That was a cliffhanger of an article there. I went from appreciating the journalism to getting annoyed with the subjectivism and right back to appreciating the objectivity of an obviously progressive writer.
He hid his own leanings pretty well, which shows an amount of self-awareness rare enough in conservatives and moderates but rarely seen in progressives, who tend to assume both their own moral superiority and their eventual supremacy in equal measure. This author does eventually show his cards but he seems less convinced the progressives will prevail both in the immediate and more distant future, a sensible attitude given recent events. I hope to see more progressives embrace a more realistic outlook, because realistic, pragmatic thinking opens the door to discussion, negotiation, and compromise. A healthy political climate should not be harmonious or unified. A level of disagreement and debate is healthy. Zealotry is counterproductive irrespective of the ideals in question.
Lily is clearly a woman, and the pronoun used to describe her in English is “she”. In the same way that the plural of “mouse” is “mice”. Calling her “they” is no different from talking about “mices”, the stuff of cartoons.
I’m in agreement with you here, but everyone has their own preferences, some of them well established. The word you was once a plural pronoun. In addition to the “royal we”, the “singular they” dates to at least 1375: https://www.oed.com/discover/a-brief-history-of-singular-they/?tl=true
I’m not a proponent of pick-a-pronoun performances, nor of the hyperreactions one finds among traditionalists and grammar snobs such as I (often) do be. Sometimes it’s better to overlook an honest mistake like Steve Jolly made, or let ’em be rather than breaking out the pedagogical punishment stick and making him or her into an adversary.
A week later, I have to acknowledge the accuracy of your earlier distinction between the political makeup of the contributors and commenters here. Neither group is one-sided, but the authors seem to average center-Left*, readers well to the Right. More of the shorter or “Newsroom” pieces are decidedly conservative, less often the featured articles, such as “Weekend Essays”. *Or perhaps the centre-Right, in a European context?
I fuly appreciate the broader insight into the Orbán phenomenon that has been offered here by Lily Lynch. Sort of “Orbán is the wrong guy in the right place at the right time”. In fact, I am more and more having the impression that Unherd is really pushing the needle back to the middle of this conflict of stupidities, wanting to save Europe and the West from falling prey to these extremes of stupidity on both the far right and the far left.
Davy Humerme
7 months ago
A very well balanced and perceptive article. The insight into Orban’s trajectory never degenerated into painting him as a one dimensional tyrant, much as the left “quality” press does. Really good background on his crony capitalism and his attacks on the labour movement. For me one of the big tests for these “nation state” Europeans is whether they are just out of time neo -liberals or want to build something more lasting which will need to involve the unions and labour movement for all their faults.
What is this “quality press” of which you speak ? But I see you don’t use the term seriously !
There’s very little quality journalism left. And almost none in newspapers or traditional media.
I’m not sure anyone who’s built a crony state around him is really going to construct something better. He may do some things better than the previous lot, but a lot will be worse. Hard to tell whether it’s a net win or loss. But not good news if the “solution” involves quite so much corruption.
j watson
7 months ago
Intuitively that felt balanced and insightful. Sort of Article one’s happy to pay the subscription for.
Concur with those who believe there has to be a balance between Federalist and Sovereigntists and great danger in swinging too much one way. Much as in UK a balance between Left and Right important and reflective of where the Country really is. So where Orban et al represent the Sovereigntist tendency that has value.
But as the Author outlines there is much about Orban that is malign – the concentration and ownership of media, the corruption and nepotism (a symptom probably of anyone in power for too long) and of course the sympathy for the Putin Autocracy. In some regards Orban stands as an example and warning for the Right that Populists in power tend to maintain the image but quickly become all about themselves.
The other obvious thought prompted is how much the UK’s more Sovereigntist instinct would have aided both ourself and the EU’s direction right now, and thus what folly we committed.
Please note, Hungary has a population of around 9.5 million, only by joining with other extremist groups can they dominate, and their vehicle for domination can only be the EU.
The EU is the problem, national sovereignty is the answer.
An interesting slant RC, but not convinced. In the sweep of history EU has been a rock against extremism and why it has 27 members and a further number closely aligned. That doesn’t mean we all concur with a fully federalist model though.
Across the EU states extremism is rampant, from Germany to France to Italy to Austria to Spain, I could go on.
The EU has not been a bastion against extremism, it has facilitated it.
Totally agree. Extreme left, extreme green, extreme islam, extreme antisemitism, extreme immigration, I could go on. Aren’t we lucky that right wing extremism isn’t a serious issue in Europe as well!
Sorry this is twaddle. Just look round all the countries that abut the EU and you’ll see alot more extremism. Of course there are some far Right and Left groupings in Europe too, but compared to extremism elsewhere it remains, in most instances, within a liberal democratic tradition. You perhaps need to go somewhere with real extremism and experience that to see the part of the World in which we are lucky enough to live in different perspective.
I agree about the article and, probably, about Orban’s defects, although I’ve never looked closely into his background. But I drew the opposite conclusion about Brexit and its consequences for the future of Europe.
UK rhetoric may be sovereigntist, but the people with real influence are in favour of more immigration, aggressive secularisation and “wokeness”, irrespective of what ordinary British people think. Moreover their entrenched power is outside, and in practice above, elected officials.
I was 11 years old when UK joined the common market; my father was very much in favour of joining, his argument being that it would be a bulwark of Christian Europe against extremism. I was convinced at the time, but I voted for Brexit and would do so again. The EU has a greater chance of escaping the control of the elites without the UK as a member.
