Talk:Brazilian Social Democracy Party/Archive 1

In English, the correct name should be "Brazilian Social Democracy Party".

I moved this article from "Party of the Brazilian Social Democracy" to "Brazilian Social Democracy Party," since the first paragraph had already been changed, and eliminated a duplicate article, "Social Democratic Party of Brazil," redirecting here instead. As for the correct English name, I don't know that there is one; everything on Google turns up less than 1000 hits, but this one's the most common, and is more literally accurate than "Social Democratic Party." The party itself does not have an English site. Ak13 07:11, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for moving the article, I didn't know how to do it! :>

I believe "Social Democratic" is wrong, since this is a literal translation of "social democrático", and not "da social democracia". But in english there's an ambiguity in "Brazilian Social Democracy Party", because we can't tell if the "brazilian" refers to the "democracy" or the "party". I added a "Name" section at the end about this translation problem... Now we just need something that says what exactly is this "brazilian social democracy". -- User:Nwerneck, 01 Dec 2005 20:25:49 -0200

"Brazilian social democracy" is, not more, not less than "neoliberalism". That's what it is. -- Manuel

Wow, Manuel. Brilliant analysis. Even better English. Lenineleal 21:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeda Crusius, the first female.

Wow, this prove the bible and Qu'ran false with their history of Eve. [/sarcastic] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.58.69.21 (talk) 00:43, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Center-left?

Is this party center-left? Being called Social Democrat is not enough.

FHC's government implemented a neoliberal rightist policy, with some. PSDB and its visceral ally, PFL, concentrate both the essence of rightist politics in Brazil.

I cannot say that, compared to politics in a country like - say - United States, some of its ideas could even be considered center-left, but in Brazil, there are few important parties more to the right.

What do you think? 01:14, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

I believe in what the documents I quoted say: It's a party that first of all fights against this "left/right" vision. Ideologies and proposals come first. If we are going to do this classification, then we should just talk about "left/right" and "extremists" parties, not "center-something". PSDB would be a "leftist" party, and that's all.

And more, I don't believe PFL is a "visceral" ally. What does that mean?

The PT started this campaign of calling PSDB a "neoliberal" party to make negative campaign, because of pure power ambition. This vision should start to fade away in the next years, now that the PT already had it's turn in the presidency, and now we can start to work seriously. What do you mean by "clearly neoliberal"? Neoliberal is the PL, PT's new "visceral ally". See how it works? It's just political rhethoric, not social science. -- nwerneck, 01 Dec 2005 20:52:03 -0200

Did PSDB adopted some neoliberal concepts in its government? José San Martin 23:34, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I hope we don't start a flamewar here. :) I live in Campinas too, we can meet to argue. ;) To decide if FHC was neoliberal, we must first have a perfect definition os neoliberalism. A "decision procedure" (you are a programmer, as I am, so you should understand that). What happened was privatizations and fight against international protecionism, with support of the WTO. Is this enough to classify a party as "neoliberal"? Than it was. But there is more: what would be the opposite of the neoliberal? Protectionism? Also, is this "left" or "right"? FHC government did a great job at agrarian reform and education (programa bolsa-escola, por exemplo!). It also fought for the reinforcement of the democratic institutions. Is this "left" or "right"? Is this "neoliberal" or "anti-neoliberal"? The facts come before the labels.

It is part of the social-democrat parties ideologies to bring this discussion to the table. If you read the social-democracy and neoliberal articles you will see that. If people start to argue more about what is being done, and why, and talk about how things work, and how each government action affects the whole society, instead of just argue with controversial words as "neoliberalism" and "left/rightims", then it will be a victory to the the social-democrats.

Of course, I am a great PSDB supporter. Not a fan and militant, but an advocate of it's main principles... I admire other brazilian parties too, as PDT, PPS, PV and even PT and PSOL. I hope you all can help me not to let this open support show up in my contributions to the article!... :> --nwerneck, 02 Dec 2005 03:31:17 -0200

Center-right and neoliberal, not center-left and social-democratic

PSDB is not a center-left and social-democratic party, although it originally might have been. PSDB's policies are clearly market-oriented and its members public positions are usually liberal, especially in economic issues. So, both PSDB's action and thought are neoliberal. It favours a reduction of the role the state plays in the economy, not an augmentation.

