The Wall Street Journal - USA (2020-12-03)

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL. Thursday, December 3, 2020 |A

Odd Man Out,

And Proud of It

Salazar: The Dictator Who Refused to Die

By Tom Gallagher

(Hurst, 350 pages, $34.95)

BOOKSHELF| By Tunku Varadarajan

I

f Americans know of António de Oliveira Salazar at all,

most do so unwittingly—and thanks to “Casablanca.”

Although never mentioned by name in the film, the

Portuguese dictator was its hero. His Portugal was

stubbornly neutral during World War II, which is why two

of the movie’s characters risked their lives to fly from a

colonial outpost of Vichy France to the safety of Lisbon.

As the Nazis overran Europe, the Portuguese capital

became a sanctuary from which refugees escaped to America.

Salazar came to power in 1932, aged only 43, in an era

when Europe bristled with dictators. The Portuguese

strongman was the lone “benevolent autocrat” in a cohort

that comprised Hitler, Mussolini, Franco and Stalin. So

reckons Tom Gallagher in “Salazar: The Dictator Who Refused

to Die,” a learned and lively biography of a man who governed

Portugal for 36 years, running it “very much like a punctilious

head butler in charge of a sprawling country estate.”

Salazar’s end came not from an uprising but from an

accident, in 1968. In one of

those cosmic blows that can

descend on men who lead

lives of obsessive caution, a

deck chair in which he was

sitting (awaiting a haircut)

buckled and collapsed. His

head hit a stone floor, and

he never fully recovered his

faculties. He died two years

later, probably unaware,

Mr.Gallagher tells us, that he

was no longer ruling Portugal.

Franco, his Spanish counter-

part, believedthat Salazar’s

“only defect is probably his

modesty.” Mr. Gallagher, an

emeritus professor of politics at

the University of Bradford in the U.K., confirms this trait,

without ever casting it in a negative light, describing

Salazar as “self-effacing, dedicated to his duties, shunning

uniforms or bombastic displays.” Unlike Franco, who could

be a panjandrum, Salazar was sober and scholarly—and

had he not been quite so dapper might even be considered

a nerd. Although he enjoyed the company of women, he

never married. Whispers that he had a sexual relationship

with his housekeeper of five decades—Maria de Jesus

Caetano Freire, or “Dona Maria”—could be said to have

been silenced after a postmortem examination in 1981

revealed that she died in a virgin state.

Salazar attended a Catholic seminary as a young man,

but with his passion for politics, Mr. Gallagher writes, he

had doubts that he could “maintain the humility that the

church demanded of its shepherds.” He went to the Uni-

versity of Coimbra, Portugal’s pre-eminent educational

institution, and rose to become a professor of economics,

serving for four years as finance minister in a government

that had come to power in a military coup in 1926. If ever a

coup were needed, this was the time: Portugal’s monarchy

had been toppled in 1910, and the chaotic Portuguese republic

saw 44 governments come and go in the space of 16 years.

Portugal faced economic collapse, but Salazar, with his

“good housekeeping,” pulled it back from the fiscal brink.

His commitment to national frugality was exemplary: He

turned the heating down in his own office and worked with

a blanket draped on his knees. Although a civilian, he was

seen as the pillar of the military regime. Mr. Gallagher calls

him the “dictator of finance,” and in June 1932, Portugal’s

“would-be savior”—as Salazar had chosen to present

himself—was proclaimed its ruler.

Unlike Hitler and Mussolini, who stoked frenzied mass

movements, Salazar strove (in Mr. Gallagher’s words) for

“the depoliticization of society, not the mobilization of the

populace.” In the absence of an ideology that commanded

devotion, Salazar’s repression “was limited and controlled.”

Although his secret police, the PIDE, could be suffocating,

it was scarcely in the same malevolent league as the Gestapo

or the OGPU, NKVD and other predecessors of the KGB.

Salazar described his own ideology as “corporativist,”

a not entirely transparent credo by which Portugal would

be divided into sectors or guilds, all overseen by a no-

nonsense state. The state would also act to correct “the

excesses of individualism.” This hodgepodge of quasi-

fascism, nationalism and paternalistic micromanagement

was soon known simply as “Salazarism.”

As shown by Mr. Gallagher, Salazar was as conscious of

Portugal’s role in the wider world as he was of its modest

size and apparent provincialism. His refusal to take sides

in World War II stemmed from a desire to prevent Portugal

being dwarfed within the Axis or by the Allies, and he

butted heads with the U.S. during the war. Bridling at

“America’s disdain for small countries that stood in its

way,” writes Mr. Gallagher, he resisted demands that he

authorize American naval bases on the Azores, Portuguese

islands in the mid-Atlantic. He allowed bases on a short-

term lease eventually but believed that he’d retained Portu-

gal’s self-respect. This view was borne out when Portugal

became one of the 12 founding members of NATO in 1949.