The people with ‘real’ power FL? I have some sympathy with this contention but I suspect I’ll have a v different view of who these are – the v rich who’ve got richer, fund Tufton st, own most of our media and other Right wing pressure groups, but also happy to allow a bit of divide and rule via immigration and culture wars. Also the v rich weren’t enamoured with the EU. They could see that constraining them.
Didn’t quite say that, but your linkage is actually quite interesting – one could entirely see the likes of the Mail, Telegraph, Express, Sun, Times as Right wing pressure groups funded by exceptionally rich owners keen to influence public opinion on a daily basis.
I wrote real influence rather than real power, but either way I meant the power to make something happen, not just say it ought to happen. Our current hapless government patently lacks real power, they don’t rule over Whitehall, much less the NHS, education etc.
I don’t know what motivates the elite. Some are probably like “Hodges” the ARP warden in Dads’Army, and simply enjoy being in charge. I don’t doubt that the very rich influence them, and possibly dictate terms to them, although there is a danger of falling into conspiracy theory. Not sure this can be described as right wing; is support for gender theory and identity politics right wing?
I don’t think the the contention Ministers have no control over Whitehall holds. It doesn’t help if Ministers are moved around too frequently of course, but all key decisions require Minister sign off. If you arrive in post with just slogans and no real plan and expect Civil servants to instinctively know what to do through osmosis then you are going to be frustrated. Brexit burnt a huge amount of Whitehall bandwidth the last 8 years, and bandwidth is limited. Thus it inevitably reduced time for other things. It’s an elected politician decision what they focus on.
On your last point – I think the Right has stoked ‘identity’ politics as much as some crack-pot Left. It wants it as a wedge issue so in order to create that it has to be build the strawman so it’s seems a bigger concern than the reality.
You vastly overestimate how much influence the UK had within the EU. Certainly far less than either Germany or France. We battled for decades to try to get the obscene CAP reformed: result – absolutely nothing.
And any influence we had was diminishing year by year as the EU expanded.
You need to recognise that their are fundamental historic, business, cultural and legal differences between the UK and most EU countries and that the EU states will never adapt to the Anglo-Saxon way of doing things (even when it’s proven to yield better results). These differences simply cannot be ignored or wished away.
Richard Calhoun
7 months ago
The truth is that mainland Europe is a continent of nations and the attempt by the EU to change this will fail.
The European mainland is safer for us all, without the EU, which is being dominated and controlled by Germany.
Sovereign States across Europe once again will be a win for it’s people and those of us outside it’s borders
Good essay, the author points out the fundamental problem regarding the relationship between Orban and the EU. They are both claiming to be one thing to their electorates whilst being the exact opposite.
J Boyd
7 months ago
If history tells us anything, it is that there are no “European Values”.
Shoehorning the cultures of a whole continent into a single worldview is absurd and an example of the wishful thinking, hubris and plain stupidity of the EU project.
The term could serve as a catch-all for hubristic projects of any kind. The “shoehorning” you call out is made evident by comparing the effect of competing formulations like Asian Values or North American Values. In the case of Europe, which era’s (perceived) prevailing values do you mean to uphold: Neolithic? Medieval? Industrial? Some precise window between or just after the World Wars?
Any such label has a hard time rising above gross oversimplification and cynical manipulation. We may as well speak of Human Values, such as: thrift and generosity; brain and brawn; liberty and duty, clemency and discipline, etc.–a thousand competing pairs, with selected terms that may reveal our leanings.
I’m not sure this is true. The idea of Europe as a cultural entity with meaning beyond a simply geographic designation has a rather long history, really dating back to Latin Christendom. Some cases are more liminal than others, but whether it be music, art, architecture, religion, or history, a coherence in some shared aspects of identity are clear. Certainly the cultures of say, Spain, Britain and Austria are much closer to each other than to Morocco, despite geography. The problem with much of the EU project is that it has sought to erase the differences between national cultures, and in doing so actually erased the basis for the unity born out of those very differences. But we needn’t deny the cultural similarities either.
Perhaps so. Can you articulate a list of European Values which–even if they are not held by all or exclusive to Europe–are prevalent across most of the continent?
And since Britain seems to have more in common with Australia and Canada than it does with Hungary or Slovakia: How might these values differ from Western Values?
It is probably more accurate to say that people from Canada, Australia and New Zealand have more in common with each other than they do with Britain. That said – I do think more work should be done to strengthen ties between the UK and the old English speaking colonies (including the US) because of our shared values.
Ok. But don’t all countries in the so-called Anglosphere, including England itself (isolated from the rest of the UK or not) have more in common with one another than than with Poland, Ukraine, or the European slice of Turkey?
I agree that we ought to strengthen our mutual ties in the English-speaking world. Now to get my ancestral nation of Ireland to stop resenting England and my birth country of Canada to reduce its disdain for the States, where I live. Or to get the U.S. to cooperate with anyone on an a more equal footing,
I think you’re right to suggests that “values” is not the most helpful way to look at this, and I would say that the values shared in common are born out of a shared identity first and foremost. A common historical experience shapes a nation’s cultural outlook and much of what it values – for example certainly the EU and to a lesser extent the human rights and international law architecture in place since WW2 are born out of a specifically European experience of the two world wars.
Commonalities in values and identity need not be exclusive – it can be true that Britain or Spain can share much in common in terms of outlook with their former colonies while also being a part of a wider European culture. But incidentally the reason we would share much in common with say Canada is specifically because of its settlement by Europeans – the neo-Gothic cathedral in Ottawa is there because of an artistic revival in medieval France, and has rather little to do with the Algonquin. Similarly Western values, originating from Latin Western Europe and its consequent settler colonies, aren’t neatly extricable from a European context.