As Fernando Henrique Cardoso himself once said, he tried to end the "Vargas Era" in Brazil, and that means to loosen labour legislation and weaken labour unions. The two FHC governments promoted a wide privatization of Brazilian public services (most of the times with public money, financed by BNDES). That is not to say it was good or bad, but just a constation of PSDB's neoliberal orientation.

PFL may not be a "visceral" ally, but it is definitely PSDB's "natural" ally. They are both neoliberal parties, although with very different origins.

Consolidating democracy is not a rightist neither a leftist policy. And let us not forget that the PSDB administration denied its ads to "Carta Capital", a magazine which had a critical view of its policies.

As far as agrarian reform is concerned, PSDB did nothing but "outnumbering" previous governments, by using "odd" counting methods.

FHC government, which was supported by almost all right-wing political parties in Brazil (PFL, PPB - now PP - and PTB) and opposed by all the left-wing parties (PT, PDT, PPS, PCdoB, PCB, PSTU, PCO etc.), did a great job at criminalizing social movements, such as the MST and the homeless' organizations ("Sem-Teto").

PSDB's proposals for 2007-2010 include: drastic labour rights cut; privatization of all state banks; fusion of Ministério da Agricultura (Agriculture Minister, linked to agribusiness) and Ministério do Desenvolvimento Agrário (Agriculture Development, responsible for agriculture reform); adoption of the "déficit zero" policy (cutting all the deficit of Brazil's budget); cutting minimum expenses enforced by the constitution in areas like healthcare and education; restarting Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA), weakening Mercosul. At least, these are some of the ideas defended by a group of specialists who have been having meeting with São Paulo governor Geraldo Alckmin, according to Agência Carta Maior.

According to the Folha de S.Paulo, Alckmin has been defending the "déficit zero" idea.

In an interview conceded to O Globo, Alckmin expressed his wish to readopting the prizatization programme and to privatize all state banks, in addition to reinforcing the Public-Private Partnerships (Parcerias Público-Privadas), a "new kind" of concession of public service or building.

• First of all: Create an account so you can identify yourself in future discussions. Second: Good to have a discussion on this. My biggest problem with your arguments is that they are all unsourced facts (give us links to these articles). I have no problem having a discussion about, for example, whether social democracy is compatible or not with neoliberalism. But you're citing stuff about about a "PSDB proposal for 2007-2010" which you have no sources for. PSDB is more closely related to the Third Way, which preaches a "radical centrism" which is not totally neoliberal, and not totally socialist. If you'd like to call it center, than that's fine, but the use of "neoliberal" in a pejorative manner is, frankly, simplistic and gauche. It calls itself a party of the center-left and critics (whether meritoriously or not) call it neoliberal. I've re-written that portion to address this, encompassing both the "official" alignment and the "critical" alignment.--Dali-Llama 04:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I do not want to create an account, unless I have to. But I can and I will identify myself at the end of these lines. My sources are: http://agenciacartamaior.uol.com.br (I couldn't find the specific link, but it's easy to find the article at the bottom of the page), http://www.folha.uol.com.br (the article is called "Alckmin já prepara plano econômico", but it is only avaible for those who signe the newspaper) and http://www.oglobo.com.br (the interview is only avaible for free until seven days after its publication, on January 15th). PSDB is only more close to the Third Way if you understand the Third Way as "neoliberalism with a social touch". If you think PSDB is closer to "radical center" than to "center-right", I cannot possibly agree. I did not intend to use the word "neoliberal" in a pejorative manner. No political party in Brazil calls itself a right-winger. All of them say they are center, center-left (which is the most usual choice) or left. But it is a consensus among political scientists and historians (who are not linked to the party, of course) that PSDB is a neoliberal party, like PTB and PFL, in spite of their very different origins. I still think the article does not reflect reality, because it is not only the opposition who thinks PSDB is a neoliberal party. For instance, a friend of mine, who belongs to a family of PSDB's politicians and is a great supporter of PSDB, says it is a "neoliberal party". She also says the reason she likes it so much is because "it is neoliberal and does not try to deny it". Because it doensn't! Its politicians defend neoliberal policies and, when in government, they take neoliberal measures. So, I believe it's you who are being simplistic by stating that only "critics" say it is neoliberal. In fact, many people vote for it and support it because of its neoliberalism. I believe that is you who has a gauchist view on neoliberalism. Otherwise, why would it necessarily be bad? - Manuel Amaral Bueno