“The Americans in politics are childlike,” Salazar once said,

and Washington’s anti-colonialism, especially in the Kennedy

era, incensed him. Although Portugal’s empire had shrunk

after Brazil’s independence in 1822, Salazar was a fierce

custodian of what was left. “The only hubris that he ever

displayed,” says Mr. Gallagher, “was the belief that he could

halt the winds of change” by clinging to Portugal’s colonies:

Angola, Mozambique and Guinea-Bissau; and Goa, seized by

India in 1961. The modest civic enlightenment he showed to

his own citizens was, alas,withheld from hiscolonial subjects.

Inevitably the empire came to a bloody end after his death.

Mr. Gallagher writes that Salazar “wasn’t a fascist but

a reactionary,” who sought to preserve Portugal’s national

identity and didn’t share the “revolutionary” goals of

Hitler or Mussolini. He thought Nazism was immoral.

Some readers, among the more unkind perhaps, may see

in this biography an apologia of sorts. Most others will

view it in a different light: as the humane and open-

minded story of a man whose legacy has been erased but

who could well be regarded as the most consequential

minor statesman of the 20th century.

Mr. Varadarajan is a Journal contributor and a fellow at

New York University Law School’s Classical Liberal Institute.

Portugal’s strongman didn’t go in for

bombastic display or ideological extremes.

Franco thought his only fault was his modesty.

Some Acts of God Are Better Than Others

Lakewood, Ohio

A

n enormous oak fell
onto one of the apart-
ment buildings I own.
There was no water damage
or burst pipes at the building.
That was the beautiful part.
Also, nobody was hurt. Eigh-
teen windows were knocked
out, plus there was extensive
roof and gutter damage. The
building is a 1920s brick
cube, most likely constructed
by immigrant Italian masons.
The building took the tree hit
like Marciano.
My commercial property
insurance has a $5,000 de-
ductible. That’s unfortunately
high. “Unfortunately” as in
“Unfortunately, this was an
act of God.” That’s what the
insurance adjustor told me.
She also said the cleanup
and repair were all on me,

even though the tree had

fallen from my neighbor’s

property—a former funeral-

home mansion turned office

building. The owner of that

building followed up: “Be-

cause of the gale force

winds, this is labeled an Act

of God. In Ohio that means

the property the tree lands

on is the property responsi-

ble for damages and cleaning

it up.”

I thought to myself, “God

has an Ohio policy?” I was

screwed. The building needs

brickwork along the roof par-

apet wall, gutter work, the 18

new windows, tree removal

and emergency board-up.

My one saving grace—I re-

peat—no water leaks. In the

rental business, it’s almost al-

ways about water. Water goes

wherever it wants. It’s not

carpet.

A moonlighting fireman

once did some roof repair for

me and didn’t scope out the

weather report too well. A

thunderstorm caught him and

his crew way off guard. My

tenants had to choose be-

tween sleeping in soaked

beds that night and going to

a hotel. I paid for all those

hotel rooms.

Then I had to deal with

the fireman. He called me the

day after the flood: “How you

doing?”

“Could be better,” I said.

“I know what you mean,”

he said.

We went around like

that—like laconic Midwestern

farmers—for weeks until his

insurance company finally

paid.

I’ve seen fire and I’ve seen

rain. I’ve saved fire for last.

You get religion real fast

when you’re standing in an

apartment that looks like a

burnt marshmallow. An el-

derly tenant lit his suite up

with a cigar butt that he in-

advertently left smoldering in

an upholstered chair. Nobody

died. I didn’t let the smoker

back. He was a nice guy, but

I was afraid he’d relight.

This time around, with the

fallen tree, I’m fairly calm.

No water damage, no fire, no

injuries. And I’ve said “God”

repeatedly in business con-

versation. Not as profanity

either.

Mr. Stratton is author of

the blog Klezmer Guy: Real

Music & Real Estate.

By Bert Stratton

I’ll take a fallen tree

over water damage or

a fire anytime.

OPINION

This is the
moment to
put into nom-
ination the
obvious recip-
ient for 2021’s
Nobel Peace
Prize: the sci-
entists at the
pharmaceuti-
cal companies
whose vac-
cines are about to rescue the
world from the catastrophe of
SARS-CoV-2.
Who else was going to save
us from Covid-19? The an-
swer, we’ve learned across
nine long months, is no one.
When the virus threat be-
came clear last March, the po-
litical authorities naturally
turned for guidance to spe-
cialists in the discipline
known as public health, and
specifically to professional
epidemiologists who had
worked with previous viruses,
such as AIDS or Ebola. In a
fortnight, epidemiology was
effectively given unprece-
dented authority over the
daily lives of the world’s
citizens.
In turn, these specialists
took as guidance the global
pandemic their profession un-
derstood—the Spanish flu
outbreak from 1918 to 1920.
Based on the evidence from
this 100-year-old pandemic,
their advice to the world’s po-
litical leadership was: Send
your national populations
home, and keep them there.
And so they did.
Once they’d done that,
once most of the world’s fac-
tories, schools, offices, busi-
ness and churches had been
emptied and once most of the
world was staying home, po-
litical leadership turned to
the representatives of science

A Covid Vaccine Peace Prize

and asked, “Now what do we

do?”

