up, I’m always going to be happy to hear war stories from the personalities I’ve enjoyed the most over the years.

Some of the other reunions I could take or leave. Arya’s motivations in scoring one hot night with Gendry before the big fight were perfectly understandable, but the scene was awkwardly presented. It was one of a few that felt like it had sprung from the pages of fan fiction rather than Martin’s novels. As the show has progressed beyond the Song of Ice and Fire series, certain plot developments have felt annoyingly neat, and this was one of them—as was Arya’s cold goodbye to the Hound, or Sam’s presentation of a Valyrian steel blade to Jorah.

I’m all for Thrones celebrating the quieter moments. But there were times during “A Knight of the Seven Kingdoms” when I felt the show running down a checklist and making sure it spent a little time on everything before getting ready to kill off a bunch of main characters. Next week’s edition should finally settle the dust on the situation at Winterfell and start zooming back out to consider Westeros at large. But Lenika and Spencer, I ask you: Has the show left itself enough time to dig into what comes next?

---

Lenika Cruz: I hate that I’m thinking about this season in such a clinical way, but it does seem like the showrunners have split these six episodes between “the lead up to The Big Battle” and “the aftermath.” Which makes sense! But I’m still not confident about what shape this “aftermath” will take; and that framing sort of assumes that the dead will be “dealt with” as of the end of Episode 3. (As Bran put it, “How do you know there is an afterwards.”) Nothing has genuinely surprised me so far this season as the show continues its table-setting, so I’m hoping that next week offers a development that feels somewhat paradigm-shifting or subversive.

“A Knight of the Seven Kingdoms” was an entire episode dedicated to the “eve before the fight,” something that in the past Thrones had simply been squeezed into the battle episodes themselves. Throughout the show’s run, these “night before” scenes have featured some poignant mix of dark humor (remember Ser Davos’s lovely habit of anxiety-pooping the night before a fight), quiet horror (Cersei cooly informing Sansa about the wartime tradition of mass rape as they cowered in the sept), and mundane logistics management. Characters tend to grapple with the tension between needing to accept the very real possibility of death and needing to hope that there might be an “after” to look forward to. Of course, the Battles of the Green Fork, Blackwater, Castle Black, and Bastards are nothing compared to next week’s clash, the stakes of which feel impossible to comprehend.

This episode, for all its loose-end-tying and fireside banter, tried to give some narrative structure to the impending Battle of Winterfell, perhaps realizing that “the living vs the dead” may be an epic premise, but it is also a vague one. The objective, as decided by a rather crowded war room, isn’t to play a numbers game and pray, but to target the Night King. If he falls, presumably, the whole nightmare will be over and the North will just have to clean up a bunch of leathery corpses for a few months. Really, it’s a dual mission: Kill the Night King and Protect Bran. The former for obvious reasons (I’m rooting for Jaime to reprise his role as Kingslayer), and the latter because he’s a Stark and we like him (even if he’s prone to random pronouncements and eerie staring) and because he is the literal embodiment of the world’s history. “He wants to erase this world, and I am its memory,” Bran explained of the Night King. “That’s what death is, isn’t it?” Samwell offered, clearly having thought this through already. “Forgetting. Being forgotten ... If we forget where we’ve been, what we’ve done, we’re not men anymore. Just animals.” Grander stakes: established.

I know a lot of people found plenty to love in this episode, and there were definitely some moments that made me emotional (Ser Brienne’s smile shone as brightly as the sun glinting off the sapphire waters of Tarth). But I wish “A Knight of the Seven Kingdoms” had dug a little more into the existential terror that characters must be feeling in concrete or insightful way. I get that the prospect of dying is always going to be abstract, but the fate awaiting everyone now is qualitatively different than the kind of death facing the soldiers at the Blackwater or even in the Lannister loot train. When people died then—whether by wildfire or by dragonfire—that was it. This time, everyone is contemplating not only dying but also having their bodies reanimated and possibly being used to murder everyone they love.

Maybe no one—outside of Jon and Sam and those who’ve already seen the wights—wants to think too hard about the details. But if we were going to have a quieter, dialogue-heavy episode, I could have used conversations filled with more curiosity or reflectiveness about the particular nature of the looming threat. Instead, we got Arya asking Gendry, “What are they like?” and him replying “Bad. Really bad.” He elaborated: “Death. That’s what they’re like.” (There was a little bit of lampshading with Arya making fun of Gendry’s terrible answer, but she moved on quickly to flirting-via-dagger-throwing.) More broadly, we got the usual proclamations of, “We’re all going to die!” and general references to being ripped apart by zombies.

The episode, to be fair, offered other meaningful exchanges that should make next week’s cavalcade of death harder to stomach and that helped foreshadow who might say goodbye. (I am sorry to report that Grey Worm will probably never see the beaches of Naath with Missandei.) And I appreciated the show’s efforts to pump the brakes a little on the post-battle, political table-setting in favor of revisiting the personal relationships. This is, after all, the last time many characters will ever see each other off a battlefield. It’s also entirely possible that I’ll feel more warmly about “A Knight of the Seven Kingdoms” during future rewatches, after learning what devastation lies ahead.

How did this episode work for you, Spencer? Did it do enough to prepare you for the Battle of Helm’s Deep Pt. 2? Are you as concerned as I am about the idea of stowing women and children in the crypt with a bunch of dead bodies when a zombie king with reanimation powers is on his way?

---

Spencer Kornhaber: I am concerned about the crypt, but I’m also perversely looking forward to a few of these suddenly sentimental characters turning spooky again. Thrones viewers used to be able to brag that this series offered something far richer than “good guys” and “bad guys,” valiant knights and wicked monsters, and so on. But after eight seasons of shaking up the conventional brew, the ingredients have settled, and here we are with more than a dozen uber-sympathetic heroes, all rising to the top. Or, rather, to the North.

“A Knight of the Seven Kingdoms” toured what might seem like a rogue’s gallery: holy men and drunks, princesses and commoners, tiny children and grizzled milk-swilling giants. Each character has undertaken some unlikely journey to arrive on the front lines of the fight to save the world. And yet somehow these diverse elements have re-congealed into a samey goo. No one evinced knotty inner struggles or considered bolting before the dead arrive. Each conflict that arose evaporated just as quickly. When Jaime arrived at Winterfell, Dany understandably feared he might be there to cut her throat. The audience really didn’t fear that, though. They know the show is done with intrigue for now, which perhaps explains why Varys has stopped having lines.

