Skip to content

63 search results for "Carlson Orban"

The Stongman Strategy

It’s working

The reason we know it’s working is because of the GOP reaction to the attack on Pelosi’s husband. Or rather the lackadaisical response. Donald Trump has not said a word. But he did re-post this on his Truth Social feed yesterday:

Ruth Ben-Ghiat on the current moment:

Autocrats and those who wish to join their ranks know that polarization is rarely enough to get people to commit unprecedented acts. To encourage political violence and exceptional measures — harming Pelosi or Capitol rioters chanting that they wanted to hang then-Vice President Mike Pence — you need to get people to feel like they are facing an existential threat. Survivalism goes beyond the “us or them in power” of polarization to a state of “it’s us or them, and only one of us will survive the encounter.” Its extreme rhetoric deliberately evokes fear and dread at losing something irreplaceable, at the obliteration of America.

Yes, polarization is on the rise around the world, thanks to disaffection with liberal democracy, rising economic inequality and social media’s exposure of billions to disinformation. But when illiberal politicians and their media allies move to destroy democracy, the creation of enemies and the fomenting of hostility enter a different phase. Political opponents are depicted as existential threats who must be stopped by any means possible.

One typical move, as practiced by Russian President Vladimir Putin, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and other authoritarians, is to designate pro-democracy nongovernmental organizations, investigative journalists and opposition politicians as “terrorists.” Another is to demonize those who hold different opinions about politics. With polarization, you move further apart but can still “agree to disagree.” That’s not an option in the survivalist universe. A political opponent becomes an enemy who threatens your freedoms and way of life. As dialogue disappears, violence becomes more likely.

In the U.S., Jan. 6 further radicalized the Republican Party and broke taboos about the use of violence against police and lawmakers. Trump’s speech was part of a concerted effort to make armed insurrection seem not just acceptable, but also patriotic — a way to save the country from the massive fraud he claimed without evidence was perpetrated by Joe Biden. The propaganda worked: A survey by the American Enterprise Institute conducted a month after the attack on the Capitol found that 39% of Republicans agreed that “if elected leaders will not protect America, the people must do it themselves, even if it requires violent actions.”

Keeping people in a state of fear and agitation about losing everything is essential to strongman strategy.

Survivalism is also central to many Republican messaging campaigns around immigration and the dire consequences of demographic change. The “great replacement” conspiracy theory, which holds that white people will be extinguished in terms of birth and status in a minority-majority state, is now a mainstream belief among Republican lawmakers and media figures. Tucker Carlson, host of Fox News’ highest-rated show, has featured it in more than 400 episodes.

Survivalist fears related to population trends also motivate prominent Republicans. Conservative Political Action Conference Chairman Matt Schlapp, while hosting a conference that had a keynote address by Hungary’s authoritarian leader, Viktor Orbán, hailed the Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade as a solution to America’s “population problem” — the argument being that abortion bans mean more white births. Rep. Mary Miller, R-Ill., called the same ruling “a historic victory for white life.”

That “us or them” mindset can encourage actions like the May 14 mass shooting in Buffalo, New York, in which a white gunman who fatally shot 10 Black people intended to kill as many of “them” as possible. Similar motivations were cited in mass shootings in Pittsburgh in 2018 and El Paso, Texas, in 2019 (as well as shootings in Norway and New Zealand).

Polarization may earn headlines, but it does not in itself prompt a turn to action. An NBC News poll that tells us “70% agree with the statement that America is so polarized that it can no longer solve major issues facing the country” stops short of spelling out what may come next.

Keeping people in a state of fear and agitation about losing everything is essential to strongman strategy. It prepares the masses to accept violence as a means of solving problems — from elections that don’t go well for their party to living with a changing democratic reality. Where survivalism takes root, political violence can follow.

Autocrats of the world unite

They’re not even red in the face about it

Republican delegation meets with Russian officials in Moscow, 2018.

Remember before the Brown decision when Democrats were the racist party of Jim Crow? And some long after were still “segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever”? Yup, bad times. The Cold War was hot. McCarthyism was a thing. Birchers were active in the 1950s and 60s, too, and warned fluoridation was a communist plot. Better red than dead, replied some liberals. Righties branded them commies and pinkoes, unAmerican, subversives. As Archie and Edith sang, at least you knew who you were then.

The Civil Rights movement and Johnson’s Great Society changed that. The major parties’ roles substantially inverted. The solid Democratic South turned deeply red. The Party of Lincoln devolved into the anti-democracy Party of Trump. The sort of people who once warned about commies in woodpiles pose with Russian agents at NRA conferences, reveal state secrets to Russians inside the Oval Office, and meet with Russian officials in Moscow over the Fourth of July. A few decades ago, the optics of that would have made Republicans’ skins jump off their bodies and run away.

Should Republicans retake control of Congress in 2022, Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) told Paul Waldman and Greg Sargent, they will hold up additional aid to Ukraine’s defenders and let Russian dictator Vladimir Putin’s invaders take the country:

As of now, Senate Republicans appear supportive of the Biden administration’s most recent request, for $12 billion to be added to a continuing resolution funding the government through September. But if Republicans were to win the House (let alone the Senate), that could change everything.

