Tweet
He has been dubbed by the media as the “Poorest President in the World”. He lives a very austere life by comparison to other world leaders. On a farm outside the capital and his greatest possession is an old VW bug. He donates 90% of his salary as president to charity.
Can you imagine Obama or Romney or any of out past presidents choosing to live such a life ? Or the leaders of France or Great Briton or Germany or Russia or Iran or Greece or Spain ? And yet we look up to these folks who lead us.
“I’m called ‘the poorest president’, but I don’t feel poor. Poor people are those who only work to try to keep an expensive lifestyle, and always want more and more,” he says.
“This is a matter of freedom. If you don’t have many possessions then you don’t need to work all your life like a slave to sustain them, and therefore you have more time for yourself,” he says.
“I may appear to be an eccentric old man… But this is a free choice.”
The Uruguayan leader made a similar point when he addressed the Rio+20 summit in June this year: “We’ve been talking all afternoon about sustainable development. To get the masses out of poverty.
“But what are we thinking? Do we want the model of development and consumption of the rich countries? I ask you now: what would happen to this planet if Indians would have the same proportion of cars per household than Germans? How much oxygen would we have left?
“Does this planet have enough resources so seven or eight billion can have the same level of consumption and waste that today is seen in rich societies? It is this level of hyper-consumption that is harming our planet.”
Mujica accuses most world leaders of having a “blind obsession to achieve growth with consumption, as if the contrary would mean the end of the world”. – BBC
When this man truly lives a humble life. A life that we should want to emulate. A fellow who is very near Buddha-hood.
6 Comments
Indeed. Outstanding post. Thanks, cmaukonen.
The participation in the destruction that is hyper-consumption is not the result of the policies or actions of our “leaders.” It is the result of, as Mujica so honestly and bluntly puts it, “a free choice” by each of us. To imagine otherwise is to give up not just one’s freedom but also one’s responsibility as a citizen and neighbor.
He pointed out correctly that the amount of Cannabis consumed in the country could be grown in a small area, producing a superior product: Who knows how much Drug War was wasted, hurting the economy of the entire country, when it all could have been grown in a small area, with no one bothered at all.
And as Pres. Mujica noted: They can sell it at a very low price, such that no one will be incentivized to go outside of the Government monopoly. (I expect that some people will still go outside.)
Truly an inspiration.
Lifestyle activism confers a measure of moral authority, but moral authority in a small number of individuals doesn’t seem like a particularly good change strategy. It worked well in the case of Ghandi and Martin Luther King, though even they were partly the product of their times, but doesn’t seem like a viable, long term strategy for our current predicament.
See Self-Delusion and the Lie of Lifestyle Activism (Core Dilemmas of Community Organizing)
You can see a sort of large scale version of lifestyle activism in play with the climate catastrophists. Even if they got their way with a carbon tax, their expected catastrophes will still develop, due to Chinese and Indian CO2 production. They remind me of the scene from ‘The Big Lebowski’ where ‘the Dude’ is protecting himself from intruders by nailing a board into the floor, to block the door from opening. Problem is, the door opens the other way….
Mujica says:
“Does this planet have enough resources so seven or eight billion can have the same level of consumption and waste that today is seen in rich societies? It is this level of hyper-consumption that is harming our planet.”
Do you think he’s wrong about that?
I don’t read it or anything else in the quote as claiming his “lifestyle” is intended as “activism.”
I happen to think his opinion is based in fact and you’re the one using deprecating judgements like “moral authority” to describe his purpose for saying it, not he
On the other hand, the essay you linked to is full of “lifestyle” activism” as it clearly suggests the writer believes his own ideas and the life choices he makes are superior and that his view of “reality” is the one that matters. Some might call that psychological projection. I’d call it “lifestyle activism” although a better description might be self-absorbed intellectual masturbation, however well intended.
“Moral authority” is a “deprecating judgement”? Surely you don’t mean this, literally. It makes no sense, literally. Hypocrisy – yes. Moral authority – no.
I suppose what you meant is that mere moral authority is a deprecating judgement. Well, I would say that mere moral authority won’t get the job done – that of making a low consumption lifestyle common enough to support seven or eight billion.
If you claim otherwise, please tell us your best guess as to when this magic will occur. Also, please tell us why it hasn’t already occurred, given the fine examples of Mujica, Mother Teresa, Saint Francis of Assissi (who made a virtue – some would say fetish – of embracing poverty), Buddha, and Jesus.