Thrones is also apparently done mounting scenes that are riveting in their own right, rather than ones that just cash in on years of pent-up audience desires. Did any of this episode’s farewells and cuddle piles subvert expectations? Were any relationships further deepened? Were our understandings of characters made more complex? Okay, Podrick as a potential winner of Westerosi Idol was a twist. But Tormund Giantsbane just got more giants-baney, explaining his name and glugging out of a horn. The Brienne/Jaime interactions ratified a relational shift that happened long ago. Tyrion rued his mistakes, rued that his whoring days are behind him, and rued the memory of his father, which is to say, he just rued the obvious.

Even scenes that existed to amp tension felt remedial. It’s nice to see Dany try to use sweetness and solidarity to get Sansa on her side, but the dragon queen appeared bizarrely unprepared to address what both parties knew was the real impasse in their relationship: northern independendence. Then there was Jon revealing his parentage to Dany at precisely the least opportune moment, and without offering any hint on whether he’d pursue his claim to the Iron Throne. Granted, there might not be any appropriate moment for such talk during an all-nighter before what could turn out to be an Endless Night. So maybe just stow it for now?

Arya and Gendry’s shack-up is sure to spark a ton of conversation, but that development too came off like a sop to fans’ bingo cards and betting pools. In our own world, Arya’s age being un-specified makes this a queasy coupling; given the circumstances in Westeros, you can understand it as not all that weird. The problem is that the show hasn’t done anything to reconcile the former fact with the latter, which is to say, it hasn’t gotten the viewer near being able to interpret what’s happening. Gendry, from everything he’s said, basically perceives her as a little girl. Arya has given almost no indication of sexual curiosity over these past eight years. The show seems caught between playing this pairing as cute and gross. It’s hard to trust that it knows what it’s doing.

It’s also hard to trust that Dany’s generals do. When the powers at Winterfell gathered over a map to formulate their battle plan, they engaged not in prickly deliberation but rather a game of first-thought-best-thought. Bran declared by fiat he’d plant his trap in the Godswood. Theon landed the gig of guarding him, even though Theon would seem the last person who anyone in Winterfell might trust with any important job, much less the task of securing all of humankind. No one fretted about how to prevent a White Walker from shish-kabobbing another dragon. And, yes Lenika, the crypt would would seem to be a dicey sort of safe zone when the enemy can reanimate the dead.

Then again, let the hordes come. It’s time for some gnarly, insurmountable obstacles to again face these rag-tag do-gooders who, after years of double-crosses and reversals, are hardening back into cliches. That the battle on the horizon will upend the heroes’ plans is a given. That many beloved characters will fall seems sure. But the scariest implication of this episode is that Thrones might execute its grandest showdown without the zings of surprise, imagination, and bald-eunuch machinations that once made it great.

The Best Hot Take on the Mueller Report Is From 1796

The Mueller report is now (mostly) public. The lurid speculation from Democrats and chunks of the corporate media that President Donald Trump was somehow a Russian agent was false. But the report, and Mueller’s previous indictments, should persuade any reasonable person that the Russian government did indeed intervene in the 2016 election in support of Trump.

The response from the U.S. political system to Russia’s meddling has been uniformly appalling, although in different ways from different factions. The whole thing’s such a degrading catastrophe that it’s tempting to give up on politics and human beings generally. But since we’re stuck with both, let’s take a step back and consider some profound advice on this subject from George Washington.

Incredibly enough, Washington called this whole thing back in 1796 as he was leaving office as America’s first president. His Farewell Address, as it became known, was until the 20th century as celebrated as the Gettysburg Address is now. The Senate still reads it every year on Washington’s birthday.

America’s founding fathers, Washington included, had grievous flaws. But they were serious people, who genuinely risked death to rebel against the British Empire. Because their lives depended on thinking deeply about politics, they did so in a way that few U.S. politicians have since.

So we should pay attention to the fact that much of Washington’s Farewell Address is devoted to a specific warning: “Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government.”

These words may sound overwrought or anachronistic. But Washington wasn’t president of the current United States, the center of the largest empire in world history. In fact, Washington implied in his Farewell Address that the U.S. could be considered “small or weak” and faced rivals who were “great and powerful.” Moreover, he had direct experience with the efficacy of foreign interference: The American Revolution would never have succeeded without French troops and matériel, provided by Louis XVI in an effort to humiliate his hated British rivals. This support was so critical that French commanders and Washington jointly accepted the British surrender at Yorktown that ended the war. (Then, in perhaps history’s greatest example of blowback, regular French citizens were so impressed by the American Revolution that they staged one of their own and decapitated Louis. Whoops!)

Americans have almost totally forgotten the relevant subsequent history. But the 223 years since the Farewell Address have proven that Washington’s anxieties were justified. Foreign influence indeed has repeatedly and perniciously warped U.S. politics.

The Civil War would likely have ended in a Union victory years earlier if Great Britain hadn’t unofficially intervened on the side of the Confederacy: The South had a minuscule industrial base and needed the British to build their navy and manufacture their guns. After the war, the U.S. forced Great Britain to pay $15 million for damages caused by the ships it had built for the rebels.

The British manipulated American politics with more success 50 years later, via a covert propaganda campaign designed to nudge the U.S. to enter World War I on their side. The head of the effort secretly told the British cabinet, “In the eyes of the American people the quiet and subterranean nature of our work has the appearance of a purely private patriotism and enterprise.” The British government tried to bribe the newly founded New Republic by offering to buy 50,000 copies of every issue if the magazine continued its pro-Allies stance. (The New Republic turned them down.)

More recently, Richard Nixon conspired with the government of South Vietnam during his 1968 presidential campaign to sabotage Lyndon Johnson’s attempts to strike a peace deal with North Vietnam and end the Vietnam War. The election was extremely close, with Nixon beating LBJ’s vice president, Hubert Humphrey, by just 500,000 votes out of 73 million cast. If Nixon hadn’t scuttled Johnson’s efforts, or if Nixon’s treachery had been revealed, it’s likely that Humphrey would have won. Instead, Nixon took the White House, and in 1973 signed a treaty with North Vietnam on essentially the same terms available in 1968. In the meantime, 20,000 American soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese, Cambodians, and Laotians died.