“I think there’s a real risk that the continuing resolution will be the last time we supply funding to Ukraine,” Murphy said, noting that this is more of a threat in the House, because its members are more beholden to Trump.

Trump himself has been all over the place on the topic. Sometimes he attacks the idea of sending aid. Other times he takes credit for sending aid that Ukraine has used successfully against Russia. But his admiration for Russian President Vladimir Putin seems undimmed.

“Trump always talks out of both sides of his mouth,” Murphy said. “But his lieutenants in charge of disseminating the message online are kicking the crap out of Ukraine aid.”

Defense News backs up Murphy’s concerns, reporting that “The House’s No. 2 and 3 Republican leaders — Minority Whip Steve Scalise and conference chair Elise Stefanik — wouldn’t commit to their conference keeping the aid flowing should Republicans take control of the House in January, even though they both cast votes in favor of Ukraine aid in the past.”

The GOP’s growing MAGA wing stands with their Putin fanboy, the former president:

Much GOP rhetoric on this is couched in fiscal terms, saying we shouldn’t spend so much on Ukraine when needs are unmet at home. Traditional conservative groups such as Heritage Action for America have urged Republicans to vote against Ukraine aid packages, and 57 Republicans in the House voted no in May on a $40 billion aid package.

But some of the most direct pledges to cut off aid come from far-right Trumpists such as Reps. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) and Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), who are forthright about their sympathies. As Rep. Paul A. Gosar (R-Ariz.) once said, “Ukraine is not our ally. Russia is not our enemy.”

Fox News’ top anchor, Tucker Carlson, is shilling for Russia.

All this raises the question of whether the Trumpist nationalist takeover of much of the GOP will create a kind of expanded Putinist axis in the House. As political scientist Francis Fukuyama recently noted, Western democracies are seeing the development of domestic political movements that sync up globally with what you might call a growing right wing authoritarian Internationale.

This Internationale, as Fukuyama observed, is aligned to one degree or another with leaders such as Viktor Orban in Hungary, Éric Zemmour and Marine Le Pen in France and Putin in Russia. And of course there’s Trump.

There was a time in this country when conservatives frowned on that sort of thing. Before demographic change threatened their grip on power and to hold onto it they sold their souls to an amoral con man.

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Request a copy of For The Win, 4th Edition, my free, countywide get-out-the-vote planning guide for county committees at ForTheWin.us

Trump’s second term

It should be unthinkable but it isn’t

Jonathan Rausch wrote this for the Atlantic last week. I can’t get it out of my head. It’s just so … plausible. And possible:

Ever since the U.S. Senate failed to convict Donald Trump for his role in the January 6 insurrection and disqualify him from running for president again, a lot of people, myself included, have been warning that a second Trump term could bring about the extinction of American democracy. Essential features of the system, including the rule of law, honest vote tallies, and orderly succession, would be at risk.

Today, however, we can do more than just speculate about how a second Trump term would unfold, because the MAGA movement has been telegraphing its plans in some detail. In a host of ways—including the overt embrace of illiberal foreign leaders; the ruthless behavior of Republican elected officials since the 2020 election; Trump allies’ elaborate scheming, as uncovered by the House’s January 6 committee, to prevent the peaceful transition of power; and Trump’s own actions in the waning weeks of his presidency and now as ex-president—the former president and his allies have laid out their model and their methods.

Begin with the model. Viktor Orbán has been the prime minister of Hungary twice. His current tenure began in 2010. He is not a heavy-handed tyrant; he has not led a military coup or appointed himself maximum leader. Instead, he follows the path of what he has called “illiberal democracy.” Combining populist rhetoric with machine politics, he and his party, Fidesz, have rotted Hungarian democracy from within by politicizing media regulation, buying or bankrupting independent media outlets, appointing judges who toe the party line, creating obstacles for opposition parties, and more. Hungary has not gone from democracy to dictatorship, but it has gone from democracy to democracy-ish. Freedom House rates it only partly free. The International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance’s ratings show declines in every democratic indicator since Fidesz took power.

The MAGA movement has studied Orbán and Fidesz attentively. Hungary is where Tucker Carlson, the leading U.S. conservative-media personality (who is sometimes mentioned as a possible presidential contender), took his show for a week of fawning broadcasts. Orbán is the leader whom the Conservative Political Action Conference brought in as a keynote speaker in August. He told the group what it loves to hear: “We cannot fight successfully by liberal means.” Trump himself has made clear his admiration for Orbán, praising him as “a strong leader and respected by all.”

The U.S. is an older and better-established democracy than Hungary. How, then, could MAGA acolytes emulate Orbán in the American context? To simplify matters, set aside the possibility of a stolen or contested 2024 election and suppose that Trump wins a fair Electoral College victory. In this scenario, beginning on January 20, 2025, he and his supporters set about bringing Budapest to the Potomac by increments. Their playbook:

First, install toadies in key positions. Upon regaining the White House, the president systematically and unabashedly nominates personal loyalists, with or without qualifications, to Senate-confirmed jobs. Assisted by the likes of Johnny McEntee, a White House aide during his first term, and Kash Patel, a Pentagon staffer, he appoints officials willing to purge conscientious civil servants, neutralize or fire inspectors general, and ignore or overturn inconvenient rules.

