4 ms·

>Orban is seen as hateful or radicalising because he is against illegal immigration. He has made a big marketing point about this. I'm not going to go into the

by pell 5y ago

>Orban is seen as hateful or radicalising because he is against illegal immigration. He has made a big marketing point about this. I'm not going to go into the topic of migration and the "legality" of it. But the reason Orban is considered "radical" by many is not because of his stance on immigration first and foremost but because he's been dismantling democratic institutions left and right, starting with NGOs, the media, academia and to some extend even the judiciary. The fact that his rhetoric is hung up on blaming everything on George Soros does also not help.

neel8986 5y ago
Looks so much similar to Modi in India. At some point we are all helpless in front of blatant rhetoric. We will destroy our institutions just for the hatred for "others"
- hutzlibu 5y ago
  Rhetoric on its own is nothing. But rhetoric that adresses needs and fears of a big size of the people - does. So I do not see the solution in fighting populist rhetoric, but in adressing the cause of the fear of the people.
  - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
    >but in adressing the cause of the fear of the people. If you address it they won't have a reason to vote for you next time. This problem plagues many US cities.
- zo1 5y ago
  There is a huge disconnect between the accepted "truths" in "public discourse" or "mainstream" opinion, and what people really believe. This is a consequence of who knows how many years/decades of punishing "incorrect" opinions. Just look at the example presented in this thread about illegal and/or wide-scale immigration. 100% a thing that people can sanely and without being hateful hold as an opinion, yet it is stigmatized and punished when espoused in any sort of public forum or as a political platform. So everyone that doesn't want to be clumped into "that right-wing/hate group" category of people, just decides to shut up and go with it performatively.
bobthechef 5y ago
> he's been dismantling democratic institutions left and right, starting with NGOs, the media, academia This is precisely where I claim you've gone wrong. > NGOs NGOs are not democratic institutions per se. NGOs can be incredibly detrimental to societies, whether intentionally or through incompetence, and can be used by billionaires to social engineer societies as they see fit. > the media The media are not democratic institutions per se, even if they can in principle be used to communicate information needed to make sound political decisions. In practice, they've owned by someone with a view that's inseparable from the writing. So far I've seen corporate media banned and very often, in that part of the world, the corporate media are owned by powerful foreign interests, thus often becoming instruments for social engineering and propaganda. > academia A healthy academia can, again and in principle, be very important for the maintenance of an informed society, but here, too, they are not democratic institutions per se, and they have demonstrated enormous susceptibility to ideology (which is quite a charitable claim; they are, in fact, the breeding grounds of many of the ideologies that later enter the political sphere). Through funding (gov't and private foundations often backed by billionaires) and biased hiring, ideologues can be promoted and concentrated within the ranks of the university. So I have to say I am a bit frustrated by the pervasive myopia about the reality of these kinds of political issues. What I see is often a credulous attitude toward the false narratives that corporate media have published. Whether Orban is using appropriate means to achieve certain ends is the subject of another discussion, but that Hungary and other countries are the subject of foreign imperialist ideological bullying is not an open question as far as I am concerned. Whatever flaws Orban might have, realistically, I do not see any other forces that can mount a serious enough defense against these threats. (Mass immigration is only one thing Orban takes issue with, btw.)
- owisd 5y ago
  Institutions like that play an important role in democracy precisely because they can hold views opposing the mainstream and act as a moderating force even if they themselves aren’t ‘democratic’. The populist idea that institutions should kowtow to some Rousseauian ‘will of the people’ ideal can be damaging to democracy because it’s easy for someone like Orban to claim to speak for ‘the people’, so when institutions have to fall in line with ‘the people’ really they’re falling in line with Orban, and then you’ve not got a democracy.
dogorman 5y ago
> Democratic institutions [...] NGOs" What is it that makes non-government organizations so democratic? Do they let the general public vote for their leaders?
ipaddr 5y ago
You don't understand Hungarian history and why he has to dismantle those institutions. After the failed 1956 uprising these 'democractic institutions' became soviet levers of power with key left supports in power. After the fall of communism there was never a real purge as the left has been mostly in power. This is the purge. What gets rebuilt?
- pell 5y ago
  I fail to see how using spyware against journalists and critics is in any way linked to a failed uprising from 1956 or how his successful efforts to establish a media landscape that largely backs him is supporting "the real purge" you're describing. When Miklós Vaszily bought Index.hu how did this help remove the soviet levers? I think you're being willfully naive here, I'm afraid.