Just 12 years later, in 1980, Ronald Reagan’s campaign almost certainly colluded with Iran’s newborn Islamic Republic. During the chaos of the Iranian revolution the year before, students in Tehran had overrun the U.S. embassy there and seized 52 Americans as hostages. Reagan’s top staff were deeply worried that President Jimmy Carter would strike a politically popular deal just before the election to get the hostages out. The evidence is quite strong that Reagan campaign therefore made some kind of agreement with Iran to keep the hostages until the moment Reagan was inaugurated. As the January 1981 headline in The Onion book “Our Dumb Century” put it: “Hostages Released: Reagan Urges American People Not to Put Two and Two Together.”

That brings us to today and the total collapse of America’s elites.

Because foreign interference is a genuine, serious issue, Democratic leaders and the corporate press owed it to Americans to treat it that way. They could have focused on what could be proven and kept what was provable in perspective. Yes, Russia attempted to influence the 2016 election in various ways. No, this was not an “act of war,” and in fact it appears to have been one of the milder examples of foreign meddling in history. Washington would have counseled that this behavior from other countries is unfortunate but a given, and that we should therefore “observe good faith and justice towards all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all.”

Instead Democrats and large chunks of the media jumped directly to incendiary delirium. Against all odds, they managed to accuse Trump of the only crime he hasn’t committed: conspiring with Russia. This incompetence was particularly impressive since the Democrats had consciously decided not to make an issue of the foreign collusion committed by the GOP’s candidate in 1968 and (probably) 1980. Helping Republicans cover up real crimes and accusing them of imaginary ones: That’s the Democratic Party.

Top Democrats also demonstrated — given their enthusiasm for America’s bipartisan subversion of the political systems of numberless countries — that they are ridiculous hypocrites. A week before Election Day in 2016, it was revealed that Hillary Clinton said privately in 2006 that “we should have made sure that we did something to determine who was going to win” that year’s Palestinian elections. To her, it was an act of great incompetence by George W. Bush not to have rigged it sufficiently.

And that wasn’t the end of the core dishonesty of many Democrats. As Washington explained, concern about foreign influence “must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other.” The Democratic Party’s leadership does not oppose and in fact welcomes the powerful influence of Israel and the Persian Gulf petro-states on U.S. politics. Indeed, given that Washington wrote that “real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious,” he would not be surprised to see how the political system has treated Rep. Ilhan Omar. (The GOP feel similar equanimity about Israel and the Gulf states, but at least for this moment they appear to welcome foreign meddling from any country, rather than picking and choosing which meddling is acceptable.)

Yet none of this exonerates Trump & Co. Regular grassroots Democrats, and just regular Americans, have every right to be furious and disgusted with Republican behavior during the Russia imbroglio.

The fact that the U.S. government has brutally intervened in the politics of dozens of other countries doesn’t mean that normal Americans can’t legitimately be angry about Russia’s 2016 meddling or the GOP’s response. The governments of Iran, Egypt and Chile have done their share of intervening in the politics of other countries, but regular Iranians, Egyptians, and Chileans still have every right to furious about U.S. interference in their politics.

Given the unusual circumstances of Trump’s election, it’s also understandable that regular Democrats are maddened by his glee in governing from the far right. His margin of victory was so thin — just 80,000 votes in three states gave him his electoral college victory — that it’s irrational to deny that Russia’s interference, as weak as it was by historical comparison, may have made the difference. It’s also irrational to be certain it did make the difference. But a president with any sense of patriotism and fairness would have acted in the most conciliatory way possible.

The fact that the information released in various hacks was accurate, and that Clinton and the Democratic National Committee should never have concealed the important aspects of them, likewise doesn’t invalidate anger from everyday Democrats. Imposing transparency on one candidate but not the other is to place a heavy thumb on the scales.

Finally, and most fundamentally, the citizens of all countries have the right to expect their leaders to oppose attempts by foreign nations to influence their politics, even if an attempt benefits them. Instead, the intense factionalism of Trump and the GOP generally has made them incapable of even pretending to care. In a healthy democracy, Trump wouldn’t, even “in jest,” have asked Russia to steal Clinton’s emails. When Donald Trump Jr. was told that the Russian government wanted to give him damaging information about Clinton as part of its support for his father’s campaign, he would have called the FBI. Sen. Mitch McConnell wouldn’t have refused Barack Obama’s September 2016 request to participate in a “show of solidarity and bipartisan unity” against foreign meddling. Most of all, Republicans would be deeply concerned by the new information in the Mueller report about Russia’s attempts to manipulate the nuts and bolts of the U.S. voting system. Their failure is exactly what Washington feared: “The spirit of party,” he said, “opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions.”

Washington also predicted the Democratic response to the blatant sectarianism of the GOP. “The continual mischiefs” of factionalism by one side, Washington wrote, inevitably create disastrous responses from the opposing faction. Their ensuing mirror-image loyalty to party over country “agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another.”

All this barely scratches the surface of the wisdom in Washington’s Farewell Address, and its applicability to our current predicament. Anyone who reads it in its entirety will be startled and alarmed by his prescience. What’s most distressing is that Washington predicted that his effort would all be for nothing:

In offering to you, my countrymen, these counsels of an old and affectionate friend, I dare not hope they will make the strong and lasting impression I could wish; that they will control the usual current of the passions, or prevent our nation from running the course which has hitherto marked the destiny of nations.

The post The Best Hot Take on the Mueller Report Is From 1796 appeared first on The Intercept.

Radio Atlantic: The Trauma at the Border

Subscribe to Radio Atlantic: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Stitcher | Google Play

On Tuesday, Attorney General William Barr ordered immigration judges to stop releasing asylum seekers on bail. The move signals an even fiercer immigration policy that could include the return of family separations. A few weeks ago, the president threatened to close the southern border. Days later, he fired his Homeland Security chief, who reportedly lost out to hardliners in the White House.

This week on Radio Atlantic, Edward-Isaac Dovere interviews Taylor Levy, the Legal Coordinator at Annunciation House, a Catholic charity based in El Paso that provides shelter to immigrants on both sides of the southern border. El Paso has emerged as a hot spot for migration recently. It’s drawn national attention for the number of people crossing there and for the conditions in which those people have been held.

Levy shares the harrowing stories of migrants she works with every day. What are these families escaping when they seek asylum in the U.S.? Why are they being held outside under a bridge? And does the Trump administration’s new “Remain in Mexico” policy endanger them?