A model for this type of appointee is Jeffrey Clark. A little-known lawyer who led the Justice Department’s environmental division, he secretly plotted with Trump and the White House after the 2020 election to replace the acting attorney general and then use the Justice Department’s powers to pressure officials in Georgia and other states to overturn Joe Biden’s victory. Only the threat of mass resignations at the Justice Department derailed the scheme.

Trump has plenty of Jeffrey Clarks to choose from, and a Republican-controlled Senate would confirm most or all of them. But no matter if the Senate balks or if Democrats control it. Trump will simply do more, much more, of what he raised to an art in his first term: appointing “acting” officials to circumvent Senate confirmation—a practice that, the Associated Press reports, “prompted muttering, but no more than that, from Republican senators whose job description includes confirming top administration aides.”

Second,intimidate the career bureaucracy. On day one of his second term, Trump signs an executive order reinstating an innovation he calls Schedule F federal employment. This designation would effectively turn tens of thousands of civil servants who have a hand in shaping policy into at-will employees. He approved Schedule F in October of his final year in office, but he ran out of time to implement it and President Biden rescinded it.

Career civil servants have always been supervised by political appointees, and, within the boundaries of law and regulation, so they should be. Schedule F, however, gives Trump a new way to threaten bureaucrats with retaliation and termination if they resist or question him. The result is to weaken an important institutional safeguard against Trump’s demands to do everything from harass his enemies to alter weather forecasts.

Third, co-opt the armed forces. Having identified the military as a locus of resistance in his first term, Trump sets about cashiering senior military leaders. In their place, he promotes and installs officers who will raise no objection to stunts such as sending troops to round up undocumented immigrants or intimidate protesters (or shoot them). Within a couple of years, the military will grow used to acting as a political instrument for the White House.

Fourth,bring law enforcement to heel. Even more intimidating to the president’s opponents than a complaisant military is his securing full control, at long last, over the Justice Department.

In his first term, both of Trump’s attorneys general bowed to him in some respects but stood up to him when it mattered most: Jeff Sessions by recusing himself from the Russia investigation and allowing a special counsel to be appointed; Bill Barr by refusing to endorse Trump’s election lies and seize voting machines. Everyday prosecutions remained in the hands of ordinary prosecutors.

That now changes. Trump immediately installs political operatives to lead DOJ, the FBI, and the intelligence and security agencies. Citing as precedent the Biden Justice Department’s investigations of the January 6 events, the White House orchestrates criminal investigations of dozens of Trump’s political enemies, starting with critics such as the ousted Representative Liz Cheney and whistleblowers such as the former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson. With or without winning convictions, multipronged investigations and prosecutions bankrupt their targets financially and reputationally, menacing anyone who opposes the White House.

Most actions carried out by the Justice Department and national-security agencies remain routine in 2025 and beyond, but that doesn’t matter: No prosecution is above suspicion of political influence, and no Trump adversary is exempt from fear. Just as important is whom the government chooses not to prosecute or harass: It stays its hand against MAGA street militias, election shysters, and other allies of the president. The result is that federal law enforcement and the security apparatus become under Trump what Trump claims they are under Biden: political enforcers.

Fifth,weaponize the pardon. In Trump’s first term, officials stood up to many of his illegal and unethical demands because they feared legal jeopardy. The president has a fix for that, too. He wasn’t joking when he mused about pardoning the January 6 rioters. In his first term, he pardoned some of his cronies and dangled pardons to discourage potential testimony against him, but that was a mere dry run. Now, unrestrained by politics, he offers impunity to those who do his bidding. They may still face jeopardy under state law and from professional sanctions such as disbarment, but Trump’s promises to bestow pardons—and his threats to withhold them—open an unprecedented space for abuse and corruption.

Sixth, the final blow:defy court orders. Naturally, the president’s corrupt and lawless actions incite a blizzard of lawsuits. Members of Congress sue to block illegal appointments, interest groups sue to overturn corrupt rulemaking, targets of investigations sue to quash subpoenas, and so on. Trump meets these challenges with long-practiced aplomb. As he has always done, he uses every tactic in the book to contest, stonewall, tangle, and politicize litigation. He creates a perpetual-motion machine of appeals and delays while court after court rules against him.

Ultimately, however, matters come to a head. He loses on appeal and faces court orders to stop what he is doing. At that point, he simply ignores the judgments.

A famous precedent suggests that he would get away with it. In 1832, the Supreme Court ruled that states were illegally seizing Indian lands. President Andrew Jackson, a racist proponent of forced assimilation, declined to enforce the verdict. The states continued stealing Indian lands, and the federal government joined in. Trump, who hung a portrait of Jackson near his desk in the Oval Office, no doubt knows this bit of history. He probably also knows the consequences Jackson faced for openly defying the Court: none.

With reelection in the balance, defying the courts was a bridge the president did not cross in his first term. From the beginning of that term, when the Supreme Court scrutinized his Muslim travel ban, to the very end, when the Court swatted away his blitz of spurious election lawsuits, the judiciary was the strongest bastion of the rule of law. Its prestige and authority were such that not even a belligerent sociopath dared defy it.

