Reading about Cardenas in Mexico, and Peron in Argentina reminded me much of the caudillo system of government that plagued some Latin American countries’ pasts.  These leaders greatly appealed to the emotions of the people, like caudillos, hoping to gain their support through their personality and presence.  Peron used the concept of clientelism (which was a major component of the caudillo system) to benefit Argentina’s economy.  Similarly, Cardenas used targeted and planned outward appearances to gain support; he did many symbolic things that made himself look very good to the people of Mexico.  Caudillos used the same method to gain popularity and support.  While these similarities exist, the regimes of Cardenas and Peron seemed neither violent nor overly corrupt (at least, from what Dawson mentions), which is a change from the caudillo system.  What both leaders use a great deal of is propaganda, something mirrored in Brazil under Vargas leadership.

In the age of radio and audio broadcasts, these three politicians certainly understood the significance of such technology on politics and culture.  All attempted to use radio in various ways to promote their regimes, whether for better or for worse.  Perhaps the more tragic instance of this is Vargas’ attempts to control radio broadcasts in Brazil.

While Vargas did create positive progress for Brazil, these changes were forgotten upon his continued insistence on strict regulations for radio, such as the mandatory daily hour of government announcements and propaganda, and his continued efforts to appeal to the people’s interests (e.g. tying samba into politics).  Of course, people never respond well to constraints, so every time Vargas attempted to limit opposition, his actions only resulted in more opposition.  This escalated, causing more and more Brazilians to hate and ridicule him, both on the radio and off.  When one of Vargas’ major opponents, Lacerda, was assassinated, many believed Vargas had orchestrated the murder, and thus even more opposition to Vargas was unleashed.  Finally, Vargas couldn’t take it anymore, and he commit suicide, having his suicide note broadcast throughout Brazil after his death.  Only upon losing him did Brazilians realize the good that Vargas had done the country, and so much grieving ensued.  This series of events is akin to the affects of continued bullying, though on a much larger scale, as it involved an entire nation.

I think the issue is that mistakes were made on both sides.  While Vargas thought he was doing the right thing by using radio to try gaining support, he went too far by disrespecting and disregarding the rights and freedoms of the press.  The people naturally responded harshly to these restrictions, and again, Vargas’ retaliatory actions only worsened the situation.  Eventually, the people’s opposition crossed a line, too, when they lost sight of the good Vargas was doing and focused solely on the negatives of his presidency.  This resulted in unnecessarily strong opposition, which likely played a role in Vargas’ suicide.  The worst part is that this entire saga was a lose-lose situation: both people’s opinions and the media were unjustly oppressed, and this lead to events resulting in Brazil losing one of the best leaders the country had seen in a long time.

Perhaps the moral of the story is to strive to uphold ethics and respect others’ rights and freedoms at all times, as well as to recognize a job well done and areas for improvement.  Vargas should have acknowledged the people’s opinions and freed the press, realizing that if he acted in their interests, he would gain more support than by forcing them to listen to him.  Meanwhile, the people should have recognized the improvements Vargas brought to Brazil, and voiced any oppositions more politely, respectfully and appropriately.  I won’t deny that this is an optimistic and idealistic view; however striving for this seems better than the alternative.