Listen for:

• Why families are willing to endure the long journey and harsh conditions to get away from Central American gangs

• What led to migrants being held for days in a pen under a bridge

• What’s happened to asylum-seeking families forced to wait in Mexico

Voices:

• Edward-Isaac Dovere (@IsaacDovere)

• Taylor Levy (@taylorklevy)

Setecentos dias na masmorra: o que aprendi trabalhando no sistema prisional do Rio de Janeiro

O Complexo Penitenciário de Gericinó, situado na zona oeste da cidade do Rio de Janeiro, é um colosso composto por 25 unidades prisionais, entre hospitais, cadeias, institutos e penitenciárias. A área começou a ser ocupada em 1987, quando o então governador do estado, Moreira Franco, inaugurou a penitenciária de segurança máxima Bangu I. O complexo em si começou a ser formado com o passar dos anos, quando foram erguidas naquele mesmo espaço diversas outras unidades, construídas para acomodar o crescimento da população carcerária no estado.

Inicialmente chamava-se Complexo Penitenciário de Bangu, carregando o nome do bairro onde estava situado até 2004, quando o então prefeito do Rio Cesar Maia criou o bairro de Gericinó, que compreende justamente a área onde estão situadas as unidades prisionais. A medida atendeu a uma antiga reivindicação de moradores de Bangu, preocupados com o estigma surgido por conta da associação do bairro com um complexo penitenciário que tem capacidade para pouco mais de 15 mil pessoas, embora a superlotação, característica histórica do sistema prisional brasileiro, o faça ter quase dois presos por vaga, em média.

Foi este cenário que encontrei ao chegar em Bangu anos atrás para o meu primeiro dia de estágio em serviço social pela UFRJ. A partir dali, minha realidade pelos dois anos seguintes seria atuar num espaço que sempre me inspirou curiosidade, respeito e medo. Eu, um jovem preto da Baixada Fluminense, que é uma área historicamente atingida por tipos diversos de violência (social, racial, econômica etc.), sempre vi a prisão como algo muito próximo. Nessa região, tudo parece nos conduzir a uma vida subaproveitada, ou a uma trajetória interrompida cedo demais. Em todos os cenários, uma liberdade suprimida e limitada, como se não fosse permitido sair dali.

Quase sempre essas regras não têm nenhuma razão de existir, exceto por um motivo: a perversão.

Com tudo isso fervendo a cabeça, meu primeiro dia de trabalho começou. Fui apresentado aos demais setores da unidade, cujo corpo técnico era composto basicamente por psicólogo, enfermeiro e um setor jurídico que funcionava precariamente por falta de pessoal – algo que afeta o sistema penitenciário como um todo. Também conheci a direção, os agentes penitenciários que estavam de plantão naquele dia e os “faxinas”, como são chamados os presos que trabalhavam diretamente com a gente, em funções de secretariado. Nas duas unidades onde trabalhei, os “faxinas” eram presos que estavam no “seguro” – lugar onde ficam aqueles que cometeram crimes considerados “inaceitáveis” pelos demais detentos, como estupro e assassinato dos pais ou de crianças. Eles ficam em galerias diferentes dos demais porque, em rebeliões, viram o primeiro alvo.

Boa parte dos agentes penitenciários tem, digamos, certa má-vontade com os presos que estão no seguro mas, para o serviço social, são todos iguais. Em nosso trabalho, não há espaço para juízo de valor. Exemplifico: um desses “faxinas”, o que trabalhava direto conosco, estava preso por ter estuprado e matado uma criança. Pode-se ter uma opinião pessoal sobre o que ele fez, e certamente todos a têm, mas ali nada disso importa, e sim que o tratemos de forma técnica, que é o que um assistente social faz – ou deveria fazer. Formalizar essa separação até pode ser difícil, mas ela é obrigatória. É fundamental superarmos qualquer sentimento em nome das obrigações profissionais, em qualquer situação.

O alvo principal são corpos pretos, pobres e jovens.

Num primeiro momento, chama a atenção de quem começa a trabalhar numa unidade prisional a quantidade de regras que um preso precisa seguir. Quase sempre essas regras não têm nenhuma razão de existir, exceto por um motivo: a perversão. Corta-se o cabelo do preso assim que ele entra em uma unidade, e a justificativa é a de que isso o protege de doenças que possam ser contraídas lá dentro – no entanto, mulheres presas não têm a cabeça raspada.

Com o tempo, começa-se a perceber que certos rituais são cumpridos justamente para suprimir a identidade do preso, como se ali ele não fosse “ele”, e sim um corpo, um número, sempre com as mãos para trás e a cabeça baixa. Fazíamos questão de que, dentro do serviço social, os presos andassem com as mãos livres e com a cabeça erguida, o que nos aproximava muito, facilitando o nosso trabalho e trazendo uma faísca de bem-estar para eles naquela masmorra.

Toda cadeia é um massacre, ora porque é feita para aprisionar corpos sem a menor preocupação em recuperar o indivíduo, ora porque esse aprisionamento tem como alvo principal corpos pretos, pobres e jovens. É verdade que, no cárcere, quase todo mundo se diz inocente – e sim, oito entre dez presos falam isso, embora nós, a partir da experiência de escuta e de técnicas de abordagem desenvolvidas ao longo dos meses ali dentro, com o tempo sabemos melhor se o que estamos ouvindo é verdade ou não.

No entanto, há muitos indivíduos que de fato estão ali sem terem feito nada (vide Rafael Braga ou Leonardo Nascimento, dentre tantos outros), ou sequer sem terem passado por julgamento em primeira instância – segundo dados de 2016 do Infopen, 40% dos presos no Brasil são provisórios. Por essa razão, o país dobrou a sua população carcerária entre 2005 e 2016, de 361 mil para 720 mil, segundo dados do Ministério da Justiça.

Apresentado dia 4 de fevereiro, o pacote de medidas elaborado pelo ministro da Justiça e da Segurança Pública, Sergio Moro, propõe alterações em 14 leis do Código Penal, da Lei de Crimes Hediondos, do Código Eleitoral, da Lei de Execuções Penais e do Código de Processo Penal – e pode piorar todo esse cenário descrito acima. Na prática, as medidas tornarão ainda mais duras leis já repressivas, mas cuja aplicação, pelos mais diversos motivos, não funciona. Um dos pontos mais controversos da proposta de Moro está na ampliação da definição de “legítima defesa” que, em um país cuja seletividade penal é praticamente uma política de estado, pode significar uma permissão para que agentes de segurança pública pratiquem o uso excessivo da força, ou até mesmo matem em serviço, sem que sejam responsabilizados por isso.