Yet having been reinstated and never again to face voters, Trump now has no compunctions. The courts’ orders, he claims, are illegitimate machinations of Democrats and the “deep state.” Ordered to reinstate an illegally fired inspector general, the Justice Department nonetheless bars her from the premises. Ordered to rescind an improperly adopted regulation, the Department of Homeland Security continues to enforce it. Ordered to provide documents to Congress, the National Archives shrugs.

At first, the president’s lawlessness seems shocking. Yet soon, as Republicans defend it, the public grows acclimated. To salvage what it can of its authority, the Supreme Court accommodates Trump more than the other way around. It becomes gun-shy about crossing him.

And so we arrive: With the courts relegated to advisory status, the rule of law no longer obtains. In other words, America is no longer a liberal democracy, and by this point, there is not much anyone can do about it.

In the first term, resignation threats acted as a brake on Trump. They thwarted the Jeffrey Clark scheme, for instance. A resignation threat by the CIA director deterred Trump from installing a hack as her deputy. A resignation threat by the White House counsel deterred him from firing Special Counsel Robert Mueller.

Now, however, the president has little to fear politically, because he will never again appear on a ballot. If officials threaten to resign, he can replace or circumvent them. Their departures may slow him down but cannot stop him. Besides, he finds ways to remind his subordinates that angering him is a risky business. Noisy resignations will result in harassment by his supporters (the sorts of torments that hundreds of honest election officials have endured) and—you never know!—maybe by federal prosecutors and the IRS, too.

Might he go so far as to turn even Republicans in Congress against him? Unlikely. We should rationally assume that if Republicans protected him after he and his supporters attempted a coup, they will protect him no matter what else he does. Republicans are now so thoroughly complicit in his misdeeds that anything that jeopardizes him politically or legally also jeopardizes them. He already showed in his first term that he can and will stonewall congressional investigations. Unless Democrats drive Republicans into the political wilderness, overriding his veto (which requires a two-thirds vote of both chambers) is nigh-on impossible. Impeachment no longer frightens or even concerns him, because he has weathered two attempts and come back triumphantly.

Of course, there are congressional hearings, contempt-of-court orders, outraged New York Times editorials. Trump needn’t care. The MAGA base, conservative media, and plenty of Republicans in Congress defend their leader with whatever untruths, conspiracy theories, and what-abouts are needed. Fox News and other pro-Trump outlets play the role of state media, even if out of fear more than enthusiasm.

Meanwhile, MAGA forces are busy installing loyalists as governors, election officials, district attorneys, and other crucial state and local positions. They do not succeed in every attempt, but over the course of four years, they gather enough corrupt officials to cast doubt on the legitimacy of any election they lose. They invent creative ways to obstruct anyone who challenges them politically. And they are not shy about encouraging thuggish supporters to harass and menace “traitors.”

And so, after four years? America has crossed Freedom House’s line from “free” to “partly free.” The president’s powers are determined by what he can get away with. His opponents are harried, chilled, demoralized. He is term-limited, but the MAGA movement has entrenched itself. And Trump has demonstrated in the United States what Orbán proved in Hungary: The public will accept authoritarianism, provided it is of the creeping variety.

“We should not be afraid to go against the spirit of the age and build an illiberal political and state system,” Orbán declared in 2014. Trump and his followers openly plan to emulate Orbán. We can’t say we weren’t warned.

And, by the way, it will be the same, maybe even worse, if Ron DeSantis wins.

Doug Mastriano, Christofascist

The Pa. GOP Nominee is as far out as it gets

Pennsylvania’s GOP nominee for governor, Doug Mastriano, is under fire again for his extremist views. The Republican is in hot water for paying consulting fees to Gab, a white nationalist social media site owned by a raging anti-Semite named Andrew Torba. Torba is quoted saying:

“We don’t want people who are atheists. We don’t want people who are Jewish. We don’t want people who are, you know, nonbelievers, agnostic, whatever. This is an explicitly Christian movement because this is an explicitly Christian country.”

Needless to say, Torba is also a raging Islamophobe.

Gab is probably best known for being the site that helped inspire the Tree of Life Synagogue mass murder in 2018, but Torba has also supported white nationalist influencer Nick Fuentes, as well as the Great Replacement theory currently being mainstreamed by Fox News’ Tucker Carlson. Torba’s a Vladimir Putin super fan, endorsing Russia’s invasion of Ukraine for being “liberated and cleansed from the degeneracy of the secular western globalist empire.” He’s also expressed support for an idea popular among neo-Nazis, the theory of “accelerationism,” which holds that society needs to be “burned to the ground” and has been cited in numerous far-right mass murderers’ manifestos. He is, in short, a Christofascist.

Mastriano, who is set to face off against Pennsylvania’s Democratic attorney general this fall, has reportedly been an eager participant on Gab for some time now. Such views are common on the platform, but Mastriano’s presence should not be surprising considering that he was also a participant in the January 6 insurrection (he denies going into the Capitol although there is evidence that he did) and has affiliated himself with some of the most extreme Christian Nationalist organizations in America.