I’m in substantial agreement with this more nuanced follow up. In particular, I place great value on the idea that “commonalities and values need not be exclusive”. Yet I would attempt to extend the potential inclusion to the descendants of the Algonquin and to recent arrivals from Timbuktu or Oslo alike.
Many intelligent and openhearted Euro-descended early settlers found things to learn from some of the Native Americans. And some indigenous individuals found noble qualities in the arriving “pale f a c e s”. I think this kind of extended sense of shared identity–or “located humanity” if you will–is crucial in an American context. I’m not talking about the “bearded demigods” view some Aztecs took of the invading Spaniards nor the “noble savage’ fiction I was kind of steeped in as a California-dwelling child of former flower children.
All other things being equal, it’s certainly easier to identify with someone from your own bloodline, country, or continent of origin. But we may find little in common with a brother from the same two parents, or great commonality with a (former) stranger who bears little resemblance to us.
It was once common to view people from nearby villages with great suspicion. The mesolithic tribes of what is now America waged fierce, often cruel tribal warfare. Separated by a rather narrow channel, the French and English slaughtered each other for centuries beginning in 1066, and vilified one another until sometime last week (times are approximate).
As you suggest, commonalities can cross borders and oceans. They can extend to newly arrived neighbors and strangers too. But this requires more of an extended hand and open heart than most of us can manage at all times, me included.
We needn’t surrender our family loyalties, nor trash our respective or shared cultural heritage. There can be regional and national identity within a larger context, such as a continental or even a (gasp!) global one. Cities like London, Paris, New York, Montreal, or Sydney could be far more cohesive and well-knit than they are today. But they cannot return to the level of ethnocultural homogeneity that once was common. Just ask the ancient Romans.
On this early Sunday (PDT), I hope to begin by smiling more sincerely on more of my globally-gathered Silicon Valley neighbors, and division-united fellow Americans too. [end well-intended secular homily]
It was a request, made in an attempt to further discussion. And I’m a Canadian-American dual citizen.
I do think that removing more of our claims from the realm of generality and abstraction (such as “Continental values” or “Western thought”) lays a better foundation for meaningful exchange. How can this be achieved in a practical, specific way? Depends; I’ll get back to you on that.
Orban is treading a very fine line. At the end of the day, Hungary is a very small, relatively poor country that is trying not to just get swallowed up by either the EU or Russia, and just tries to make hay in the middle.
He’s got to get along with all sides. That makes him a realist. Compare him to the Germans who bet their future on Russian oil, having gotten rid of coal, nuclear energy and hoping the wind blows and the sun shines to enough to make up the difference. Or the feeble French, led by a strutting little feller married to a trans man 28 years older. In a supranational state already crumbling like the old Austro-Hungarian Empire, Orbán represents stability and traditional values.
“ Hungary … tries and just tries”. Well… gets a high mark for effort and “ trying”, no? Or should Hungary be belittled and vilified for “ trying “?
Andras Baneth
7 months ago
Orban, a Russian asset and Chinese puppet, has masterfully waged a culture war to paint over his corrupt regime by directing the attention to his “saving the West” bullsh!t. Look at his challenger Peter Magyar and how it became a mortal threat to his regime in 3 months out of nowhere, and this is just the beginning.
Mike Bell
7 months ago
Thank you, Lily.
Once again UnHerd offers that rare treat: proper journalism.
The author has researched the topic and created a readable article accessible to those of us with limited detailed knowledge of the subject.
You (nearly) pass the test of a great journalist: that you cannot tell their opinion from the article. Such a contrast with so much mainstream tabloidism: where the purpose of the article is to push a narrative.
Mike Bell
7 months ago
This balance between centralisation and diversity is part of the history of the success of the European project since the fall of the Roman Empire. “if [the] sovereigntists defeat the federalists, then the cohesive force will cease, but if the federalists eliminate the sovereigntists, then what follows can only be the creation of another oppressive empire”
Both the Roman and Chinese empires were built on centralisation and conformity.
The strength of Europe has, paradoxically, resulted from the very balance Olban points to in the quote. The fragmentation is resilient: the whole system does not collapse because, at any point in time, some corner will be up, while others are down.
Alex Cranberg
7 months ago
The writer does a solid job questioning the consensual clarity of “EU values” and of avoiding the usual distortion and bias about Orban. She thereby actually sheds some light on the underlying substance of what he stands for, that underpins his electoral success. She misses on whether Orban is principled or merely opportunistic, and on the economic struggle between Hungary and the EU that explains both the economy’s difficulties and perhaps some of Orban’s outreach to Russia and China.
Orban’s earlier fight against the Socialists and habitual Russian influence were never liberal even as they presented themselves as a break from the past. Eventually the greater threat to Hungarian sovereignty developed from Brussels.
Its even more surprising that the author didnt point out that Brussels has used its power of the purse to blackmail Hungary over its resistance to woke modern EU values. The many billions of dollars the EU is withholding accounts in fact both for the strains in Hungary’s economy and its natural reaction to look elsewhere for funding, investment and leverage. When the EU decides to accommodate national social differences as a reasonable price to pay for enhancing overall EU cohesion and security i suspect that Orban will find far less need to find succor from outside sources. When will Brussels decide it hates Putin more than it hates Orban?