Fui ameaçado por um preso apenas uma vez – e ele voltou pedindo desculpas em cinco minutos.

O pacote pode produzir um aumento no número de mortes de civis em operações policiais, mas também o crescimento da população carcerária – logo do encarceramento cada vez mais precoce de pretos e pobres, as pontas mais frágeis desse sistema. É razoável pensar que um país que não garante julgamento em tempo hábil para quase metade dos seus presos resolverá o problema da violência… aumentando a violência? Não se percebem os interesses embutidos na defesa conjunta de bandeiras como “lei anticrime” (toda lei é “anticrime”, Moro sabe disso, mas jogar para a torcida faz parte do jogo), privatização de presídios e redução da maioridade penal? Vivemos num país de processos investigativos falhos – segundo o Atlas da Violência 2018, o Brasil não soluciona nem 10% dos seus homicídios. Como confiar em processos isentos de qualquer seletividade racista e classista num país com esses números – e onde, a cada dez pessoas assassinadas, sete são pretas?

Apesar (e talvez por causa) disso tudo, a maior lição que tirei dos meus dois anos no sistema prisional foi a de que aquele espaço, com suas regras próprias, impostas pelo sistema ou pensadas e executadas pelos próprios presos, é dos lugares mais ricos e complexos em que já estive na vida. A capacidade de sobrevivência que pessoas privadas de liberdade têm é imensa, e isso se reflete no dia-a-dia, na forma cuidadosa como eles lidam com suas famílias (muitos nem querem receber visitas, para que os familiares não os vejam naquelas condições), ou na maneira respeitosa como eles se reportam a nós, técnicos da unidade.

No período em que atuei nos presídios, fui ameaçado por um preso apenas uma vez – e ele voltou pedindo desculpas cinco minutos depois. Já com agentes, nossa relação sempre foi tensa pois a natureza do nosso trabalho é um tanto diferente, uma vez que eles são os profissionais que promovem a disciplina a qualquer custo, sobretudo limando a identidade do sujeito que estão encarcerando, enquanto nós lutamos exatamente para que ele, o sujeito no cárcere, se reconheça e seja reconhecido como uma pessoa humana, de identidade própria e dotada de direitos e de deveres a serem respeitados.

Quando escrevo sobre o tema, minha intenção é justamente a de promover um debate extremamente necessário, ainda mais no Brasil de 2019, onde muitos não concordam com o que será dito a seguir (e aos que me entendem, perdão pela frase óbvia): presos são humanos, dotados de habilidades mais ou menos qualificadas, alguns até mesmo geniais, exatamente como nós aqui no mundo livre. Discutir o sistema carcerário não fará o menor sentido se não discutirmos racismo, seletividade penal, controle de armas, economia, desemprego, educação, saúde e habitação – e não só. O resto, leitor, é a fumaça da nova era.

The post Setecentos dias na masmorra: o que aprendi trabalhando no sistema prisional do Rio de Janeiro appeared first on The Intercept.

The Reigning King of the Cover Story

James Fallows was elected to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences today, honoring nearly fifty years of work in the media. Since being commissioned to write a profile of the senator from Texas, presidential hopeful, and “cool cat” Lloyd Bentsen in 1974, he has done most of that work as a writer, editor, blogger, and sometime talking head at The Atlantic over the course of a 40-plus-year tenure interrupted just twice by stints as a speechwriter in Jimmy Carter’s administration and the editor of U.S. News & World Report. Fallows has held multiple roles in his time at the magazine; he's now an Atlantic staff writer.

Over the past half century, Fallows has published millions of words in the magazine and on the website, composing thousands of articles and dozens of cover stories about politics and global affairs. Beyond his prolific production of long-form stories, Fallows has in more recent years become a beloved blogger, connecting with readers through shorter and more frequent online posts. During the 2016 presidential campaign Fallows began compiling entries for the “Trump Time Capsule” to “catalogue some of the things Donald Trump says and does that no real president would do” —and went on adding to it even after Trump became president and continued doing those things.

His writing comprises its own kind of time capsule: a contemporaneous history of the events and developments of the late 20th and early 21st centuries. He described the experience of owning a personal computer when most people still didn’t, covered the Vietnam-War origins of the guns now at the center of domestic gun-control debates, and questioned the merits of Reagan-era military spending as the Cold War drew toward its conclusion.  His insight, extensive reporting, and engaging writing has made his articles essential reading in their moments of publication and has lent them a timeless relevance, and resonance.

These eight pieces, written over the course of Fallows’s Atlantic career, offer a glimpse of what the American Academy of Arts and Sciences honored today.

---

“The Passionless Presidency”
May 1979

In the last year of Carter’s administration, Fallows assessed where the president had gone wrong. “After two and a half years in Carter’s service,” he wrote. “I fully believe him to be a good man.” But he observed that Carter lacked “the passion to convert himself from a good man into an effective one, to learn how to do the job.” As a result, he wrote, Carter’s achievements failed to live up to his intentions.

---

“Living With a Computer”
July 1982

The first successful personal-computer models were released to consumers in the mid-1970s; Fallows got his at the end of that decade, and wrote about it for The Atlantic three years later. He described both how the machine had improved his writing and editing process and the new distractions and dangers it posed before making specific recommendations to readers. “I’d sell my computer before I’d sell my children,” he wrote. “But the kids better watch their step.”

---

“Immigration: How It’s Affecting Us”
November 1983

Following the passage of the 1965 Immigration Act amendments, which lifted quotas governing immigrant nationalities, the flow of immigrants into the United States from the developing world increased significantly. With the rise in newcomers came a rise in anti-immigrant sentiments—sentiments which Fallows challenged in this 1983 article. “In countless ... place … the words heard in the air, the clothes and faces seen on the street, the courses taught in the schools, have all changed because of immigration,” he wrote. “But it is far from clear to me that the changes under way are ominous or bad.”

---

“How the World Works”
December 1993

The end of the Cold War in the early 1990s was celebrated as a victory for the laissez-faire capitalism championed by Americans. But in 1993, Fallows explored alternate approaches driving growth in economies around the world—and the ways they echoed moments from the history of the United States. “Every country that has caught up with others has had to do so by rigging its rules: extracting extra money from its people and steering the money into industrialists' hands,” he asserted.