Sarah Posner reported for Talking Points Memo last spring that Mastriano “announced his run for governor at a Christian nationalist event at which a shofar was blown, an increasingly commonplace occurrence as a symbol of Trump’s victory over satanic forces, otherwise known as our democracy.” Mastriano commonly appears at events hosted by Christian Nationalist extremist groups like Pennsylvania For Christ and Patriots Arise for God, Family, and Country, and has even been associated with a group headed by the son of Unification Church leader Sun Myung Moon called the “Rod of Iron Ministries” at which adherents perform ceremonies wearing bullet crowns and carrying AR-15s. Moon and some of his followers were also among the Jan. 6 insurrectionists.

After the media started to pay attention to his close ties to Gab founder Torba, and it was revealed that Mastriano actually paid Torba for campaign consulting, the gubernatorial candidate issued a statement saying that he rejects anti-semitism and railing against the Democrats. He complained that Democrats were smearing him by calling attention to his affiliations with Christofascists. On Thursday night, however, Mastriano finally deleted his account on Gab and Torba released a statement saying that his words are his alone and do not reflect Mastriano’s beliefs. Mastriano, most notably, did not repudiate Torba.

The fact is that the GOP nominee for governor of Pennsylvania is also a Christofascist with Neo-Nazi ties. That may sound hyperbolic but the record is clear. If he were alone in this, a fringe character who accidentally fell into the nomination it would be one thing. But he has a real constituency in the party.

The Great Replacement Theory has gone mainstream, having been promoted heavily by Tucker Carlson on Fox News. The New York Times did an in-depth profile of Carlson’s show and determined that “in more than 400 episodes of his show, Mr. Carlson has amplified the notion that Democratic politicians and other assorted elites want to force demographic change through immigration” and “replace” what he calls “legacy Americans.” This is a common theme in right-wing media and what’s left unsaid is just as interesting as what they are saying: Who is defined as the “invaders”  coming to destroy American culture?

In Europe, where this theory really took flight in the last decade as immigration from the middle east and Africa, under pressure from war and famine, it is Muslim immigrants who are seen as the invaders. In America today, most people would say that any foreigner with black or brown skin would qualify. In earlier times on both continents, however, Jews were always portrayed as representing this threat. You can see by the comments of fascists like Torba that anti-semitism remains a big part of this belief system. The Nazis marching in Charlottesville chanting “Jews will not replace us” made that very plain.

The European right has tried to downplay the anti-semitism in recent years and it helped them move into the mainstream. But it’s still there. A case in point is the vaunted leader of the European right today, Viktor Orban. I wrote about his affiliation with Tucker Carlson and the Conservative Political Action Committee (CPAC) earlier, which showed the tremendous influence Orban is having on the American right. Using government power to hobble the media, academia, the judiciary and manipulate the voting system, he has managed to subvert the Hungarian democracy and institute a modern fascist state and they are watching him closely.

Related

Is Pennsylvania losing it? Hate groups proliferate as state GOP descends into MAGA paranoia

He has long derided Muslim immigrants as a threat to European “Christian Identity” but last week, he made some statements that lowered the veil and exposed his true intentions. He gave a speech in which he described immigration as “population replacement or inundation.” But he went further, making it clear just what that means:

“Migration has split Europe in two — or I could say that it has split the West in two.One half is a world where European and non-European peoples live together. These countries are no longer nations. They are nothing more than a conglomeration of peoples…We are willing to mix with one another, but we do not want to become peoples of mixed race.”

The speech was so noxious that it caused one of his longest standing associates, who happens to be Jewish, to resign in disgust calling it “a pure Nazi speech worthy of Goebbels” that would “please even the most bloodthirsty racists.” She said he had advocated an “openly racist policy that is now unacceptable even for the Western European extreme right.” She could hear the echoes of the past in his speech. And while he didn’t explicitly say “Jews will not replace us” his constant haranguing of pro-democracy philanthropist George Soros, who was born in Hungary, is a perfectly adequate wink and nod.

If it’s true that the Western European right is rejecting him, Orban can take heart in the fact that he still has plenty of friends right here in the good old USA. He is going to be a featured speaker at the CPAC conference in Dallas next week alongside the likes of Ted Cruz, R-TX., Rick Scott, R-FL., Greg Abbott, R-TX., and various right-wing luminaries such as Sean Hannity and Steve Bannon. Donald Trump will keynote, of course. When asked about whether it was right to allow Orban to attend the conference after making his poisonous comments, CPAC executive Matt Schlapp just said, “let’s listen to the man speak.” I would expect nothing less. Doug Mastriano, for his part, isn’t scheduled to speak. No doubt he’s busy on the campaign trail. But he will assuredly be there in spirit. These are his people. 

Salon

Hell’s bells

How’s the weather in Budapest?

“Schedule F” went from being an IRS form “Profit or Loss From Farming” to a source of alarm thanks to Jonathan Swan’s Axios series on what a second Trump presidency might look like. Swan himself said he’s never received more mail, some from Trump fans giddy at the prospect of a Trumpist poisoning of the federal bureauocracy. Imagine mini-Trumps in charge of delivering, if not eradicating after pillaging, Medicare, Social Security, and other core federal functions.