• Okay. Firstly, Agência Carta Maior is not a neutral source--it's highly partisan. The article in question[[1]] doesn't list Alckmin's economic plan--it lists the people he met with and what are their opinions about the issues. This ia a huge fallacy. In any case, I totally understand your point-of-view, and agree that the PSDB has at times been more neoliberal than it'd like to be. Check out their party program. There, they say the following: "We refuse to heed to populism as well as authoritarianism, as we do both fundamentalist neoliberalism and the obsolete nationalist-estatism". So their party program is really centrist. Again, if you take a look at similar parties and other Third Way people, these are all left-wing parties (Democrats in the US, labor in Britain or the SPD in Germany) who have enacted traditionally "right" policies. Usually the label used for them is center-left. It's not a question of what I think about neoliberalism--it's about what the party says of itself (which is what's in discussion) amd what is the general consensus of those who disagree with that (which I think we both agree it's neoliberalism)--Dali-Llama 14:58, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I made a last alteration trying to make the article reflect better reality. But I would like to stress that Agência Carta Maior's article was based on public position of Mr. Alckmin's colaborators and his own words. So, its partisanship does not affect its continent. - Manuel Amaral Bueno. Carta Maior doesn't cite Alckmin's economic plan because it hasn't an economic plan yet. So, that's the best I could find. PSDB might be close to center in theory, but, in reality it is closer to center-right. Democratic party in the USA is not a left-wing party, it is just a less conservative party. "New Labour" is not center-left. It is just, as I said, "neoliberal with a touch of social worrying". SPD has also adopted neoliberal policies, but, nowadays, has readopted center-left thesis. What the party says about itself is not in discussion (it says it's a "social-democratic party" - it's in its name!) but what is in discussion is what it IS. And there's a consensus about this: it's a neoliberal party.

• We're still hitting NPOV in the wrong way. According to Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view, a proper solution to this would be what I proposed--give the "official" version first, and acknowledge the critical view. The first one is fact--it says so in their party program, properly referenced. The second is opinion and analysis (however true it may be). I don't think either of us is disputing PSDB's neoliberal leanings, but since it is not a black-and-white clear-cut assertion, the proper format to maintain a a neutral point of view is, as stated, to provide the "official" version first followed by a critical analysis (properly referenced as well). I'm editing it one last time. I think it conveys the same information, though closer to a neutral point-of-view. If you choose to revert it once again, I'd have to put the article on a queue for outside arbitration, since I've exhausted my arguments, and we're rapidly approaching technicalities.--Dali-Llama 02:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Dalillama, please try to understand: What I am trying to say is that it is WRONG (or, at least, very imprecise and simplist) to say that "critics" regard PSDB as a neoliberal party, because it is a consensus among political analysts and historians (and there are many people who support PSDB BECAUSE it is a neoliberal party). It is also WRONG to say that it is more strongly associated to center than to center-right - and the Third Way link redirects to Third Way (centrism), not to Third Way (neoliberalism). And, as I have already written, PSDB is only "strongly associated" to Third Way if you understand "Third Way" as "neoliberalism with a social touch", no matter what its program says. Remember: no party in Brazil declares itself neoliberal or rightist (not even center-right!). However, Brazil has one of the most unfair wealth distribution in the world! Saying you are a social-democrat and a centrist doesn't make you a social-democrat and a centrist! What matters are the policies its members defend when in opposition and adopt when in government. And that IS clear-cut (at least to most political observers who are not linked to the party)! Therefore, in the page in Portuguese, a consensus has been reached over PSDB's center-right neoliberal positions. I don't know why we haven't been able to do the same in the article in English. - Manuel Amaral Bueno

