Faced with an undeniable crisis of confidence among research institutions that insist that former President Lula will easily win the presidential race in 2022, journalist José Carlos Bernardi suggested including a question that gives the name to the questionnaire. questionnaire is this text.

I dare say that this is the result of a poll that included the question “Do you mind casting your vote to a corrupt politician?” it will be 97% yes, 1% no and 2% I don’t know, with a margin of error of more or less 2 percentage points. After all, people are very jealous of their image, even if that image is limited to conversations with an anonymous interviewer. And no one wants to be seen as an accomplice to corruption or anything like that.

Bernardi understandably distrusts polls that point to Lulu as a person capable of winning elections. He is not alone. In the end, Lula attracted an image of being corrupt, despite what recent STF decisions say. And the “logic” says that no one in their right mind will vote for a politician whose image is associated with large corruption schemes. Not after Lava Yato. Not without discomfort in the shower.

For me, this reasoning can even comfort a little. But there are problems. First, this reasoning assumes that the voter considers corruption to be an absolute and unforgivable evil. And many do understand, not least because they understand the relationship between corruption and all the other serious problems in the country. Many, but not all. Maybe not even the majority. This analysis includes variables that have traditionally been ignored by the right, such as the charisma of a thief and, shall we say, anecdotal evidence that, despite corruption, life was better during the PC years.

I am not saying what it was. Because it isn’t. There was a lot of makeup to make it look the way it is. But the man looks at his furnished living room, kitchen full of appliances, cell phone in hand (installments are delayed). And he remembers a fridge full of food, barbecues with friends, and endless hangouts in Opalao. Result: For this imaginary character who responds to real-life polls, corruption is no longer an obstacle to voting for Lulu (or the position he indicates) in order to restore this idealized past.

Another problem is that the reasoning is based on the assumption that moral issues are more important to the citizen / voter than economic issues. And even the pandemic variable with its limitations, endless discussions about early treatment, masks and vaccines that mix economics and morals, enter this convoluted equation. These are variables that emphasize the value of freedom, for example, when in reality the citizen / voter is more concerned with the practical aspects of life: employment, business continuity, barbecuing for friends.

In fact, the government of Jair Bolsonaro is doubly wrong. First, he makes the mistake of prioritizing undeniably important agendas (undeniably important – worth repeating), such as freedom of expression, family protection, and even greater transparency in elections, to the detriment of agendas that directly affect people’s lives. The government insists that we have been living without corruption for over a thousand days and … wow! But even because of Lava Yato’s moralizing story and the relative success of fighting corruption in recent years, the absence of corruption is no longer a virtue. “This is nothing more than a duty,” the citizen thinks, the one who responds in a public opinion poll that it would be inconvenient for him to vote for a corrupt person – but still votes.

The biggest mistake, however, is the strategy of discrediting research institutions by taking the crowds onto the streets and insisting that if the left cannot mobilize the masses, it is because it lacks public support. By this logic, the left would have no intention of voting. So the polls are wrong and everything is a big plot.

This is an argument that can warm the hearts of those who, like me, do not want PT to return to power. But, unfortunately, this argument does not stand up to scrutiny. Because the left knows that it doesn’t need to bring crowds to the streets to demonstrate the institutional power they already have. And the left knows that when they go to refuel or buy meat from the market, even the most outraged PT citizen will recall, for just a moment, those thriving years when corruption and protein were plentiful at the table.