Donald Trump is not coy about his plans beyond that, writes David Frum:

Trump sketched out a vision that a new Republican Congress could enact sweeping new emergency powers for the next Republican president. The president would be empowered to disregard state jurisdiction over criminal law. The president would be allowed to push aside a “weak, foolish, and stupid governor,” and to fire “radical and racist prosecutors”—racist here meaning “anti-white.” The president could federalize state National Guards for law-enforcement duties, stop and frisk suspects for illegal weapons, and impose death sentences on drug dealers after expedited trials.

Revenge is Trump’s second-term agenda. The criminal has learned from his mistakes and means to “use the law as a weapon: a weapon to shield his own wrongdoing, a weapon to wield against his political opponents.” Frum adds, “Next time, he will have the wholehearted support of a White House staff selected to enable him. Next time, he will have the backing in Congress of a party remade in his own image. Next time, he’ll be acting to ensure that his opponents never again get a ‘next time’ of their own.”

By now, however, Trump could be irrelevent to the reactionary right’s project to create a one-party state. What Americans across the politcal spectrum need to know right this minute is that if Republicans gain control of Congress this fall, they have already telegraphed where they want to take the country: Budapest.

The American right has fallen hard for Hungarian strongman Viktor Orban. His recent screed against race-mixing drove his longtime adviser Zsuzsa Hegedus to resign over “a pure Nazi speech worthy of Goebbels.” But it was not a deal-breaker for the American right.

 “CPAC’s organizer confirmed to me on Wednesday that Orban is still scheduled to address the group next week, writes Dana Milbank. Matt Schlapp, chairman of the Conservative Political Action Coalition, told Bloomberg News on Tuesday, “Let’s listen to the man speak.”

Milbank continues:

At its core, Orban’s rule has been about sustaining, and being sustained by, white nationalism. His July 23 speech was an extended articulation of the “great replacement” conspiracy idea — embraced by Carlson and House Republican Conference Chair Elise Stefanik (N.Y.), among others — that non-White people are plotting to wipe out White people. He claimed: “Brussels, reinforced with Soros-affiliated troops, simply wants to force migrants on us.” Orban railed against a “mixed-race world” in which “European peoples are mixed together with those arriving from outside Europe.” He warned that “Islamic civilization” is “constantly moving toward Europe” and is now “occupying and flooding the West.”

“This is why we stopped the Turks at Vienna,” he said, citing the 1683 battle between a European alliance and the Ottoman Empire. “This is why, in still older times, the French stopped the Arabs at Poitiers.” This was a reference to the Battle of Tours — in the year 732, when a Frankish Christian ruler defeated an army of Moors invading from Spain.

It was good of Orban to spell that out, because now we know what Hungary’s white nationalists — and their American fan boys at CPAC — have in mind when they rage against immigration and the “great replacement.” They want to take us back to the Dark Ages.

Hell’s bells.

Defense analyst Brynn Tannehill’s assessment in The New Republic is even grimmer reading. “The truth is that American democracy is essentially broken beyond fixing and is unable to withstand a right-wing populist movement determined to destroy it,” she believes. It will take a string of miracles to stop the GOP from completing its project to turn the U.S. into Hungary:

To prevent the GOP from capturing the U.S. the way Orbán and the Fidesz Party did Hungary is going to require several miracles in a row: having a history-and-poll-defying 2022 election, then being willing to overturn the filibuster, then getting lucky with an opening on the Supreme Court and a GOP that never regains its footing or suddenly decides to abandon its quest while at the cusp of victory.

Tannehill’s view tends to be bleaker than others’, perhaps for effect, perhaps, as her bio reads, as a woman who “lives in Northern Virginia with her wife and three children.” Recent Suupreme Court opinions give her family have plenty of reason for concern.

The Jan. 6 committee’s hearings may tarnish the Trump administration. Trump himself may be losing support among the cult. But the project could be unfased. Left out of these bleak discussions about extremists’ intentions are how prosecution of Trump and his cronies might upset them.

It is difficult after the 2016 election to put much faith in Americans’ good sense. What we are left with is a hope that Merrick Garland’s Department of Justice retains enough integrity and balls to prove to the world that justice is still possible in the U.S. He/they had better get about demonstrating it publicly, and soon.

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Request a copy of For The Win, 4th Edition, my free, countywide get-out-the-vote planning guide for county committees at ForTheWin.us.

JD Vance, Christian Nationalist

Good luck with this one

Another Viktor Orban acolyte. There are more of them than we want to contemplate. And we’d better wake up to what it means:

Going beyond even the GOP’s own platform, Republican Senate candidate J.D. Vance told a Catholic magazine last year that pornography should be banned because it’s stopping Americans from getting married and starting families.

“I think the combination of porn, abortion have basically created a lonely, isolated generation that isn’t getting married, they’re not having families, and they’re actually not even totally sure how to interact with each other,” Vance said in a newly unearthed interview with Crisis Magazine from August 2021.

The writer spoke with Vance at a gathering for young conservatives where Vance was a keynote speaker. She wrote that after asking him “his thoughts on porn and birth control and their effects on familial decline, Vance admitted he wants to outright ban pornography.”

Vance’s campaign didn’t provide a comment about his more recent thoughts on porn, and how they would factor into his priorities as a senator.

In 2016, the GOP, in its own official platform, declared porn “a public health crisis,” but stopped short of calling for it to be outlawed completely.