by pell 5y ago

neel8986 5y ago

Looks so much similar to Modi in India. At some point we are all helpless in front of blatant rhetoric. We will destroy our institutions just for the hatred for "others"

hutzlibu 5y ago
Rhetoric on its own is nothing. But rhetoric that adresses needs and fears of a big size of the people - does. So I do not see the solution in fighting populist rhetoric, but in adressing the cause of the fear of the people.
- throwaway0a5e 5y ago
  >but in adressing the cause of the fear of the people. If you address it they won't have a reason to vote for you next time. This problem plagues many US cities.
zo1 5y ago
There is a huge disconnect between the accepted "truths" in "public discourse" or "mainstream" opinion, and what people really believe. This is a consequence of who knows how many years/decades of punishing "incorrect" opinions. Just look at the example presented in this thread about illegal and/or wide-scale immigration. 100% a thing that people can sanely and without being hateful hold as an opinion, yet it is stigmatized and punished when espoused in any sort of public forum or as a political platform. So everyone that doesn't want to be clumped into "that right-wing/hate group" category of people, just decides to shut up and go with it performatively.

bobthechef 5y ago

> he's been dismantling democratic institutions left and right, starting with NGOs, the media, academia This is precisely where I claim you've gone wrong. > NGOs NGOs are not democratic institutions per se. NGOs can be incredibly detrimental to societies, whether intentionally or through incompetence, and can be used by billionaires to social engineer societies as they see fit. > the media The media are not democratic institutions per se, even if they can in principle be used to communicate information needed to make sound political decisions. In practice, they've owned by someone with a view that's inseparable from the writing. So far I've seen corporate media banned and very often, in that part of the world, the corporate media are owned by powerful foreign interests, thus often becoming instruments for social engineering and propaganda. > academia A healthy academia can, again and in principle, be very important for the maintenance of an informed society, but here, too, they are not democratic institutions per se, and they have demonstrated enormous susceptibility to ideology (which is quite a charitable claim; they are, in fact, the breeding grounds of many of the ideologies that later enter the political sphere). Through funding (gov't and private foundations often backed by billionaires) and biased hiring, ideologues can be promoted and concentrated within the ranks of the university. So I have to say I am a bit frustrated by the pervasive myopia about the reality of these kinds of political issues. What I see is often a credulous attitude toward the false narratives that corporate media have published. Whether Orban is using appropriate means to achieve certain ends is the subject of another discussion, but that Hungary and other countries are the subject of foreign imperialist ideological bullying is not an open question as far as I am concerned. Whatever flaws Orban might have, realistically, I do not see any other forces that can mount a serious enough defense against these threats. (Mass immigration is only one thing Orban takes issue with, btw.)

owisd 5y ago
Institutions like that play an important role in democracy precisely because they can hold views opposing the mainstream and act as a moderating force even if they themselves aren’t ‘democratic’. The populist idea that institutions should kowtow to some Rousseauian ‘will of the people’ ideal can be damaging to democracy because it’s easy for someone like Orban to claim to speak for ‘the people’, so when institutions have to fall in line with ‘the people’ really they’re falling in line with Orban, and then you’ve not got a democracy.

dogorman 5y ago

> Democratic institutions [...] NGOs" What is it that makes non-government organizations so democratic? Do they let the general public vote for their leaders?

ipaddr 5y ago

You don't understand Hungarian history and why he has to dismantle those institutions. After the failed 1956 uprising these 'democractic institutions' became soviet levers of power with key left supports in power. After the fall of communism there was never a real purge as the left has been mostly in power. This is the purge. What gets rebuilt?

pell 5y ago
I fail to see how using spyware against journalists and critics is in any way linked to a failed uprising from 1956 or how his successful efforts to establish a media landscape that largely backs him is supporting "the real purge" you're describing. When Miklós Vaszily bought Index.hu how did this help remove the soviet levers? I think you're being willfully naive here, I'm afraid.