After 'never before,' Lula resorts to 'who hasn't?', and the effect is comical

Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva has introduced a new catchphrase, "quem nunca?" (who hasn't?), into his political lexicon. This contrasts sharply with his long-standing "nunca antes na história deste país" (never before in the history of this country), which he uses to emphasize the unprecedented nature of his government's achievements and his personal journey.

Previously, Lula employed "nunca antes" to assert exceptionalism, claiming no president had achieved as much in so little time or endured such political persecution. This framing attempts to rewrite history and overshadow the progress made by his predecessors, creating a narrative of a distinct "before Lula" and "after Lula" era. He recently reiterated this, stating that PT militants have more arguments than ever to defend the party's continuity in power, a hyperbolic claim given he is in his third non-consecutive term.

The new "quem nunca?" formulation aims for the opposite effect: to attribute absolute normality to actions that might be incompatible with public office, even if not explicitly illegal. This emerged when Lula defended his former chief of staff, Marco Aurélio Santana Ribeiro, known as Marcola. Marcola received money from businesswoman Roberta Luchsinger, who advocates for private interests before government bodies. Marcola claims it was a loan that has since been repaid.

Lula reportedly asked allies in a meeting, "Quem aqui nunca pediu empréstimo para um amigo?" (Who here hasn't asked a friend for a loan?). This argument is seen as almost comical, echoing a rhetorical question often used on social media to normalize awkward, exaggerated, selfish, or clearly reproachable behavior by implying universality. The irony lies in seeking complicity by suggesting "everyone does it," while the subtext acknowledges the absurdity or immorality of the act.

With the presidential campaign underway, a convincing public explanation for this episode, which occurred near the president's office in the Planalto Palace, is lacking. The situation raises questions about potential conflicts of interest and the ethical standards expected of public officials, especially when such justifications are employed by the head of state.