• Not to detract from the Potuguese wikipedia, but I think the reason this discussion is bilateral (IE: you and me) is because there is a reduced interest in the topic outside of Brazil, and even then the people who edit the EN one (like myself) have a much different worldview (for better or worse) than the ones on the PT one. This leads to a conflict in saying that what is "center-left" in the US or Europe may very well be Center-right in Brazil. As you yourself said, you consider the democratic party in the US only to be "less conservative" than the republican one The Third Way association is based purely on comparing and contrasting the policies of these governments. As the article states, The term was appropriated by politicians in the 1990s who wished to incorporate Thatcher and Reagan's projects of economic deregulation, privatization, and globalization into the mainstream centre left political parties so that in this context the Third Way is usually understood as a nickname for neoliberal social-economic policy." I've revised the edit. Lemme know what you think.

I can compromise on the new edition. I think that we have improved the article and it will provide a better source for English-speaking people wanting to know more about PSDB. After all, it might win the presidency this year. Then, it would draw more interest outside Brazil. But I do not agree on what you wrote about different world views. I believe left is left and right is right anywhere. Although you are probably more influenciated by neoliberalism than us (as neoliberalism, in general terms, has brought benefits to the rich countries and has worsened problems of the poor country). But that doesn't change the object of the analysis. I am not quite sure if PSDB has ever been a real social-democratic party - In the very beggining of the 90s, Fernando Henrique Cardoso already wanted to be Fernando Collor (the very neoliberal and corrupt president)'s chancellor. I know they started off intending to be social-democrats, but they never have put it into practice. And I'm pretty sure they never absorbed the Third Way ideology (if there even was one!). As I see it, the Third Way is too European to be applied in Brazil. And, in my view, it was just a way used by FHC to be among European leaders and improving his image and his party's. Anyway, I believe this edition is good! - Manuel

• Manuel, I think the discussion we're having is actually worthy of mention in the article itself. This "evolution" of right/left definitions is an important historical part of the PSDB and politics in general. I asked a relative of mine who's tied to the PSDB's leadership about his opinion on this, and he referred me to this essay by a political scientist. I think we should honestly start writing a section on this evolution, because one can argue that the same that happened to the PSDB in the early 90s has been happening to the PT right now (at least from what I've heard in the radical left). I also think that the Third Way association is one of those things that, again, "on paper" was the PSDB's intention, but in practice they were so in bed with the PFL that they can't fit all the criteria. In any case, I'll try to expand on the 90s history of the PSDB. Hope to have your input.--Dali-Llama 19:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

• Okay. First of all, I believe PSDB adopted neoliberal policies not because of its alliance with PFL (which had a pragmatic goal: win the elections - and defeating Lula -, but became ideological during the FHC administration - although it was always physiological too), but because it became a neoliberal party. In 1994, there were still rumors that FHC was a leftist. In that time, ACM said, in an interview to Carta Capital, "Fernando Henrique is no leftist! He is one of us!". I'm strongly inclined to agree with senator Antônio Carlos Magalhães because of the episode (which I have already mentioned) when Fernando Henrique expressed his willingness to join the Collor administration as its chancellor - that is not my only reason, but one of the most importants. He only did not do such a thing because Mario Covas intervened and said that "if he (FHC) did it, he (Mario) would leave the party). But, still, Mario Covas also adopted neoliberal policies in its govern in São Paulo. Serra is said to be a "desenvolvimentista" (in favour of development), but we should not forget that the "desenvolvimentismo" is also a center-right policy. It is, for instance, one of the main elements of Juscelino Kubitschek's presidency (and no one can say Juscelino and his PSD were leftists, not even centrists - maybe center-right. They were the party of the rich farmers).