---

“Why Americans Hate the Media”
February 1996

Fallows tackled this enduring question at a time when Fox News and the internet were still in their infancy and most Americans got their news from television and newspapers. His conclusion: There was a gulf between how the public and the media saw the world. Viewers wanted substance, and the media was covering the game instead. “The most depressing aspect of the new talking-pundit industry,” Fallows wrote, “may be the argument made by many practitioners: the whole thing is just a game, which no one should take too seriously.”

---

“The Fifty-First State”
November 2002

Four months before American troops invaded Iraq, Fallows laid out why they shouldn’t. By entering the war, he argued, the United States would end up mired in a potentially decades-long period of occupation during which it would have to take responsibility for running and protecting Iraq. “The day after a war ended,” he cautioned, “Iraq would become America’s problem.”

---

“China Makes, the World Takes”
July/August 2007

By 2007, China had become the manufacturing center of the world—the subject of much hand-wringing over the years from people who feel the associated jobs should return to American workers. But Fallows argued that Americans shouldn’t be so resistant to China’s new economic role. “Are we uncomfortable with the America that is being shaped by global economic forces?” he asked. “If so, those trends themselves, and the American choices behind them, are what Americans can address. They’re not China’s problem.”

---

“The Tragedy of the American Military”
January/February 2015

Beneath frequent displays of support for the troops, Fallows assessed in 2015, America was “a country willing to do anything for its military except take it seriously.” And that relationship was good for neither the country nor the military. He described the dangers posed by the public’s “reverent but disengaged attitude,” and the more serious engagement that should take its place.

Silicon Valley-Funded Privacy Think Tanks Fight in D.C. to Unravel State-Level Consumer Privacy Protections

After years of ignoring the issue, lawmakers on Capitol Hill are suddenly engaged in a furious fight over enacting national legislation to establish basic online privacy rights for consumers. As with the crafting of much legislation dealing with complicated issues, legislators are relying on experts to help codify the consumer protections.

In a twist that is all too familiar in Washington, D.C., however, many of the groups that have positioned themselves as expert voices on consumer privacy are pushing for a bill that hews closely to tech industry interests. Lawmakers who are famously ignorant on technology issues are hearing largely from an army of industry lobbyists and experts funded by social media companies, online platforms, data brokers, advertisers, and telecommunication giants — the very same corporate interests that profit from the collection and sale of internet data.

Take the Center for Democracy and Technology, one of the most prominent privacy-centered Beltway think tanks. The group is considered to be well-respected among congressional staffers, routinely testifies before committees on privacy legislation, and is a prime mover in the national online privacy bill discussion.

Late last year, the organization circulated draft federal privacy legislation that would nullify major state-level regulations. In March, when the Senate Judiciary Committee held its first hearing of the session on how to formulate a federal consumer privacy standard, the center’s Privacy and Data Project Director Michelle Richardson testified.

The Center for Democracy and Technology is also awash in corporate money from the tech sector. Amazon, Verizon, and Google are among the corporate donors that each provide over $200,000 to the group. AT&T, Verizon, Uber, and Twitter are also major donors.

Last Wednesday, the group hosted its annual gala, known as “Tech Prom,” which brought together lobbyists and government affairs officials from leading Silicon Valley and telecom firms. Facebook, Google, Amazon, and Microsoft purchased tables at the event and served as sponsors, a privilege that came in exchange for a $35,000 donation to the center.

“Every one of these groups working on privacy that takes corporate money should return it.”

These industry-funded think tanks are pushing legislation in a direction that would have weak enforcement mechanisms, give consumers limited means for recourse, and perhaps most importantly for the industry, roll back state-level privacy standards being enacted by state legislatures.

The stakes of the online privacy fight could have ramifications the world over. American standards on data collection could shape political and business decisions across the world, said Jeff Chester, president of the Center for Digital Democracy, a privacy think tank that opposes overturning of state-level privacy laws.

“This is much bigger than Cambridge Analytica,” Chester said. Cambridge Analytica was involved in a scandal when, while working on behalf of Donald Trump’s presidential campaign, the data analytics firm illicitly scraped consumer data from Facebook in order to build advanced voter-targeting methods. The events stoked outrage over Facebook’s security around its users’ private data.

Chester said the money lavished by the tech industry on privacy think tanks was tantamount to funding lobbyists. “These groups should not take a dime of corporate money. This is basically lobbying dollars,” Chester said. “I think every one of these groups working on privacy that takes corporate money should return it.”

Meanwhile, actual tech industry lobby groups are pushing federal legislation along the same lines as that proposed by the tech-funded think tanks. One of the largest lobbying groups for Silicon Valley, NetChoice, has rallied behind Sen. Marco Rubio’s, R-Fla., privacy bill. His bill would roll back state regulation and place enforcement authority largely under the Federal Trade Commission, a notoriously toothless federal agency with no rule-making power, instead of letting consumers directly sue tech companies under the law.

NetChoice lobbies on behalf of Facebook, Google, Twitter, Airbnb, and eBay, among other tech companies. (Pierre Omidyar, founder of The Intercept’s parent company, First Look Media, is the chair of eBay.)

The sudden moves around online privacy kicked into high gear with a state-level privacy law that passed in California last year. In June 2018, state legislators passed California Consumer Privacy Act, a surprise turn of events that enshrined the strongest consumer privacy standard in the country.

The law, set to take effect next year, gives California residents the power to view the types of data companies collect from them, request that the data be deleted, and allows residents to declare that their data not be sold to third parties. In response, similar bills are being proposed in several other states.

The lobbying push to water down and overturn the California law has been so intense that some federal legislators are raising questions about whether the urgency for a national standard is simply a vehicle for lobbyists to push pre-emption, provisions in the federal law that would supersede and roll back the state-level privacy laws.

“Are we here just because we don’t like the California law, and we just want the federal pre-emption law to shut it down?” asked Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., during one of the recent hearings on the bill.

The Center for Democracy and Technology’s proposal for a draft bill contained such a pre-emption provision. The proposed bill would overturn the California Consumer Privacy Act and the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act, which compels technology companies to obtain consent from customers before collecting biometric data, including fingerprints and facial recognition models. Both Google and Facebook could faced lawsuits under the Illinois law.

The Center for Democracy and Technology’s vice president for external affairs, Brian Wesolowski, defended the group’s draft proposal. “It’s a stronger bill than the California one when it comes to the privacy rights of all,” he said in an email to The Intercept, adding that the group maintains “clear lines between funding and policy positions.”