Anna Bramwell
7 months ago
Human rights and equality are secular? I thought they sprang from the. deep Christian traditions, particularly Protestant ones ( eg Kant , Hegel (‘repulsive and right’). Indeed, Hegel attributed to Christianity the wave of increasing freedom. It’s hard to identify EU values, but the original EEC was composed of five countries occupied by Germany, plus remnant Germany. They valued peace, order, protection from property seizures, the rule of law, all things not prominent between 1939 and the dour peace of a continent half occupied by the USSR . The Treaties stressed solidarity, or burden sharing. Because there was no clear definition of subsidiarity, mission creep by the EC and the ECJ has enabled solidarity to mean overriding the EU’s commitment to what was clearly implied, that the demographic composition of each country was their business. The EP may be able to roll back the creeping ‘progressivism’, which is so backward in reality, but I doubt it.
james elliott
7 months ago
I have to admit that I don’t know much about Orban – but I do know quite a bit about European history.
And the rhetoric (and actions) of the current cabal running the EU sound far, far, far more like ‘Ein Volk, Ein Reich!’ than anything Mr Orban is proposing.
“but I do know quite a bit about European history”
Maybe – but judging by the stupidity of your comment you don’t understand much of European history, do you, sport?
This essay began so well for a few good paragraphs, then dove off a cliff. Are indeed the very real politico-culture wars merely a ‘shadow-boxing of American college students’ … ? Absolutely not. We have watched every major political controversy of the past 70 years migrate from the US to the rest of the West inexorably. Oddly, as the political foil for the Communist states, throughout this era, the US has been almost as influenced by Marxism as Soviet Russia or Communist China, as I remarked to surprised and resentful colleagues at Deloitte & Toouche in NY in the immediate pre- and post-Soviet era.
Yes, it is. It used to be colloquially known as “Delightful Tush.”
Alex Lekas
7 months ago
Orban threatens the current power structure, which almost no one can empirically defend. The status quo cannot defend or affirm itself and is left with no alternative but to attack the opposition.
“Orbán is trying to defend the country against an immigration tide, and by resisting the strategies of George Soros, European Union bureaucrats, and European media elites.” — Rod Dreher
That defines more clearly what is at stake than Lily Lynch’s jumbled article, which reading closely is clearly in favor of the status quo dominated by a bloated and secularized Brussels bureaucracy bent on continuing the centralization of power, which is proving helpless and hapless at meeting the threat of the Islamization of the Continent.
Ian Cooper
7 months ago
Europe does have different values from those more common than Africa and Asia, there are real differences. And these values were basically liberal values at their best: fairness, freedom, respect for the individual and a desire for the common good in the context of assuming the family, the country, and a culture concerned for the good, the true and the beautiful and curious about everything- that is basically secularised Christian values. And these raised Europe That they have been betrayed in the past doesn’t mean they don’t exist and the proof of that is in the way a departure from these values is recorded and condemned far more than in other cultures,- we admit our crimes and follies. Now of course we are trashing those good liberal values and we will go down – are doing so now.
Victor James
7 months ago
There is only one extreme – open borders. Anti-open borders is a normal position.
The quaint and delicate ‘values’ of the progressive will be swept away one way or the other. Either by the third world colonisation of Europe or by the anti-colonisation response.
The ‘but why does it matter that white people are a minority’ was a delusion that dullards believed in. Evil people pretended to believe in it.
Mark epperson
7 months ago
Go Hungary! The EU did morph due to a grab for money, power, and inflated egos. This will be a classic battle between incompetent bureaucrats and motivated and realistic nationalists.
Susie Bell
7 months ago
US envy is at the very heart of the EU project. Those old post war architects of the European states in the fifties hated Europe’s place behind our upstart prodigy across the Atlantic. They considered it was our birthright to be the World’s premier force and that could only be achieved if we coalesced into one super nation. Unfortunately the EU has begun to emulate the US in too many ways detestable to many Europeans. Our eastern neighbours have a not too distant memory of the destruction of cultural revolution. It came from Russia then, it is coming from American progressive capitalism now and is why the eastern countries of the EU have so little tolerance for it. Of course power and money are what matters to most of the control freaks who want to direct our lives all over the planet; egged on by the Davos players they are the useful idiots lining us up as little more than economic units to further enrich the few. Yes European values are being lost but they are the values that progressive liberals don’t care about; family, community life, small scale endeavours of all kinds such as farming, manufacturing, education etc…. True progressive liberals want life lived at top speed and huge scale with an elite at the top of every sector. Some of us would be living net zero lives if we were not coerced into becoming a cog in the machine of economic supremacy. I hope the anti globalists begin to make up some ground as if we don’t it is hard to imagine the ultimate collolory. Rather than a Christian future I can only see Aldous Huxley’s worst nightmare.
Orban positioning against the woke agenda is not just tilting at windmills. The agenda is being pushed across the West as a part of “democracy” , and so an alternative has to be presented. He chose a form of traditionalism where Christianity provides the universal truths that give meaning to the particular forms found in the culture.
So, Hungary is position itself as another of the civilization states along with nations like China, Russia, India, Turkey. The historic civilization state is what will survive when nation states built on ideas are collapsing as the West has reached it’s end where even humanity is being discarded for as post-modern enlightenment vomits out its final form of Western liberalization as economies and cultures alike collapse.
Gary Chambers
6 months ago
A good article that failed to touch on one key component of Orban’s success-the utter haplessness of the opposition and the totally discredited governments that preceded Orban’s re-election in 2010. Magyar, the new pole of opposition in Hungarian politics may succeed (where others have failed) in galvanising support for Orban’s removal but I wouldn’t count on it.
Main Edition
US
FR
That was a cliffhanger of an article there. I went from appreciating the journalism to getting annoyed with the subjectivism and right back to appreciating the objectivity of an obviously progressive writer.