However, I do not see the same evolution happening with PT. The party certainly moved towards the political center, but I don't think it is bounded to "cross the line". And it also made pragmatic alliances (with PL, in order to win the elections, and with PTB and PP, in order to govern). We could say it may be making the same kind of move PSDB has done (and that is has been doing so long before Lula became the president, but the presidency has accelerated it), as far as actions (not ideas) are concerned. PT, "in paper" as you said, wants to move Brazil to "democratic socialism". What it has been doing, "in practice", are social-democratic administrations (more social-democratic than PSDB's ones), both in municipal and state levels. In the federal level, however, PT has not been putting foward even a social-democratic agenda. It is not neoliberal (altough the economic is certainly conservative), but it is, in the words of the ex-Minister of Education Tarso Genro, a "centrist-progressist" administration. And, as the ex-Minister-chief of the Civil House stated, Lula has not taken a single measure signalling a "turning point" to socialism would come one day. That takes us to the question: Has PT given up socialism? Or is a socialist government impossible in Brazil and it is even impossible to visualise socialism overcoming capitalism in this very moment of History? I'm inclined to believe the latter is correct, not the first one. We should always remember that PT itself has repeatedly criticized the most conservatives elements of Lula's administration, such as the high interest rates and the lack of public investiment on education, health and infrastructure (specially on habitation and sanitation). But Lula's government is not the PT's government. It is susteined by a variety of parties, ranging from left to center-right (PP would be right, but the part of it which suports Lula only does so because it expects to get favours from the government - and that's not characteristic of neither right or left). And there is more: the Brazilian people have not elected the left to rule the country. Brazilians have voted for Lula, but they also have voted for Severino Cavalcanti (and the other 322 federal deputies that elected him as president of the Federal Chamber) - and remember Brazil's governing system is often called "presidencialism of coalition", because the Brazilian Constitution was made for a parlamentarist system, but the people voted for presidencialism. Lula had 61,2 % of the votes in the ran off of the presidential election in 2002. But the PT elected 17% of the deputies in the Federal Chamber. We may thus say a leftist government was not what the Brazilian people has elected (it gave power to leftists, but it also gave power, in an equal or superior amount to rightists). I also believe that, if Lula tried to enforce a real leftist agenda, he would sit on the president's chair for no longer than a month - and he knew that. Therefore, I believe PT is still a leftist party, but, because of practical constraints, regardless of its will or intentions, it has adopted center-left (social-democrat) policies and, since it can't - and was not chosen to do so - govern alone, its Lula's government is not leftist at all. Although it obviously could be moving a bit faster towards left than it is doing. Well, that already gives us some material for a new article. And I guess most things I have written shouldn't be in the discussion of the PSDB's article. We should really create another one about this. P.S.: The article really needs more information about PSDB's history during the 90s. After all, it is the party's history's most important part and also the closest one to our times. Unfortunately, due to personal reasons, I may not be able to do anymore contributions to Wikipedia. - Manuel

TSE Identification Number

I've tried to put PSDB's number (45) many times, but it simply doesn't appear on the page! Could anyone help me?

Fixed? José San Martin 14:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. My guess is they forgot the | after the 45.--Dali-Llama 17:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Observer where?

As far as I know, PSDB is an observer of the Socialist International, not of the Christian Democratic International. 200.139.165.78 15:13, 11 February 2006 (UTC) Manuel

Seems possible. Do you know where to verify? José San Martin 15:59, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Dalilama, do you where to verify info about CDI? José San Martin 16:07, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, PSDB is not exactly socialist... The Socialist International is represented in Brazil by PDT, the Democratic Labour Party. See their logo. Yet, missing information about CDI, which does not have an website. José San Martin 16:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC).

From the Socialist International website[2], we see that PSDB is not an observer. From the "American" Christian Democrat International[3], we see that PSDB is in fact an observer. --Dali-Llama 19:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

In the Socialist International website, what we really see is that PSDB is not a member. But it's commonly stated, in Brazil, that PSDB is an observer of the Socialist International. I tend to believe in it, although I can't prove it (it is written in the Portuguese wikipedia article - maybe we should ask them about it). And I believe the International Socialist is more representative than the "American" Christian Democrat International. I think we should only cite the most representative, that is, the Socialist International, in the article. 200.139.165.112 03:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC) Manuel

