When I wrote my previous post, I was not aware of how big the story about the Hungarian election would become. In both the United States and the West generally the resounding defeat of Viktor Orban was hailed by many as a harbinger of change. A signal that rightism and populism – which had pockmarked the West – were on their way out and that centrism and moderation were on their way back in. I also pointed out that what had happened in Hungary reflected a triumph of fed-up followers over a leader who had long been confirmed as corrupt as callous.
All of which raises the question of how replicable the Hungarian model really is. Should we assume that what happened in Hungary is, for example, a signal that the far-right party in Germany, the AfD – which in recent years has been stunningly successful – is similarly fated to have seen its better days? Or, for that matter that not only are Donald Trump’s approval ratings at all time lows, but that Trumpism itself is part of America’s past, not its future or even its present.
Counterintuitively, Hungary had four advantages that, for example, the United States might not enjoy, especially not at the national level. For Hungarians to defeat their autocratic leader they had to have:
- An election that – despite their country’s being termed an illiberal democracy – was reasonably free and fair.
- A massive turnout so the prime minister’s defeat resounded throughout the country as throughout the world.
- A landslide victory with Orban’s opponent winning by so large a margin that his victory was indisputable.
- A single candidate around whom Hungarians could coalesce. Peter Magyar was their man, and he will become their next prime minister. But… Magyar came to national attention through a highly atypical set of circumstances that, among other things, involved personal, political, and financial scandal. (Remember… context matters!)
If we Americans are sufficiently vigilant, we might well have free and fair elections both in 2026 and in 2028. If we Americans are sufficiently engaged, we might well have high voter turnouts both times over. And if we Americans better remember what we have in common rather than what drives us apart we might well also bestow on some candidates’ major victories.
Which brings us to the final criterion: will the opposition produce candidates – around whom the American people can coalesce? Will Democrats stop their infighting? Will Democrats get their act together? Will Democrats unite around platforms that are clear, consistent, and coherent? Most importantly, will Democrats produce a single presidential candidate who is as clever as charismatic as qualified?
Evidence is growing that Americans long to be led by someone other than Trump – or his toadies. But for him and his minions to be tossed sooner rather than later into the dustbin of history will require of Democrats a level of innovation and cooperation that is not yet in evidence.