Vance, who wrote in his memoir about witnessing firsthand poverty and addiction and their impact on families in Ohio, has made conserving “traditional families” and ending abortion main planks of his conservative platform.

In his statement on the Uvalde school shooting, Vance cited the absence of strong family values — and not the lack of gun control — to explain why a gunman would murder 19 children and two teachers.

“We need to address the culture of fatherlessness and drug addiction in our country, focus on the importance of family so that our next generation is guided and empowered with strong support systems,” Vance said.

The “Hillbilly Elegy” author’s attitude on porn may be a throwback to the social conservatism that defined the 1970s with President Richard Nixon’s “War on Porn.” Those in favor of restricting access to porn now cite the nation’s declining birth rate, the potential to promote sex trafficking and the “common good.”

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), who endorsed Vance, hasn’t explicitly called for a porn ban. But at last year’s National Conservative Conference, Hawley argued that porn and masturbation were creating a national crisis for men.

“Can we be surprised that after years of being told they are the problem, that their manhood is the problem, more and more men are withdrawing into the enclave of idleness and pornography and video games,” Hawley said.

There are lots of issues surrounding porn that can be discussed in good faith. But this is what they are about:

Last year, Vance said the country was run by left-leaning “childless cat ladies,” a swipe at Vice President Kamala Harris, who is a stepmother, and Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, who has since adopted twins with his husband.

White, patriarchal, Christian nationalism anyone? Sound good? That’s where the right is going. Trump is just a transitional figure toward that goal. Hawley, DeSantis, Mastriano, Vance and a whole bunch of others gathered right behind him are on the move.

Don’t sleep on this. It’s a global phenomenon and the US is right in the middle of it.

CPAC: Proud to embrace a Hungarian

Where at least they’re “partly free”

Zsolt Bayer speaks at Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Budapest, Hungary. (Screenshot: YouTube via Times of Israel.)

The Guardian scans the cast of speakers at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) held this year, this weekend, in Viktor Orbán’s Hungary:

A notorious Hungarian racist who has called Jews “stinking excrement”, referred to Roma as “animals” and used racial epithets to describe Black people, was a featured speaker at a major gathering of US Republicans in Budapest.

Zsolt Bayer took the stage at the second day of the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) Hungary, a convention that also featured speeches from Donald Trump, Fox News host Tucker Carlson, and Trump’s former White House chief of staff, Mark Meadows.

The last featured speaker of the conference was Jack Posobiec, a far-right US blogger who has used antisemitic symbols and promoted the fabricated “Pizzagate” conspiracy theory smearing prominent Democrats as pedophiles.

There are, of course, plenty of venues for holding the largely Republican conservative event in the United States. The usual cast of young, low-level extremists at CPAC cheer their heroes, take selfies, and purchase “in your face, lib” merch. But the conservative elite needed to make a statement this year, even if it meant excluding the hoi polloi. The statement? “Partly free” is where they wish to take the United States (per Freedom House).

Orbán, like many American Republicans, has embraced the “great replacement” conspiracy theory, which involves promoting the belief that the white population is being deliberately reduced by leftist policies and diluted by immigration.

CPAC, which is organised by the American Conservative Union, did not respond to a request for comment on Bayer’s participation. Matt Schlapp, the CPAC chairman, complained on its website that: “Leftist media launched a coordinated smear campaign” on the event.

“Our mission is to increase freedom and opportunity across the globe, including for those living under socialist and Communist regimes,” Schlapp said.

CPAC proclaiming its embrace of “freedom and opportunity” in what has become an authoritarian state is like ingesting Ivermectin as an inoculant against charges it has rejected democracy.

Orbán said in his opening speech to the conference, “We have to take back the institutions in Washington and Brussels. We must find allies in one another and coordinate the movements of our troops.” That includes ensuring the right has its own media and that shows like Tucker Carlson’s run “24/7”.

David Rothkopf responded on Twitter, “The main take-away from the CPAC hatefest in Hungary should not be the overabundance of racists or authoritarians, it should be that it underscores that the movement currently attacking US democracy is global in scope & represents a worldwide threat.”

“CPAC in Hungary demonstrates that, precisely as intended, Putinism is a cancer that has spread through the political systems of democracies worldwide and is now metastasizing,” the professor of international relations added.

Schlapp’s twinning of freedom and opportunity recalls the warning Steve Fraser gave Bill Moyers in 2014 about “the triumph of the free market ideology as the synonym for freedom.”

“It is axiomatic in our current political culture,” said Fraser, “that when we say freedom we mean capitalism.”

In the aftermath of the first Gilded Age, Fraser added, Americans created a social safety net, a “civilized capitalism that protects people against the worst vicissitudes of the free market.” 

But if Putinism is metastasizing in democracies worldwide, so is corporate capitalism. Conjoined, the result tends toward fascism. Democracy becomes mere window dressing and freedom a shibboleth. In Orbán’s Hungary, Freedom House reports, constitutional and legal changes made by his Fidesz party “have allowed it to consolidate control over the country’s independent institutions, including the judiciary.”

American white nationalists are not tiptoeing around where they mean to take this country. By holding CPAC in Hungary, they are broadcasting it.