Very talented writer.
He hid his own leanings pretty well, which shows an amount of self-awareness rare enough in conservatives and moderates but rarely seen in progressives, who tend to assume both their own moral superiority and their eventual supremacy in equal measure. This author does eventually show his cards but he seems less convinced the progressives will prevail both in the immediate and more distant future, a sensible attitude given recent events. I hope to see more progressives embrace a more realistic outlook, because realistic, pragmatic thinking opens the door to discussion, negotiation, and compromise. A healthy political climate should not be harmonious or unified. A level of disagreement and debate is healthy. Zealotry is counterproductive irrespective of the ideals in question.
She…
Did you ask for their pronouns?
Lily is clearly a woman, and the pronoun used to describe her in English is “she”. In the same way that the plural of “mouse” is “mice”. Calling her “they” is no different from talking about “mices”, the stuff of cartoons.
I’m in agreement with you here, but everyone has their own preferences, some of them well established. The word you was once a plural pronoun. In addition to the “royal we”, the “singular they” dates to at least 1375:
https://www.oed.com/discover/a-brief-history-of-singular-they/?tl=true
I’m not a proponent of pick-a-pronoun performances, nor of the hyperreactions one finds among traditionalists and grammar snobs such as I (often) do be. Sometimes it’s better to overlook an honest mistake like Steve Jolly made, or let ’em be rather than breaking out the pedagogical punishment stick and making him or her into an adversary.
Apologies….
He/His?
A week later, I have to acknowledge the accuracy of your earlier distinction between the political makeup of the contributors and commenters here. Neither group is one-sided, but the authors seem to average center-Left*, readers well to the Right. More of the shorter or “Newsroom” pieces are decidedly conservative, less often the featured articles, such as “Weekend Essays”.
*Or perhaps the centre-Right, in a European context?
how is she ”obviously progressive” ?
I fuly appreciate the broader insight into the Orbán phenomenon that has been offered here by Lily Lynch. Sort of “Orbán is the wrong guy in the right place at the right time”. In fact, I am more and more having the impression that Unherd is really pushing the needle back to the middle of this conflict of stupidities, wanting to save Europe and the West from falling prey to these extremes of stupidity on both the far right and the far left.
A very well balanced and perceptive article. The insight into Orban’s trajectory never degenerated into painting him as a one dimensional tyrant, much as the left “quality” press does. Really good background on his crony capitalism and his attacks on the labour movement. For me one of the big tests for these “nation state” Europeans is whether they are just out of time neo -liberals or want to build something more lasting which will need to involve the unions and labour movement for all their faults.
What is this “quality press” of which you speak ? But I see you don’t use the term seriously !
There’s very little quality journalism left. And almost none in newspapers or traditional media.
I’m not sure anyone who’s built a crony state around him is really going to construct something better. He may do some things better than the previous lot, but a lot will be worse. Hard to tell whether it’s a net win or loss. But not good news if the “solution” involves quite so much corruption.
Intuitively that felt balanced and insightful. Sort of Article one’s happy to pay the subscription for.
Concur with those who believe there has to be a balance between Federalist and Sovereigntists and great danger in swinging too much one way. Much as in UK a balance between Left and Right important and reflective of where the Country really is. So where Orban et al represent the Sovereigntist tendency that has value.
But as the Author outlines there is much about Orban that is malign – the concentration and ownership of media, the corruption and nepotism (a symptom probably of anyone in power for too long) and of course the sympathy for the Putin Autocracy. In some regards Orban stands as an example and warning for the Right that Populists in power tend to maintain the image but quickly become all about themselves.
The other obvious thought prompted is how much the UK’s more Sovereigntist instinct would have aided both ourself and the EU’s direction right now, and thus what folly we committed.
Please note, Hungary has a population of around 9.5 million, only by joining with other extremist groups can they dominate, and their vehicle for domination can only be the EU.
The EU is the problem, national sovereignty is the answer.
An interesting slant RC, but not convinced. In the sweep of history EU has been a rock against extremism and why it has 27 members and a further number closely aligned. That doesn’t mean we all concur with a fully federalist model though.
Across the EU states extremism is rampant, from Germany to France to Italy to Austria to Spain, I could go on.
The EU has not been a bastion against extremism, it has facilitated it.
What extremism do you mean?
Islamofacism? Wokeism? Maoism?
Totally agree. Extreme left, extreme green, extreme islam, extreme antisemitism, extreme immigration, I could go on. Aren’t we lucky that right wing extremism isn’t a serious issue in Europe as well!
Sorry this is twaddle. Just look round all the countries that abut the EU and you’ll see alot more extremism. Of course there are some far Right and Left groupings in Europe too, but compared to extremism elsewhere it remains, in most instances, within a liberal democratic tradition. You perhaps need to go somewhere with real extremism and experience that to see the part of the World in which we are lucky enough to live in different perspective.
I agree about the article and, probably, about Orban’s defects, although I’ve never looked closely into his background. But I drew the opposite conclusion about Brexit and its consequences for the future of Europe.
UK rhetoric may be sovereigntist, but the people with real influence are in favour of more immigration, aggressive secularisation and “wokeness”, irrespective of what ordinary British people think. Moreover their entrenched power is outside, and in practice above, elected officials.
I was 11 years old when UK joined the common market; my father was very much in favour of joining, his argument being that it would be a bulwark of Christian Europe against extremism. I was convinced at the time, but I voted for Brexit and would do so again. The EU has a greater chance of escaping the control of the elites without the UK as a member.