You are not wrong. Wow, I didn't know that: PSDB would like to be part of S.I., but they were rejected in 2003. Since they are not in the list of S.I., I think they were not accepted in the two following years. PSDB's official note about it: [4]. Comments about the happening: [5] (it cites PSDB). Good source of information: [6] (it cites I.S.). C'est ça. José San Martin 12:27, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

God, they were expelled? That's hilarious. Tragic, really, but hilarious nonetheless. --Dali-Llama 09:20, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Neither tragic, nor hilarious. Simply logical. They are not social-democrat, or, at least, they are not social-democrat in the eyes of the people who have been calling themselves social-democrat for more than a century... and so they were not admitted in the social-democratic club. Donadio (talk) 01:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Third Way

Sincerely, I live in Brazil and I've never heard of any association of the PSDB with the Third Way. So, I'll rewrite the text like this: "The party has often been associated with the Third Way by foreign observers". If anyone has a different information than me, please revert the edition. 200.139.143.181 02:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Check the Instituto Teotônio Vilela website for more information on PSDB's "official" attachment to the Third Way. --Dali-Llama 03:32, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

If the PSDB is not associated with the so-called "Third Way", why was presidente Cardoso invited back in the late 90s to the Third-Way Summit with Tony Blair, Bill Clinton, Gerhard Schröder and Massimo D'Alema ? Brazilians seem to have a very short memory ! 200.177.42.143 00:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I am also Brazilian, and I know PSDB is associated with the Third Way and I remember the summit.Daniel Trielli 04:36, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Foreign perception of center-left

Per The Economist [7], PSDB is a center-left party (or "centre"-left in this case). Reinforces my previous opinion that what is centre-right in Brazil is centre-left abroad.

The Economist is a right-wing magazine, which advocates market-oriented policies and is considered a symbol of neoliberalism. Therefore, it cannot be considered a neutral source for foreign perception of Brazilian politics.—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

I don't see the connection. They are not passing judgement either way. What you're implying is that a label of right or left is inherently derogatory if you're from the other side of the spectrum. Their personal opinion is not expressed by calling a party left or right. It would be expressed if you were calling them incompetent.--Dali-Llama 21:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

The Myth of "Neoliberalism"

Fair enough. Let us discuss it.

a) Do you have any independent reputable source at all backing up your claims? Add it to the article. Otherwise, this is simply your POV forced into the text. All you added were actually impressionistic and isolated remarks with no respectable bibliographic references supporting it.

b) There are very few parties in the whole of Wikipedia with the clearly controversial and quite polysemic word "neoliberalism" in their "political ideology" section. Editors in general realize how doubtful this kind of label is. Labeling a Social-Democratic party as "neoliberal" is all the more inflammatory, and really shouldn't even be taken seriously in the first place to avoid quibbling later. You should be aware that some would consider this trolling, and with good reason.

c) To make things more clear: why on earth do you believe (I reckon this is your belief) that PSDB is "neoliberal"? Because it has privatised a handful of companies? Nearly all Socialist parties did that in Europe when they were in power. Does that make them "neoliberal"? PT privatised many public companies in states and municipalities it governed, such as Ribeirão Preto (with Palocci) and Porto Alegre. Does it make PT a neoliberal party?

d) PSDB raised taxes, increased social spending, bloated the welfare system, maintained a cautious protectionist regime, kept a fixed exchange policy for four years, defends environmentalism, praises historical socialists, opposes the initial proposal for the FTAA. All of that is diametrically opposite to everything you could term "neoliberalism". Obviously, describing a party engaged in such an agenda as "neoliberal" is nonsensical. The only way you could use the word "NEOLIBERAL" here is as a form of "third way" (tony blairesque) neoliberalism, which would be nothing but confusing and provocative, anyway (cf. Labour Party (UK)), etc.

So nobody is neoliberal, uhn? I would love to discuss this matter, but I don't think that this would be a good place. If you want to, email me and we discuss more deeply our point of views.

Anyway, I may agree to remove the "Neoliberal" from the infobox, or, at least, include something else. Nevertheless, please KEEP the references to this ideology in the text body. Why? Because removing any reference on neoliberalism (there are only two) in this text would be the same to say that "no one has never thought about linking PSDB and neoliberalism". You will agree that this would a quite POVed edit, too.