And the answer the scien-

tist-advisers gave—an answer

that will be remembered by ev-

ery sentient man, woman and

schoolchild the world over—

was: “Wait for a vaccine.”

That was it. Other than go

home and minimize human

contact, epidemiologists and

public-health officials had no

Plan B, C or D for living with

this coronavirus pandemic.

Whether go-home-and-

stay-home was the most bal-

anced strategy conceivable in-

side the reality of this

complex virus is, as usual, a

matter that likely will never

be resolved. In the event, the

pandemic policies enacted ef-

fectively divided the U.S. and

much of the world’s popula-

tion into two crude catego-

ries: people who get a pay-

check deposited in their bank

account no matter what, and

those who don’t.

Those who don’t have been

hammered without mercy by

the coronavirus. They may

not have died or contracted

Covid, but many have been

wiped out—personally and fi-

nancially. Next time epidemi-

ology’s daily briefers should

include a metric for lost sense

of purpose.

By now, the “vaccine” has

been invoked so often that it

exists in the public mind al-

most as an abstraction, as if

eventually it would show up

one day, like manna from

heaven. With the vaccines fi-

nally arriving, the originators

of the vaccines themselves

appear in the news as distant

corporate entities with names

like Moderna, Pfizer, BioN-

Tech, AstraZeneca, Johnson &

Johnson.

But the story of how these

new vaccines came to us so

fast would make a thrilling

documentary. The accomplish-

ments of these private-sector

teams of scientists is a culmi-

nation of progress across de-

cades, not least the identifica-

tion of messenger RNA 60

years ago. Today, biological

science has so many moving

parts that it takes multidisci-

plinary teams to produce

products like the vaccines

heading this month to the

Food and Drug Administration

for emergency approval.

Yes, much remains to be

learned about the demo-

graphic efficacy and durabil-

ity of these vaccines. But as

the world confronts the bur-

den of this winter’s resur-

gence of the virus, we should

also recognize thepolitical

rescue these private-sector

scientists have sent us.

People have been remark-

ably good at holding up their

side of the social-consent

bargain with public authori-

ties through the pandemic,

but that is breaking down.

After nearly a year of chaotic

handling of the crisis by U.S.

states and European govern-

ments—not least the specta-

cle of public officials person-

ally violating their own

directives—we are on the

edge of tipping into wide-

spread civil disobedience.

The vaccines are arriving, by

one notable example, just as

the belligerent New York

Gov. Andrew Cuomo is wear-

ing out his welcome.

President Trump has

largely disappeared into his

postelection challenges, but

officials of the Trump admin-

istration, notably Vice Presi-

dent Mike Pence and the

head of Operation Warp

Speed, Moncef Slaoui—

whose expertise grew from

three decades with Glaxo-

SmithKline—deserve more

credit than they are receiv-

ing for the vaccines’ immi-

nent deliverance from

Covid-19.

Recognizing that their

task was more like D-Day

than business as usual, they

created a public-private part-

nership that actually worked,

in large part by busting

through the bureaucratic

sludge that normally slows

anything. Presumptive Presi-

dent-elect Joe Biden should

complete this good game

plan, rather than reawaken

the bureaucracies with a na-

tional mask mandate.

The chances of a Nobel

Peace Prize being given to

anyone inside the for-profit

sector are about zero. This

year’s went to the United Na-

tions’s World Food Pro-

gramme. In the U.S., the

pharmaceutical industry, or

“Big Pharma,” is most of the

time a punching bag for

Democratic and Republican

politicians.

Reality check: The intellec-

tual, technical and organiza-

tional firepower of thousands

of men and women employed

by pharma is what made

these savior vaccines happen

in 10 months rather than

years. They won’t ask for any-

one’s gratitude, but they de-

serve it.

Write [email protected].

The pharmaceutical

scientists who created

these vaccines deserve

the world’s gratitude.