The proposed draft from the Center for Democracy and Technology, however, does not reproduce the California law’s right for consumers to opt out of data collection. The California law also provides consumers with what is called a private right of action — meaning that they can file a lawsuit if the state attorney general does not act when companies violate the law — while the Center for Democracy and Technology’s draft simply calls for companies to respond to complaints within 30 days.

Another think tank, the Center for Information Policy Leadership, which bills itself as a leading voice on privacy, has also called for a provision pre-empting state-level laws. In a memo for policymakers released last month, the group said the new federal bill should “preempt a patchwork of inconsistent state laws.” Similarly, another group, the Technology Policy Institute, has asked that a federal privacy law pre-empts state regulation and explicitly called for any new national standard to have “fewer restrictions on the use of information.”

Both groups receive funding from Amazon, Google, and Facebook — and both strongly defended their positions.

Markus Heyder, a vice president at the Center for Information Policy Leadership, told The Intercept in an email, “CIPL’s mission is not to advocate specific industry positions, but to help develop globally consistent policies and approaches to privacy regulation that maximize both the appropriate protection of consumers from privacy risks and harms and reasonable data use and innovation.”

David Fish, a spokesperson for the Technology Policy Institute, dismissed concerns about industry funding, noting that his group’s position is “not supported universally by industry.”

Just like NetChoice, the tech industry lobby group, the Center for Information Policy Leadership and the Center for Democracy and Technology have both called for a weak enforcement standard that rests largely with the Federal Trade Commission.

The push for pre-emption, however, is not shared by all privacy and consumer think tanks. Electronic Privacy Information Center, Public Citizen, and U.S. Public Interest Research Group are among several major advocacy organizations that have demanded that any federal standard not pre-empt state privacy law. “Federal privacy legislation that preempts stronger state laws would only benefit technology companies at the expense of the public,” the groups wrote in a letter to lawmakers.

Jeff Chester’s group, the Center for Digital Democracy, also signed the letter demanding a redline on pre-emption. None of the four groups that signed the letter take corporate money.

The post Silicon Valley-Funded Privacy Think Tanks Fight in D.C. to Unravel State-Level Consumer Privacy Protections appeared first on The Intercept.

O bolsonarismo arrependido já começou nas classes populares

A lua de mel não durou 100 dias. Uma recente pesquisa do DataFolha mostrou que, após três meses, Bolsonaro tem a pior avaliação entre presidentes no primeiro mandato, confirmando algo que estava na cara: o fenômeno do bolsonarismo arrependido chegaria muito rápido.

Vale retomar o que escrevi em minha coluna de 29 de outubro, logo após a vitória de Bolsonaro:

Os eleitores de Bolsonaro foram seduzidos pela mobilização política populista, movidos por onda de contágio que foi espalhando medo e uma esperança de mudança radical. É muita expectativa popular para pouco projeto, pouca equipe e pouca experiência. Isso não pode funcionar. Isso não dará certo.

De novembro de 2016 a novembro de 2018, eu e a antropóloga Lucia Scalco fizemos uma pesquisa etnográfica, baseada em observação participante e grupos focais, sobre eleitores de Bolsonaro entre eleitores de baixa renda na zona leste de Porto Alegre. Nós percebemos que, conforme a eleição se aproximava, a adesão a Bolsonaro se transformava em um movimento emocional. Havia uma esperança crescente dos eleitores, inclusive entre aqueles que outrora desprezavam o candidato.

Até poucos meses antes da eleição, era possível identificar um padrão nos eleitores de baixa renda, era possível identificar um padrão de eleitores de baixa renda: eram jovens desempregados que se sentiam ameaçados pelo feminismo emergente na escola; ou homens brancos, dos 30 aos 50 anos, com trabalho precário (como motoristas de aplicativos ou vigilantes terceirizados). Nas motivações de voto, o desalento econômico se misturava a uma narrativa que apontava também uma crise na masculinidade. Homens estavam desempregados e/ou com emprego precário, endividados, com pressão alta, sofrendo assaltos e tendo seu papel de provedor ameaçado. Em comum, todos eles tinham um desejo íntimo de portar uma arma para se proteger das muitas ameaças — reais e imaginárias — que desestabilizam a ordem do mundo

As pessoas apoiavam Bolsonaro pelos mais variados motivos. Por tudo ou, talvez, por nada.

No final do período eleitoral, após a retirada de Lula da corrida e a facada de Bolsonaro, as coisas mudaram na pesquisa. Não havia mais um perfil de eleitores identificável, tampouco uma razão específica para justificar o voto. As pessoas falavam que votariam em Bolsonaro por causa da corrupção, para varrer comunismo, tirar o PT, conseguir emprego, melhorar a economia, ter segurança na escola do filho, matar bandido, mamadeira de piroca, ditadura gayzista, evitar invasão alienígena, resolver a unha encravada. Tudo. Tudo o que chegava pelo WhatsApp.

As pessoas apoiavam Bolsonaro pelos mais variados motivos. Por tudo ou, talvez, por nada: embarcavam em uma onda na qual o então candidato surfou sozinho. Foram muitas as pessoas que nos perguntavam: “ué, mas tem outro candidato?”

Para além dos convictos, talvez a grande maioria de eleitores que encontramos no final do processo era não-convicto. Eles achavam que Bolsonaro não era uma opção ideal, mas que alguma mudança era necessária. O capitão, ao menos, colocaria ordem na casa: “Acho ele muito radical, machista como diz minha filha, mas é um militar, ao menos para colocar ordem nesse país esse homem deve servir, né?”, disse dona Silvinha, 58 anos, vendedora de bolos.

Tendo em vista esses perfis de eleitores, é evidente que a desilusão bateria logo na porta, pois foi uma esperança projetada sobre o nada.

Os estratos esmagados

Como observado pelos professores André Singer e Laura Carvalho, há uma significativa desilusão bolsonarista – representada no declínio de 18% de aprovação entre as últimas duas pesquisas Ibope justamente entre os estratos sociais que ganham de 2 a 5 salários mínimos. Em um artigo irretocável, Carvalho mostra que, de 2014 a 2018, o PT perdeu perdeu mais adesão, em contextos urbanos, entre as camadas “atachadas” que se situam entre a base e o topo da distribuição. Estamos, portanto, falando dos setores precarizados que sentiram a crise econômica de forma brutal.