Answer me with an 'OK' and we start to search for references. José San Martin 15:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree it should be removed from the infobox and somehow kept in the text, but only insofar as you provide proper references for it, not loose comments. That is the problem I have with the current edit. "it is regarded as...", and such weasel words are a miserable starting point for an encyclopedic text. On a side note, please notice that I'm far from being a supporter of PSDB, as I reject their statist agenda. Some would say that I'm way to the 'right' of them, although I also consider the 'left-right' divide nonfunctional, to say the least. At any rate, this is about accuracy, not point of view. I have not added my point of view, I have removed real POVish speculation. If you wish to make it more than just that, you are welcome, and I could help you.

I do agree with him in that "neoliberal" is now used an insult (much like "liberal" in the US). Overall, reading the party program from the links below, the PSDB is not a fundamentalist when it comes to neoliberalism, nor is it marxist. I still think the more accurate label is "Third Way".--Dali-Llama 14:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

If someone here search by Google using the words "centrist" and "PSDB" will find that CNN,Radiobras(http://internacional.radiobras.gov.br/ingles/politicalforces_2004.php ),The Independent,Financial Times,Al Jazeera and Marcelo Beraba(ombudsman of Folha de São Paulo)consider PSDB a centrist party.I think the best political ideologies to PSDB in Wikipedia would be "Social democracy"(official) and "Centrism" or "Third Way".

Luiz Felipe

Most Brazilian political parties and academicians consider the PSDB a neoliberal/right-wing party. Therefore, I'll add "Neoliberalism (alleged)" in the index. 200.139.182.106 01:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Just because you said it doesn't mean it's true. It's good to cite sources when making such controversial additions. Also, because it might be controversial, it's pretty risky to put that in without making it sound like a loaded POV, when the allegations themselves might be biased, as the brazillian political spectrum could be considered to be centered a little more on the left side. Since we are trying to represent a world view, it would be confusing to say a "brazilian neoliberal" party would be the same thing as an "english neoliberal" party. It is quite insulting though that you would just try to poke it in with no regards for previous discussion on the subject. If its so important for you to establish that PSDB is neoliberal in an online english encyclopedia, maybe you shouldn't be contributing. If it isn't, then I am deeply sorry (I am already, but I couldn't bother to be politically correct and weasel this paragraph into not sounding like a bite and assuming good faith, but that controversial addition was not made in a politically correct manner either), but the comment still stands for anyone who thinks in that vein. Starghost (talk) 16:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear English-speaking users, I'm Brazilian, I live in Brazil and I've been following closely Brazilian politics before PSDB even existed. In my opinion, NOT to cite neoliberalism as PSDB's alleged ideology is POV. Everybody who has paid attention to the Brazilian political scenario in the last twelve years or studied Brazilian politics knows that, at least, it has been claimed - more than enough times - that PSDB is a neoliberal party. 200.139.138.175 17:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Being neoliberal is used in Brazil in a pejorative manner, much like "liberal" is used by the right-wing in the US. Read the full extension of the discussion above. We have come to the conclusion that PSDB is not a party which advocates neoliberalism and its centerpoint, but rather a party which incorporates some aspects of it. The party program says the same (see the discussions above). Furthermore, Wikipedia is supposed to represent a worldview, not a country-centric POV. That's why you must take PSDB's policies and stances and compare them to what is considered left or right or neoliberal around the world. We had the same discussion about whether or not PSDB is center-right or center-left. The main point in this is that it is possible for it to be center-right by Brazilian politics' standards and center-left in the world spectrum. And by the way, just because people claim over and over again does not make it true. That is akin to what Joseph Goebbels famously said: "Repeat a lie enough and the people will believe it."--Dali-Llama 18:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I guess you misunderstood me. I'm not saying it is right or wrong to classify PSDB as a neoliberal party. I'm just saying that a great number of highly regarded intellectuais, political scientists, historians and a significant part of the Brazilian political spectrum consider PSDB a neoliberal party. In my view, that should be on the article, since politics is not an exact science. Political views are always subjective and that means the Wikipedia should present all sides as often as possible. 200.139.138.175 18:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, no. See Equal Validity policy. In this case, the influence of neoliberalism on PSDB is already in the article (in the first paragraph of the history page). To put it in the ideology section would be disproportional to the overarching ideology, which officially is Social Democracy, but linked to the Third Way movement. It would be like saying PT is communist because some of its members are/were and was influenced by it. I think the article accurately reflects the influence of neoliberalism as it is. And as I've mentioned, the Brazilian opinion is not necessarily the worldview.--Dali-Llama 19:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia should not present all sides as often as possible, I think you are unfamiliar with the undue weight policy. Also, like we said, these highly regarded brazilian people you mentioned might represent a brazilian view, but not a world view. I agree with everything Dalillama said. Starghost (talk) 20:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that neoliberal became quite a pejorative word, and Wikipedia articles should not be offensive to their subjects and therefore this word should be kept very far from that infobox. Nevertheless, I should that having one or two references on it in the main body doesn't harm anyone, as many people (including me) does agree that PSDB is neoliberal. In other words: much better keep this article in the very way it is written now. José San Martin 01:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Dalillama, you should remember calling PSDB a neoliberal party is not an absurd and it's arguably not the opinion of a minority. And how would you best classify it instead of citing the most representative opinions about the subject? Right and left are subjective notions. 200.139.189.100 00:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh it's not absurd at all--but there's a difference between an influencing ideology and what the party program calls for. My point is that neoliberalism is not an ideology which is espoused by PSDB, but rather a influencing ideology. Again, akin to saying that PT has been influenced by communism, but it is not a communist party. And if you think this opinion is the majority, I'd check again--at least here, three people have expressed support for the status quo of the article, versus yourself. Finally, Sanmartin's point is right on: neoliberalism has become pejorative, and as a point in discussion, should not be in the infobox, but rather discussed in the article (as it is now).--Dali-Llama 02:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