WONDER
LAND
By Daniel
Henninger

A

merica’s political atten-
tion is now focused not
on Washington but
Georgia, 700 miles south,
where a Jan. 5 runoff election
will decide that state’s two
U.S. Senate seats—and with
them, which party controls the
upper chamber.
These runoffs are required
by Georgia law because no
Senate candidate received 50%
of the vote in November. Since
Republicans on Jan. 3 will
have 50 Senate seats while
Democrats will hold 48, the
GOP can take control of the
chamber by winning one of
the seats. But it appears there
will be little ticket splitting.
Both seats are likely to go to
the same party.
If Democrats win both, they
will control the Senate, since
Vice President Kamala Harris
can break the 50-50 tie. If Re-
publicans win both, they will
keep the Senate and be in an
excellent position to halt the
Biden administration’s more
extreme proposals.
What little polling there is
suggests it will be close. Each
party’s base is motivated, and
while turnout will be down
from November, it will still be
large. Both sides will also have
enough money. (As chairman
of the Georgia Battleground
Fund benefiting Sens. David
Perdue and Kelly Loeffler and
the National Republican Sena-
torial Committee, I’m working
to ensure Republicans do.)
Democrats have some ad-
vantages going into the runoff.
In November their presidential

The Election Went Down to Georgia

candidate carried Georgia for

the first time since 1992. Their

defeated gubernatorial candi-

date from 2018, Stacey

Abrams, has built a formidable

get-out-the-vote operation.

And the state’s demographic

changes favor Democrats.

But Republicans have ad-

vantages, too. In November

Mr. Perdue received more

votes than any Republican in

Georgia history, outpacing his

Democratic opponent, docu-

mentary filmmaker Jon Os-

soff, by 88,098. In the other

Senate race, a special elec-

tion primary among 21 candi-

dates, Ms. Loeffler and the

other Republicans received

47,808 more votes than her

runoff opponent, the Rev. Ra-

phael Warnock, and the other

Democrats.

But Mr. Perdue and Ms.

Loeffler’s biggest advantage is

the Democrats they’re running

against. Both are distinctly

left-of-center in a state that

isn’t. Mr. Ossoff has aligned

himself with Sen. Bernie Sand-

ers, complimenting the Ver-

mont socialist for his views on

health care and opposition to

corporations. “His advocacy,”

Mr. Ossoff gushed, “is wel-

come, is necessary, is appreci-

ated.”

Mr. Warnock has endorsed

the Green New Deal. He may

be to the left of Mr. Sanders,

having defended the Rev. Jer-

emiah Wright’s anti-American

and anti-Semitic comments

and declared from his own

pulpit that police have a

“gangster and thug mentality”

and “act like bullies.” He even

told parishioners, “You cannot

serve God and the military.”

Aren’t there better ways to

explain Matthew 6:24 than to

insult every person of faith

who has worn our country’s

uniform?

Georgia Republicans have

the stronger ground game:

1,000 field operatives and

thousands of volunteers have

already canvassed nearly a

million voters. Only now have

Democrats started to canvas in

person. Moreover, the number

of requests for mail-in ballots

is down one-third from the

general election, and a greater

proportion of them have come

from Republicans, according

to GOP data analysts.

Republicans worry, how-

ever, about President Trump’s

attacks on Georgia’s election

machinery, including Twitter

assaults on the state’s GOP

governor and secretary of

state. They’re concerned Re-

publicans will be convinced the

race is rigged and stay home,

allowing Democrats to win.

Republicans are mounting an

industrial-size ballot-integrity

effort to reassure the grass-

roots that their votes will make

a difference. A battalion of GOP

lawyers are focused on every

aspect of the election, from

newly registered voters and

cameras monitoring ballot drop

boxes to matching signatures

on requests for mail-in ballots

and monitoring precincts and

tabulation rooms.

The president’s trip to

Georgia Saturday will be key.

Rather than simply vent his

grievances, Mr. Trump must

remind supporters that no

matter how frustrated they are

with November’s results, they

must turn out for Mr. Perdue

and Ms. Loeffler. Otherwise, a

Democratic Senate would undo

many of the president’s ac-

complishments, advance a

very liberal agenda, and spend

years investigating the Trump

administration’s every action

with endless subpoenas.

Democrats prepared the

ground for such an appeal. In

November, when Senate Mi-

nority Leader Chuck Schumer

proclaimed, “Now we take

Georgia, then we change

America!” he was warning ev-

ery Peach Tree State and con-

servative that the only way to

stop the country’s radical

transformation is to elect the

Georgia Republicans.

The president can drive

that point home by convincing

supporters that Mr. Perdue

and Ms. Loeffler are their last

line of defense. The nation’s

fate during the Biden adminis-

tration—plus much of Mr.

Trump’s legacy and his party’s

future—may depend on his

choice Saturday.

Mr. Rove helped organize

the political-action committee

American Crossroads and is

author of “The Triumph of

William McKinley” (Simon &

Schuster, 2015).

Sens. Perdue and

Loeffler are the last

line of defense for

conservatives.

By Karl Rove