Agora, os eleitores  começam a pular fora do barco.

Ainda que eu tenha defendido que o papel da crise econômica precisa ser mais seriamente levado em consideração nas análises das eleições, o único ponto que ainda não estou plenamente convicta em relação ao argumento da professora é sobre o peso da insegurança econômica em relação às pautas morais nas eleições. Ela acredita que o primeiro aspecto foi preponderante no Brasil, diferentemente da eleição de Trump nos Estados Unidos, em que algumas pesquisas já apontaram que o fator “preconceito” foi decisivo – como esta publicada na revista Critical Sociology. Sem dúvidas, o peso econômico foi imenso, um ponto de partida que mostrou luz no fim do túnel para homens desesperados. Mas também entendo que ainda não temos pesquisa suficiente para ter clareza acerca do impacto de diferentes forças.

Por ora, com base nos insights da experiência em campo, tendo a pensar que, no caso das eleições brasileiras, a dicotomia economia/moral tem se demonstrado falsa — na linha argumentativa da cientista política e historiadora Tatiana Vargas Maia em seu artigo no El País. O Brasil tem passado por uma crise multidimensional. Ainda que a penúria econômica tenha dado o primeiro pontapé entre os eleitores que se sentiam desamparados socialmente, o conservadorismo, o fundamentalismo religioso, a crise política, as fakes news e o fator de “efervescência social” do final das eleições arrastaram milhões de eleitores na onda de contágio.

Agora, os eleitores começam a pular fora do barco.

Desilusão de baixo para cima

Desde o término da pesquisa, tenho conversado, de forma não sistemática, com alguns antigos interlocutores e com outros trabalhadores precarizados com os quais eu convivo. Essas conversas não sugerem nenhum entusiasmo no ar. Pelo contrário: o clima de esperança parece ter cedido lugar ao desânimo.

O grupo da “masculinidade machucada” pela crise econômica não viu ainda a situação de emprego melhorar e tampouco sentiu os efeitos práticos nem do decreto presidencial de facilitação da posse armas, nem no preço de uma Taurus. Acima de tudo, o trabalhador precarizado quer segurança e renda. E estamos muito longe de ver isso acontecer.

Aqueles que votaram por falta de opção voltaram ao lugar comum “de que político é tudo uma bosta”.

O bolsonarista arrependido não é confesso.

Ainda há aqueles eleitores que, como Dona Silvinha, estão esperando sentados a tal da ordem na casa. Eles encontram mesmo é “um bando de trapalhões” como disse-me Pedro, motorista de aplicativo de Santa Maria, Rio Grande do Sul, que votou em Bolsonaro querendo mudança, mas entende que “estão muito atrapalhados. Palhaça isso do Carnaval… [referia-se ao tuíte sobre Golden Shower]”. E continuou desabafando: “Minha cunhada trabalha no posto de saúde e disse que o dinheiro acabou, que cortaram tudo. Como vai ser?”

O bolsonarista arrependido não é confesso. Ele tem vergonha e mantém seu orgulho: “Não me arrependo, não é possível um governo estar por 20 anos no poder, não é democrático”, disse-me Luis. Mas ele reconhece o caos do país e já colocou Bolsonaro na vala comum do político ruim.

Um dos erros de avaliação do bolsonarismo é acreditar em tudo que vê na internet, na malha de ódio da extrema direita. Os trolls possuem presença robusta na rede e fazem grande barulho. Quando eles são sujeitos de carne e osso — e não robôs —,representam uma pequena parte do eleitorado, a mais fanática e a mais fiel. Nós encontramos vários desses bolsolovers durante o trabalho de campo, mas posso afirmar que eram um número insignificante perto de todo o resto que aderiu ao projeto por frustração na onda de contágio.

O que esse eleitorado tem visto é despreparo, mandos e desmandos via rede social e guerra de vaidades.

Poucos dias antes da eleição, vi um vendedor ambulante em São Paulo gritando “Bolsonaro!” para os carros que passavam com bandeira do candidato. Era uma cena triste. Ele parecia comemorar a final da Copa do Mundo, soltando o grito engasgado dos 7×1 de toda a tragédia nacional dos últimos cinco anos. Um país quebrado como o Brasil, em meio a um sistema político e econômico que colapsou, fez com que o baixo clero ganhasse a eleição por fatores excepcionais.

O bolsonarismo arrependido já impacta o governo. Rumores em correntes do WhatsApp diziam que os caminhoneiros iriam parar. Quando a pesquisa do DataFolha foi lançada, Bolsonaro reagiu nervoso com dois tuítes seguidos: um mostrava crianças que o abraçavam, como se fosse a prova cabal de que ele era amado pelo povo; o outro tuíte só dizia “kkkkkkk”. Não demorou muito para que o presidente reagisse e interferisse no preço do diesel.

Depois de o Datafolha publicar que “Lula e Dilma são mais inteligentes do que Bolsonaro”, um pouco de como o povo me trata: pic.twitter.com/aOfzHM4PHR

— Jair M. Bolsonaro (@jairbolsonaro) 7 de abril de 2019

Kkkkkkkk pic.twitter.com/sVv5vNGdvu

— Jair M. Bolsonaro (@jairbolsonaro) 7 de abril de 2019

O eleitor não fanático até pode ter achado graça do personagem que “fala o que pensa” e que “é gente como a gente”. Mas num país violento em crise como o Brasil, as trapalhadas do presidente terão cada vez menos apelo se não vierem com mudanças concretas no cotidiano das pessoas. Bolsonaro foi eleito por uma grande parte do eleitorado popular que cultiva no imaginário a ideia do pulso firme. Mas o que esse eleitorado tem visto é despreparo, mandos e desmandos via rede social e guerra de vaidades entre os membros do PSL. Sem um projeto de governo e passando o tempo preocupado com temas distantes do povo — de Cuba a Israel —, a desilusão só tende a piorar.

Isso não é necessariamente uma boa notícia. Há uma tendência muito maior agora à descrença com a democracia representativa e a política institucional. Nossa sorte é que não parece haver um grupo de militares articulados que demonstrem querer mais do que tudo que já têm. Cabe agora a nós, dos setores progressistas, tratar de arrumar a casa e ter a capacidade para dar respostas para Dona Silvinha.

The post O bolsonarismo arrependido já começou nas classes populares appeared first on The Intercept.