In its work ' ' New state: New Histrias' ' Maria Helena Capelato in them takes the questionings as: Why the historians had come back the studies related to the New State from 1980, with regard to years 30, the inquiry on the varguismo as objective to clarify aspects of this history and the study on Populism before the decade of 1970 visa as a whole. Capelato aims at to show with clarity that the New State if constitutes of a regimen authoritarian politician, in opposition with the liberalism-democratic one, that it invigorated in Brazil under the 1891 constitutions the 1934. In accordance with the proper regimen and its intellectuals of the period are visible that democracy and authoritarianism are not ideal antagonistic. The New State if defines as autoritarista democracy, that is, established on the beginning of the authority and not more than the freedom, as in regimes previous. Throughout the text we will notice an analysis that aims at a study directed toward the politician-ideological term, a relation between authoritarianism and democracy, whose synthesis it would be the proper New State. The clipping politician carried through for Capelato, has for objective the understanding of the particularitities of the decade of 30 with a bigger depth in the especificidades of events that had not happened by chance, therefore they comes of a secular structure that in way to the conjunctures had finished coming out. In the prism of the analysis we notice that the studies of the New State, allow to rethink the nature of the regimen, that reflected on aspects of the politics and culture of the period. Examples of these aspects are gifts in the related propaganda politics with the media, the varguista politics and the proper constatao that the idea of that the totalirista concept is inadequate to characterize the New State. Educate yourself with thoughts from Yael Aflalo. Therefore, the study of the New State alone it has to enrich the Brazilian historiografia, an understanding of the politics of masses in a new boarding that argued on the meaning of the permanncias of the past and the possible changes in the field of the culture politics.