The people with ‘real’ power FL? I have some sympathy with this contention but I suspect I’ll have a v different view of who these are – the v rich who’ve got richer, fund Tufton st, own most of our media and other Right wing pressure groups, but also happy to allow a bit of divide and rule via immigration and culture wars. Also the v rich weren’t enamoured with the EU. They could see that constraining them.
The media is a right wing pressure group? In what galaxy do you reside and tell us how many light years away that is.
Didn’t quite say that, but your linkage is actually quite interesting – one could entirely see the likes of the Mail, Telegraph, Express, Sun, Times as Right wing pressure groups funded by exceptionally rich owners keen to influence public opinion on a daily basis.
I wrote real influence rather than real power, but either way I meant the power to make something happen, not just say it ought to happen. Our current hapless government patently lacks real power, they don’t rule over Whitehall, much less the NHS, education etc.
I don’t know what motivates the elite. Some are probably like “Hodges” the ARP warden in Dads’Army, and simply enjoy being in charge. I don’t doubt that the very rich influence them, and possibly dictate terms to them, although there is a danger of falling into conspiracy theory. Not sure this can be described as right wing; is support for gender theory and identity politics right wing?
I don’t think the the contention Ministers have no control over Whitehall holds. It doesn’t help if Ministers are moved around too frequently of course, but all key decisions require Minister sign off. If you arrive in post with just slogans and no real plan and expect Civil servants to instinctively know what to do through osmosis then you are going to be frustrated. Brexit burnt a huge amount of Whitehall bandwidth the last 8 years, and bandwidth is limited. Thus it inevitably reduced time for other things. It’s an elected politician decision what they focus on.
On your last point – I think the Right has stoked ‘identity’ politics as much as some crack-pot Left. It wants it as a wedge issue so in order to create that it has to be build the strawman so it’s seems a bigger concern than the reality.
He really talked about ‘extremism’?
He talked about communism and fascism; he’d lived through the rise and fall of both. I used extremism as a shortcut.
You vastly overestimate how much influence the UK had within the EU. Certainly far less than either Germany or France. We battled for decades to try to get the obscene CAP reformed: result – absolutely nothing.
And any influence we had was diminishing year by year as the EU expanded.
You need to recognise that their are fundamental historic, business, cultural and legal differences between the UK and most EU countries and that the EU states will never adapt to the Anglo-Saxon way of doing things (even when it’s proven to yield better results). These differences simply cannot be ignored or wished away.
The truth is that mainland Europe is a continent of nations and the attempt by the EU to change this will fail.
The European mainland is safer for us all, without the EU, which is being dominated and controlled by Germany.
Sovereign States across Europe once again will be a win for it’s people and those of us outside it’s borders
“its” not it’s. Jeez.
Good essay, the author points out the fundamental problem regarding the relationship between Orban and the EU. They are both claiming to be one thing to their electorates whilst being the exact opposite.
If history tells us anything, it is that there are no “European Values”.
Shoehorning the cultures of a whole continent into a single worldview is absurd and an example of the wishful thinking, hubris and plain stupidity of the EU project.
The term could serve as a catch-all for hubristic projects of any kind. The “shoehorning” you call out is made evident by comparing the effect of competing formulations like Asian Values or North American Values. In the case of Europe, which era’s (perceived) prevailing values do you mean to uphold: Neolithic? Medieval? Industrial? Some precise window between or just after the World Wars?
Any such label has a hard time rising above gross oversimplification and cynical manipulation. We may as well speak of Human Values, such as: thrift and generosity; brain and brawn; liberty and duty, clemency and discipline, etc.–a thousand competing pairs, with selected terms that may reveal our leanings.
I’m not sure this is true. The idea of Europe as a cultural entity with meaning beyond a simply geographic designation has a rather long history, really dating back to Latin Christendom. Some cases are more liminal than others, but whether it be music, art, architecture, religion, or history, a coherence in some shared aspects of identity are clear. Certainly the cultures of say, Spain, Britain and Austria are much closer to each other than to Morocco, despite geography. The problem with much of the EU project is that it has sought to erase the differences between national cultures, and in doing so actually erased the basis for the unity born out of those very differences. But we needn’t deny the cultural similarities either.
Perhaps so. Can you articulate a list of European Values which–even if they are not held by all or exclusive to Europe–are prevalent across most of the continent?
And since Britain seems to have more in common with Australia and Canada than it does with Hungary or Slovakia: How might these values differ from Western Values?
It is probably more accurate to say that people from Canada, Australia and New Zealand have more in common with each other than they do with Britain. That said – I do think more work should be done to strengthen ties between the UK and the old English speaking colonies (including the US) because of our shared values.
Ok. But don’t all countries in the so-called Anglosphere, including England itself (isolated from the rest of the UK or not) have more in common with one another than than with Poland, Ukraine, or the European slice of Turkey?
I agree that we ought to strengthen our mutual ties in the English-speaking world. Now to get my ancestral nation of Ireland to stop resenting England and my birth country of Canada to reduce its disdain for the States, where I live. Or to get the U.S. to cooperate with anyone on an a more equal footing,
I think you’re right to suggests that “values” is not the most helpful way to look at this, and I would say that the values shared in common are born out of a shared identity first and foremost. A common historical experience shapes a nation’s cultural outlook and much of what it values – for example certainly the EU and to a lesser extent the human rights and international law architecture in place since WW2 are born out of a specifically European experience of the two world wars.