As I see it, PSDB espoused neoliberalism years ago. And its candidate, Geraldo Alckmin, advocates a surely neoliberal programme. Oh, and the opinion of three people in the English Wikipedia is far from representing the views of all who analyse PSDB's positions. But I'm not saying "neoliberalism" should be the only ideology cited in the article. I just believe it should be cited in the infobox, as an alleged ideology, or claimed one. 200.139.189.100 18:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Your opinion is also far from representing those views. Also, ALL views, even if properly represented might not represent a world view, and might sometimes give undue weight, such as religious views on a scientific article. Like I said, I am pretty sure PSDB is different from neoliberal parties from other countries, therefore people from those countries might get the wrong idea if they see it written. Cite your sources of Alckmin explicitly saying his programme is neoliberal, otherwise your arguments are, with all due respect, worthless.

But seriously, you can just repeat that over and over and ignore our points just because we're "three people in the English wikipedia". Well, in the English Wikipedia, we cite our sources. So I will make this work for ya. As I see it, PSDB ditched neoliberalism years ago. And it's candidate, Geraldo Alckmin, advocates surely a bunch of social programs in healthcare and education which surely place him on the left side of the political spectrum. What I am saying is, those initiatives in public healthcare and education should be cited in the ideology as they are influenced by communism.

There, no sources, no nothing, just as valid as the points you make. Next time, quote a reliable media outlet or author, instead of ignoring everything and saying "As I see it". Some people might interpret that as trolling, specially if they check you contrib history and see that all your contributions are part of a crusade to express your point of view on these brazilian parties. Thanks. Starghost (talk | contribs) 16:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, now I've got a good source for you: Time [8] (PSDB is not the main subject of the article, but it's cited as "neoliberal"). 200.139.179.116 16:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

That's a good example, arguably of equal weight as the Economist quote. Having said that, I think that the neoliberal aspect is referenced in the article and given appropriate weight.--Dali-Llama 14:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

BBC thinks PSDB like a centre-left party: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5373188.stm and http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5396198.stm .Luiz New change: i added Christian Democracy and Social Liberalism,see: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partito_della_Social_Democrazia_Brasiliana

it.Wiki is not a reliable source, anyway!!! --Checco 22:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC)