“Why do Liberals Hate Orban?” is not the Right Question
The right questions are: 1) why do some some on the right like him, and 2) should this concern us all?
There is a new sub-genre of columns and commentary coming out in response to criticisms of Tucker Carlson, et al.’s recent visit to Hungary. The Ross Douthat piece I discussed in a prior post fits in this genre, but a more direct example comes from The Federalist: Why Liberals Hate Hungary’s Viktor Orban So Much? Noting up front I don’t speak of all “liberals” (or “progressives” or, really, any specific group–indeed, I speak for myself) let me underscore, as I did in a previous post: the issue is not, fundamentally, Orban. The issue is having a significant number of Americans praising him and his regime. This may be a subtle difference, but it is a very, very important one.
There is a difference, for example, between being aware that there is a member of the KKK living in a nearby town and having one of your children be dating that person. The abstract existence of something one finds problematic is one thing, having it connected to you in some way is a different level of concern.
I will admit that I find, as a matter of fact, the degrading of Hungary’s democracy to be troubling (and its degradation is an empirical matter: Hungary is less democratic now than it was 10+ years ago). But the concern that has emerged of late is not the discovery of growing authoritarianism in Hungary. The issue is not “hate” aimed at Orban. The issue is watching mainstream American conservatives embracing Orban, and specifically embracing some of his authoritarianism.
For example, and before I return to The Federalist piece, is the following from Rod Dreher that was brought to my attention in a recent OTB Open Forum, The Culture War In Four Minutes. In this column, Dreher is pretty incensed that in an episode of the Muppet Babies, Gonzo wants to dress like a princess and not a knight.
Here’s how sick and evil these creeps are. Disney — Disney! — is now grooming little children for sexual identity problems. They’ve turned the Muppet Baby Gonzo into a cross-dresser. I’m not kidding:
They really are coming for our children. And so, let us reflect on how in Hungary, thanks to a law passed by the Fidesz government this summer, this kind of thing would be illegal. Hungarian parents know that their government is on the side of their family, not the side of major corporations who seek to poison the minds of little kids. Hungary is ruled by a man. America’s men won’t even fight these corporate freaks on behalf of our own children.
I don’t want to digress too much on his transphobia (which I think is an accurate description), but the notion that acknowledging the notion that some people do wish to behave differently than cultural norms dictate is “grooming little children” (grooming is a pretty loaded term, I would note) or consists of “coming for our children” is just beyond hyperbolic. As a father of three, I have to say that the notion that something like this would be enough to change a child’s sexual orientation or gender identity is just flatly absurd.
But the thing that struck me was his praise for clearly authoritarian policy solutions: “thanks to a law passed by the Fidesz government this summer, this kind of thing would be illegal.” What happened to not watching Muppet Babies if one doesn’t like its messages? What happened to simply not subscribing to Disney+ (or blocking which cable channel has this insidious programming on it?). Why do we have to resort to making it illegal?
Further, I find the sentence “Hungary is ruled by a man” to be extremely off-putting. First, I would never say that the United States is “ruled” by the President. Indeed, I associate the word “ruled” with monarchies and dictatorships. Slip of the keyboard by Dreher? Perhaps. But it is a telling one. Second, this obsession with a very specific strong masculinity as being the characteristic of governing is problematic.
Here is a report on the law Dreher is extolling via NPR: Hungary Bans LGBTQ Content From Schools, But Some Teachers Say They Will Defy It.
the Orban administration is banning LGBTQ people from appearing in school materials or on TV shows for people under 18.
[60-year-old literature teacher Mariann]
Schiller jokes that she would have to stop teaching half the classics to follow the law. On a more serious note, she says that some of her colleagues feel they can’t trust their students.
“In almost each class, there are some kids who would report what they heard to their father who would go to the government reporting the teacher,” Schiller says.
Yes, that sounds like freedom, now doesn’t it?
Luca Dudits, a board member of the LGBTQ rights advocacy group, the Hatter Society, refutes this and says it is the government’s prohibitive policies that are targeting children.
Dudits says the moves are part of the Orban administration’s scapegoating minorities in a bid to cling to power. “It began in 2010, when they made Roma people a public enemy, then it was refugees and migrants, then the homeless, civil society organizations, and now the LGBTQ community,” Dudits says.
But, at least Orban is, you know, a man.
Let’s be crystal clear here: Dreher has specific views on sexual and gender norms that he thinks are so fundamentally important that he wants the state to be able to forcibly enforce them. Pluralism and resepecting the preferences of other citizens are not to be tolerated because Dreher believes the his understanding of “normal” is so powerful that it should overpower other values and preferences. That kind of thinking is a sure road to authoritarianism.
Gettting back to The Federalist piece (written by Dr. Sumantra Maitra, an IR professor at the University of Nottingham), let me again not that I, personally, am not especially concerned about Orban, save that I have a normative preference for democracy over authoritarianism. I also recognize that he is quite some ways away from where I live and he has little direct influence on US politics. However, it is deeply concerning for Fox News hosts with sizeable audiences and for American conservative radio hosts and writers to decide that being ruled by a real “man” who isn’t afraid to support a little censorship could be pretty keen.
Leftists have a curious obsession with Hungary. Orban is routinely called “far-right” by a section of the American journalist and pundit class who may never have heard of Jobbik nor have any idea of what the real far-right in Europe can mean or even look like.
This is just weird to me. While, again, I do not claim to speak for “leftist” but I honestly don’t see an obsession here, but rather a concern for reasons I have detailed. And for what it is worth. I had heard of Jobbik and I am aware of what “far-right” can mean in Europe and I do think that the label is applicable to Obran, even if he is not the most extreme example thereof.
Further, Maitra doesn’t exactly do a great job of defending Orban.
Orban is not even right-wing in the American parlance. He’s a statist Christian nationalist who uses the state power to impose (or roll back, depending on which side of the spectrum you are) a certain set of values. As David Harsanyi mentioned on Twitter, that has more in common with progressivism, but the progressives simply cannot stand Orban because he is using their own style against them, to impose policies they don’t prefer.
In that way, Orban is far more successful, measured purely by legislative achievements, than both contemporary British and American right, which would rather sit back and let Big Tech decide your morality. His popularity in Hungary and landslide victories are a testament to that.
Note in the first paragraph that weird need to make this somehow progressive’s fault (they started it, Ma!). But also I need to point out that progressives (whatever that may mean here) have not passed censorious laws banning whole topics from classrooms. So not only is the “they started it” bit childish, it is simply false.
(I am constantly amazed that in these pieces the blame for people like Dreher and Carlson admitting Orban isn’t their fault, but, instead, the progressive made them do it!).
Second, even in a piece that kind of attempts to defend Orban, he calls him a “statist Christian.” Last I checked, a major tenet of American political theory is the separation of church and state (and before someone says it in the comments, I fully recognize that for Dreher that “statist Christian is a feature, not a bug). Further, Maitra states that Obran “uses state power to impose…a certain set of values.” That makes him anti-pluralist and anti-liberal democracy.
Let me note something incredibly important: Orban has not won “landslide victories,” rather he was able to manipulate the electoral system back in 2010 so that he need only win a plurality and still be able to control a super-majority in the National Assembly.
Yes, he has the party with the largest vote-share, but as I noted in the Douthat post, the electoral rules give his coalition a huge advantage (49.3% of the vote is enough for 2/3rds of the seats in the parliament). Further, this report from the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, which observed the 2018 elections, was far from glowing:
The Statement of Preliminary Findings and Conclusions issued on 9 April concluded that the parliamentary elections “were characterized by a pervasive overlap between state and ruling party resources, undermining contestants’ ability to compete on an equal basis. Voters had a wide range of political options but intimidating and xenophobic rhetoric, media bias and opaque campaign financing constricted the space for genuine political debate, hindering voters’ ability to make a fully-informed choice. The technical administration of the elections was professional and transparent”.
Fundamental rights and freedoms were respected overall, but exercised in an adverse climate. Access to information as well as the freedoms of the media and association were restricted, including by recent legal changes. The electoral legal framework, as recently amended, formed an adequate basis for democratic elections. However, the legislative process was a missed opportunity to hold inclusive consultations and address prior ODIHR recommendations, including with respect to suffrage rights, a level playing field for campaigning, the freedom of the media, and citizen observation.
So, not the worst conditions one could imagine, but also no where near acceptable democratic conditions.
Understanding the problems with Hungarian elections undercuts Maitra’s conclusion:
Watching the meltdown over Carlson visiting Hungary and meeting Orban, I stumbled upon a hypothesis. In an earlier era, British and American liberals from Walter Bagehot to Margaret Sanger opposed any mass democracy or plebiscitary instincts. Now liberals are therefore baffled when that democracy results in normal people rejecting their radical policies. The Hungary meltdown is a sign of that disconnect.
It is simply not the case that democracy is resulting in “normal people” (an interesting choice of words) choosing a set of policies in Hungary. Instead, a skewed system is allowing less than a majority to impose policies on the broader population. And since it takes a 2/3rds majority in the Assembly to do much under the current constitution, even if Orban’s coalition loses power, rolling back what Fidez and friends have done is not necessarily easy to accomplish.
Back to the post’s title: the question is not “why do liberals hate Orban?” the question is, why do people like Dreher and friends like him so much? And, beyond that, how much of Orban-style politics do they really want to promote in the US?
P.S. I know some of this is a kid of retread of the Douthat post. But I am honestly and profoundly disturbed by the admiration being express for Orbanism. It is not healthy for American democracy and hence all the words that have been pouring out about it.
P.P.S. Let me also recommend this Twitter thread (which is where I found the report cited above):
Well, you might think that a democratic majority has the right to shape the social order, but that’s not how Dreher and Carlson see it.
The majority is allowed a voice as long as they accept the existing social order. It’s like children who, as a reward for their year-long obedience, are invited to decide on a holiday destination – as long as they pick a destination approved by the man of the house.
To Dreher c.s., we are irresponsible children who cannot be trusted with too much freedom. (They themselves are, of course, the patres familias of wider society, so they do get to say what is generally acceptable.)
But they must believe this, otherwise there would be no point in protesting Gonzo in a dress.
And they want to protest such things, simply because it personally offends them. It is their right, as white men of a certain standing, after all.
They believe this nonsense not because it’s true, but because it justifies their actions.
Well, the notion that simply hearing about someone who is trans might influence a child is not limited to far right conservatives like Dreher, in my experience.
I had one woman, a good, long-time friend with a Ph.D. in Computer Science, and a pretty solid commitment to centrist, if not left-leaning politics, get a little worried about whether she should tell her kids about my daughter’s transition.
I had to explain to her that nobody ever, ever, EVER changes their mind about it, though they might suppress it. So it really just doesn’t work like that. She seemed mollified by that. Also, it’s a thing that humans have been doing for at least the last 10,000 years.
So, I’m a bit cautious in diagnosing Dreher as a closet trans person, but man, it does make me wonder. “They are coming for our children!”? Well, in the sense that we have hope that your children might have a bit more sense of proportion about this sort of thing, yeah, we are. I don’t know if that’s what you meant, though.
Why do public health experts hate pastor Greg Locke? ITS A MYSTERY FOR THE AGES
Isn’t an excuse like this a tacit admission that you know what you’re doing isn’t really on the up and up?
Have you ever noticed that whenever someone tells you to “be a man”, they want you to do something that’s bad for you, but probably good for them?
The admiration for Orban is similar to the admiration for Putin that the MAGAs expressed once they determined that Trump was a Putin acolyte. I reca;ll; a photo of two middle-aged guys at a Trump rally in 2017 wearing t-shirts that read: “I’D RATHER BE RUSSIAN THAN A DEMOCRAT.”
Like Putin, Orban is a Christian strongman who hates LGBTQ people. What could be better?
These people aren’t conservatives in any true sense of the word. They voted Republican because to them, Republicans paid lip to service to God and guns. Now they have Trump, Orban, and Putin and what I guess is Christian populist nationalism. It’s not conservatism, because they hate conservatives.
@Jay L Gischer:
Fascinating how no one ever tells anyone to “be a woman.”
Amazing that the American Conservative fired Daniel Larison and kept Rod Dreher. The mind boggles.
Dreher has had a bee in his bonnet about gays and blacks for years, and at least as far as gays are concerned there’s an element of fear that is pretty obvious. I really wonder what he’s afraid of.
Thank you for this. I have been bemused by so many telling me how I feel about Orban. Sure he is a borderline despot but I certainly don’t lose any sleep over it and it is up to Hungary to address the matter. I’m more curious about the right-wing fascination of him and to be honest I’m still not sure what it is, I mean I get the anti-immigration sentiment but is that all that it takes?
They must believe this or their entire worldview on sexuality comes crossing down. It’s not merely tradition – it’s natural science.
In their view, non-hetero sexual orientation and gender identity is unnatural. Ergo, the only way there can be homosexuality and gender fluidity is for the natural condition to be unduly influenced by some unnatural coercion. Therefore, there would be no homosexuals or transgendered if only we could protect children from these unnatural forces (such as major corporations like Disney).
So, you simply don’t appreciate the awesome power of Baby Gonzo to subvert the natural order
As I said, Orban is a Christian strongman who hates LGBTQ people.
@Not the IT Dept.:
as a young child he saw Bugs Bunny smooch Elmer Fudd on the lips and it caused a strange feeling in his no-no parts.
@CSK: In America, women probably do enjoy a bit more latitude in expressing their gender, but I think they still get policed for it. Not using those words though, which I’ve never heard once.
@Jay L Gischer:
That was my point: that you never hear anyone telling someone to “be a woman.” It has no meaning that’s commonly understood the way the phrase “be a man” is. What does “be a woman” mean? Be sexy? Be pretty? Be quiet? Be a good cook? Be a good lay? Be stupid? What?
As I noted in the Douhat OP comments, the embrace of authoritarianism like Orban’s appears to be the only direction US Republicanism can go due to other fundamental choices the party as made recently. The ratchet is set to only crank to the right.
The GOP will NOT be moderating it’s positions in order to become more popular with the broad electorate – their base and key contributors from their donor class simply don’t want moderation. The minority advantages of Senate overrepresentation and single member districts are nearly maximized and gerrymandering is already bordering on the ridiculous. (Though, there will be further skewing to the right following the census results.) Yet, the 2018 and 2020 general elections showed these advantages insufficient to cement control over a population that hates their ideas. What to do if your anti-majoritarian system still isn’t enough? Well, you do what Orban did and write laws that further undermine democracy like the voter suppression and legislative override of elections officials bills moving through red Statehouses as we speak.
The right doesn’t just admire Orban. They are following his model.
@CSK: Sure. I just don’t want to give anyone the impression I’m on some “men have it worse” thing.
The latest (I think) exposition of smoochy Orban-love:
Will Collins “a secondary school teacher in Budapest”at Unherd.com.
Includes the little gem:
Well, it was not the c. half of population non-Magyar of the pre-First World War period, but in 1930 non-Magyars were still about 8% (Mostly Germans, also Slovaks, Jews, and Croats).
In some ways it shows Orbans’ policies accurately, but misses the motive: Fidesz is trying to be authoritarian on the sly, subverting the liberal foundations of the modern state while keeping the democratic facade intact, if rickety.
And doing so because being overtly dictatorial would detonate that EU economic infrastructure the regime depends on.
It also omits the real fundamental point about Orban: he’s a crook on a scale that makes Donald Trump look like an amateur; and a far smarter one than Trump as well. He likes to spread the gains around somewhat.
Not to mention any examination of Hungarian politics that virtually ignores its historical grounds is pretty worthless.
Based on the example articles mentioned here, one might even be driven to ponder “Who funds The Federalist?”
A half-baked idea knocking around inside my head lately.
The appeal to the US Right of the “true nation” (and by extension, the “true leader”) may relate to the Calvinist Protestant tradition of the “elect”, the “justified”, the “re-assured”.
In this tradition the “elect” minority was entitled to have its “righteous” views prevail.
This was formally rejected by the Puritan acceptance of effective democracy in the secular sphere, and by the post-revolutionary no establishment of religion.
But in some ways it would be a bold, and possibly, rash person or group who, before very recently, risked breaching the conventions upheld by the “Churched”.
(See e.g. the persecution of the Mormons)
@Jay L Gischer:
That wasn’t at all my impression of what you said.
No one really knows. They keep it a deep, dark secret.
I know. That’s why “Who funds The Federalist?” became a meme.
Yeah, I was reading about the memes.
Another thing I don’t get is how Ben Domenech, who adores Trump, can be married to Megan McCain, who loathes Trump.
@CSK: Same way James Carville stays married to Mary Matalin I suspect. I don’t really know how they do it but I suspect it has to do with keeping business separate from personal and the believe that politics is just a horse race. You wouldn’t expect a public defender lawyer to divorce a prosecutor, would you? They both get paid well to support their side and that’s what matters. It’s just deciding who gets to control the spoils. It’s not like who’s president might mean a few hundred thousand deaths from COVID one way or another.
I see your point, but the Domenech/McCain alliance seems especially problematic, because the issue in question isn’t only ideological as it is with Matalin and Carville. Trump attacked McCain’s father (whom she clearly adored) in very personal terms, stating outright that he was at best an incompetent and at worst a cowardly traitor.
“Why are you obsessed with Orban” is the conservative fauxndit equivalent of “stop hitting yourself”. They started this obsession with that idiot. Now they have to defend it.
“Why do Liberals hate Hitler?”
Oh. Yeah, OK. I get it.
I am fascinated on how much time we spend complaining about Rod Dreher in these threads. No doubt it’s my sheltered fly-over country existence, but I have never heard of the guy except by his reputation here. But it sounds like many of us spend a lot of time reading up and hating on Rod. I think I will just go on not knowing about him but for his reputation here.
Why you so down on Mussolini, weenie?
I’m old enough to remember when Gonzo just wanted to have sex with chickens, as God intended
Ok, I just choke-snorted gin and tonic.
Well played, sir!