Commonalities in values and identity need not be exclusive – it can be true that Britain or Spain can share much in common in terms of outlook with their former colonies while also being a part of a wider European culture. But incidentally the reason we would share much in common with say Canada is specifically because of its settlement by Europeans – the neo-Gothic cathedral in Ottawa is there because of an artistic revival in medieval France, and has rather little to do with the Algonquin. Similarly Western values, originating from Latin Western Europe and its consequent settler colonies, aren’t neatly extricable from a European context.
I’m in substantial agreement with this more nuanced follow up. In particular, I place great value on the idea that “commonalities and values need not be exclusive”. Yet I would attempt to extend the potential inclusion to the descendants of the Algonquin and to recent arrivals from Timbuktu or Oslo alike.
Many intelligent and openhearted Euro-descended early settlers found things to learn from some of the Native Americans. And some indigenous individuals found noble qualities in the arriving “pale f a c e s”. I think this kind of extended sense of shared identity–or “located humanity” if you will–is crucial in an American context. I’m not talking about the “bearded demigods” view some Aztecs took of the invading Spaniards nor the “noble savage’ fiction I was kind of steeped in as a California-dwelling child of former flower children.
All other things being equal, it’s certainly easier to identify with someone from your own bloodline, country, or continent of origin. But we may find little in common with a brother from the same two parents, or great commonality with a (former) stranger who bears little resemblance to us.
It was once common to view people from nearby villages with great suspicion. The mesolithic tribes of what is now America waged fierce, often cruel tribal warfare. Separated by a rather narrow channel, the French and English slaughtered each other for centuries beginning in 1066, and vilified one another until sometime last week (times are approximate).
As you suggest, commonalities can cross borders and oceans. They can extend to newly arrived neighbors and strangers too. But this requires more of an extended hand and open heart than most of us can manage at all times, me included.
We needn’t surrender our family loyalties, nor trash our respective or shared cultural heritage. There can be regional and national identity within a larger context, such as a continental or even a (gasp!) global one. Cities like London, Paris, New York, Montreal, or Sydney could be far more cohesive and well-knit than they are today. But they cannot return to the level of ethnocultural homogeneity that once was common. Just ask the ancient Romans.
On this early Sunday (PDT), I hope to begin by smiling more sincerely on more of my globally-gathered Silicon Valley neighbors, and division-united fellow Americans too. [end well-intended secular homily]
What could be more European than the demand to “articulate a list” of beliefs!? A catechism!
It was a request, made in an attempt to further discussion. And I’m a Canadian-American dual citizen.
I do think that removing more of our claims from the realm of generality and abstraction (such as “Continental values” or “Western thought”) lays a better foundation for meaningful exchange. How can this be achieved in a practical, specific way? Depends; I’ll get back to you on that.
Well said.
Orban is treading a very fine line. At the end of the day, Hungary is a very small, relatively poor country that is trying not to just get swallowed up by either the EU or Russia, and just tries to make hay in the middle.
A lot of it was already swallowed up by the USSR, aka Ukraine.
He’s got to get along with all sides. That makes him a realist. Compare him to the Germans who bet their future on Russian oil, having gotten rid of coal, nuclear energy and hoping the wind blows and the sun shines to enough to make up the difference. Or the feeble French, led by a strutting little feller married to a trans man 28 years older. In a supranational state already crumbling like the old Austro-Hungarian Empire, Orbán represents stability and traditional values.
“ Hungary … tries and just tries”. Well… gets a high mark for effort and “ trying”, no? Or should Hungary be belittled and vilified for “ trying “?
Orban, a Russian asset and Chinese puppet, has masterfully waged a culture war to paint over his corrupt regime by directing the attention to his “saving the West” bullsh!t. Look at his challenger Peter Magyar and how it became a mortal threat to his regime in 3 months out of nowhere, and this is just the beginning.
Thank you, Lily.
Once again UnHerd offers that rare treat: proper journalism.
The author has researched the topic and created a readable article accessible to those of us with limited detailed knowledge of the subject.
You (nearly) pass the test of a great journalist: that you cannot tell their opinion from the article. Such a contrast with so much mainstream tabloidism: where the purpose of the article is to push a narrative.
This balance between centralisation and diversity is part of the history of the success of the European project since the fall of the Roman Empire.
“if [the] sovereigntists defeat the federalists, then the cohesive force will cease, but if the federalists eliminate the sovereigntists, then what follows can only be the creation of another oppressive empire”
Both the Roman and Chinese empires were built on centralisation and conformity.
The strength of Europe has, paradoxically, resulted from the very balance Olban points to in the quote. The fragmentation is resilient: the whole system does not collapse because, at any point in time, some corner will be up, while others are down.
The writer does a solid job questioning the consensual clarity of “EU values” and of avoiding the usual distortion and bias about Orban. She thereby actually sheds some light on the underlying substance of what he stands for, that underpins his electoral success. She misses on whether Orban is principled or merely opportunistic, and on the economic struggle between Hungary and the EU that explains both the economy’s difficulties and perhaps some of Orban’s outreach to Russia and China.
Orban’s earlier fight against the Socialists and habitual Russian influence were never liberal even as they presented themselves as a break from the past. Eventually the greater threat to Hungarian sovereignty developed from Brussels.
Its even more surprising that the author didnt point out that Brussels has used its power of the purse to blackmail Hungary over its resistance to woke modern EU values. The many billions of dollars the EU is withholding accounts in fact both for the strains in Hungary’s economy and its natural reaction to look elsewhere for funding, investment and leverage. When the EU decides to accommodate national social differences as a reasonable price to pay for enhancing overall EU cohesion and security i suspect that Orban will find far less need to find succor from outside sources. When will Brussels decide it hates Putin more than it hates Orban?
Human rights and equality are secular? I thought they sprang from the. deep Christian traditions, particularly Protestant ones ( eg Kant , Hegel (‘repulsive and right’). Indeed, Hegel attributed to Christianity the wave of increasing freedom. It’s hard to identify EU values, but the original EEC was composed of five countries occupied by Germany, plus remnant Germany. They valued peace, order, protection from property seizures, the rule of law, all things not prominent between 1939 and the dour peace of a continent half occupied by the USSR . The Treaties stressed solidarity, or burden sharing. Because there was no clear definition of subsidiarity, mission creep by the EC and the ECJ has enabled solidarity to mean overriding the EU’s commitment to what was clearly implied, that the demographic composition of each country was their business. The EP may be able to roll back the creeping ‘progressivism’, which is so backward in reality, but I doubt it.
I have to admit that I don’t know much about Orban – but I do know quite a bit about European history.
And the rhetoric (and actions) of the current cabal running the EU sound far, far, far more like ‘Ein Volk, Ein Reich!’ than anything Mr Orban is proposing.
“but I do know quite a bit about European history”
Maybe – but judging by the stupidity of your comment you don’t understand much of European history, do you, sport?
Wow, do we detect just a teensy wee bit of ideological peeve, with a good head-whack of Aussie aggro?
And a goodly covering of immaturity.
This essay began so well for a few good paragraphs, then dove off a cliff. Are indeed the very real politico-culture wars merely a ‘shadow-boxing of American college students’ … ? Absolutely not. We have watched every major political controversy of the past 70 years migrate from the US to the rest of the West inexorably. Oddly, as the political foil for the Communist states, throughout this era, the US has been almost as influenced by Marxism as Soviet Russia or Communist China, as I remarked to surprised and resentful colleagues at Deloitte & Toouche in NY in the immediate pre- and post-Soviet era.
Just so people know, Deloitte & Toouche is an arm of the deep state.
Yes, it is. It used to be colloquially known as “Delightful Tush.”
Orban threatens the current power structure, which almost no one can empirically defend. The status quo cannot defend or affirm itself and is left with no alternative but to attack the opposition.
Bravo.
“Orbán is trying to defend the country against an immigration tide, and by resisting the strategies of George Soros, European Union bureaucrats, and European media elites.” — Rod Dreher
That defines more clearly what is at stake than Lily Lynch’s jumbled article, which reading closely is clearly in favor of the status quo dominated by a bloated and secularized Brussels bureaucracy bent on continuing the centralization of power, which is proving helpless and hapless at meeting the threat of the Islamization of the Continent.
Europe does have different values from those more common than Africa and Asia, there are real differences. And these values were basically liberal values at their best: fairness, freedom, respect for the individual and a desire for the common good in the context of assuming the family, the country, and a culture concerned for the good, the true and the beautiful and curious about everything- that is basically secularised Christian values. And these raised Europe That they have been betrayed in the past doesn’t mean they don’t exist and the proof of that is in the way a departure from these values is recorded and condemned far more than in other cultures,- we admit our crimes and follies. Now of course we are trashing those good liberal values and we will go down – are doing so now.
There is only one extreme – open borders. Anti-open borders is a normal position.
The quaint and delicate ‘values’ of the progressive will be swept away one way or the other. Either by the third world colonisation of Europe or by the anti-colonisation response.
The ‘but why does it matter that white people are a minority’ was a delusion that dullards believed in. Evil people pretended to believe in it.
Go Hungary! The EU did morph due to a grab for money, power, and inflated egos. This will be a classic battle between incompetent bureaucrats and motivated and realistic nationalists.
US envy is at the very heart of the EU project. Those old post war architects of the European states in the fifties hated Europe’s place behind our upstart prodigy across the Atlantic. They considered it was our birthright to be the World’s premier force and that could only be achieved if we coalesced into one super nation. Unfortunately the EU has begun to emulate the US in too many ways detestable to many Europeans. Our eastern neighbours have a not too distant memory of the destruction of cultural revolution. It came from Russia then, it is coming from American progressive capitalism now and is why the eastern countries of the EU have so little tolerance for it. Of course power and money are what matters to most of the control freaks who want to direct our lives all over the planet; egged on by the Davos players they are the useful idiots lining us up as little more than economic units to further enrich the few. Yes European values are being lost but they are the values that progressive liberals don’t care about; family, community life, small scale endeavours of all kinds such as farming, manufacturing, education etc…. True progressive liberals want life lived at top speed and huge scale with an elite at the top of every sector. Some of us would be living net zero lives if we were not coerced into becoming a cog in the machine of economic supremacy. I hope the anti globalists begin to make up some ground as if we don’t it is hard to imagine the ultimate collolory. Rather than a Christian future I can only see Aldous Huxley’s worst nightmare.
[email protected]
Orban positioning against the woke agenda is not just tilting at windmills. The agenda is being pushed across the West as a part of “democracy” , and so an alternative has to be presented. He chose a form of traditionalism where Christianity provides the universal truths that give meaning to the particular forms found in the culture.
So, Hungary is position itself as another of the civilization states along with nations like China, Russia, India, Turkey. The historic civilization state is what will survive when nation states built on ideas are collapsing as the West has reached it’s end where even humanity is being discarded for as post-modern enlightenment vomits out its final form of Western liberalization as economies and cultures alike collapse.
A good article that failed to touch on one key component of Orban’s success-the utter haplessness of the opposition and the totally discredited governments that preceded Orban’s re-election in 2010. Magyar, the new pole of opposition in Hungarian politics may succeed (where others have failed) in galvanising support for Orban’s removal but I wouldn’t count on it.