Working people in the first Gilded Age, says Fraser, “summoned up a kind of political will and the political imagination” to civilize capitalism,” to say to themselves, “we are not fated to live this way.”

Nor are we fated to live in the authoritarian mockery of democracy Republicans, white nationalist authoritarians, autocrats, and oligarchs mean to spread across this continent.

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Request a copy of For The Win, 4th Edition, my free, countywide get-out-the-vote planning guide for county committees at ForTheWin.us.
If in a position to Play to win in 2022 (see post first), contact tpostsully at gmail dot com.

CPAC’s bold new vision

Forced childbirth to solve the Great Replacement

The Conservative Political Action Committee is meeting in Budapest, Hungary this week and it started off with a bang. It may not feature any of the usual folks dressed in tricorn hats and white wigs annually observed at CPAC’s stateside gathering — and I don’t think they have a gold Trump Idol on hand — but CPAC Hungary may have something even better: Hungarian president Viktor Orban.

He opened the conference with this powerful call to arms:

Conservatives in Europe and the United States must fight together to “reconquer” institutions in Washington and Brussels from liberals who threaten Western civilisation ahead of votes in 2024, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban said on Thursday.

“Progressive liberals, neo-Marxists dazed by the woke dream, people financed by George Soros and promoters of open societies … want to annihilate the Western way of life that you and us love so much,” Orban told the conference. “We must coordinate the movement of our troops as we face a big test, 2024 will be a decisive year,” he said.

It’s not entirely clear what Orban meant by “troops” but it’s obvious that he believes their movement is global and that they must join forces to fight their common enemy. You’ll note that while he normally rails against immigrants polluting their Great White culture, he is now equally focused on “progressive liberals, Neo-Marxists and promoters of open societies.” Orban has declared a World Culture War and he is the leader who is showing the way forward.

The last time we talked about Viktor Orban, when he hosted Fox News personality Tucker Carlson for a week of shows extolling the virtues of Hungary’s white nationalism, it wasn’t entirely clear if he would be able to retain his seat in the next election. There seemed to be a strong opposition against him and there was some hope that he would be vanquished. Sadly, Orban’s policies of dominating the media and manipulating elections in his favor worked perfectly and he was “re-elected” in a landslide last month. He is now clearly feeling his oats.

Orban took the oath of office just last Monday and gave a speech obviously geared to the American right. His message is one that you may have heard quite a bit about recently:

“Part of the picture of the decade of war facing us will be recurring waves of suicidal policy in the Western world. One such suicide attempt that I see is the great European population replacement program, which seeks to replace the missing European Christian children with migrants, with adults arriving from other civilizations,” 

That’s right, Orban is the world’s most important proponent of the so-called great replacement theory, the motivating philosophy for the shooter who gunned down 13 people in Buffalo New York last weekend, 11 of whom were Black. That mass murderer would no doubt have been one of the “troops” Orban says must be coordinated for action in 2024. He just made his move too early.

But Orban wasn’t reacting to that horrible event. He’s been pushing the great replacement for many years. And he’s turned it into policy which right-wingers across the globe are watching very carefully. Aside from attacks on democracy and a free press, his Christian Nationalist values translate into a crusade against LGBTQ citizens and immigrants, as well as a strong push to make women give birth to as many children as humanly possible. All of this is in service of preserving Hungary’s cultural purity, which Orban believes is under assault from modern cultural forces.


At the center of Orban’s “great replacement” program is an obsession with birth rates. In a speech a few years back to the right-wing “World Congress of Families” (headed by Brian Brown, known for his crusade against marriage equality here in the U.S.), Orban laid out his vision:

Our homeland, our common homeland, Europe, is standing to lose in the population contest of the big civilizations. It’s important to say that it’s a national interest to restore natural reproduction. Not one interest among others — but the only one. It’s a European interest too. It is the European interest.”

This at least partly explains his antagonism to LGBTQ rights. Of course, he believes that it is a deviant lifestyle but when Orban says that “gender ideology” is a threat, it’s largely because he believes that same-sex couples are “non-procreative” and therefore fail to advance the cause. 

Abortion is the one issue in which the U.S. is about to become the global leader of the far-right white nationalist movement.

Meanwhile, Orban has instituted many policies encouraging Hungarian women to have many children but interestingly has not yet banned abortion, although they do make it as unpleasant as possible. That’s one issue in which the U.S. is about to become the global leader of the far-right white nationalist movement. The next step in curbing the Great Replacement is forced childbirth.Advertisement:

None other than CPAC’s Chairman Matt Schlapp made it explicit in an interview with Vice from Budapest on Thursday:

“Roe v. Wade is being adjudicated at the Supreme Court right now, for people that believe that we somehow need to replace populations or bring in new workers, I think it is an appropriate first step to give the…enshrinement in law the right to life for our own unborn children,” he said…

“If you say there is a population problem in a country, but you’re killing millions of your own people through legalized abortion every year, if that were to be reduced, some of that problem is solved,” Schlapp said. “You have millions of people who can take many of these jobs. How come no one brings that up? If you’re worried about this quote-unquote replacement, why don’t we start there? Start with allowing our own people to live.”

Asked again if he agreed with Orban’s comments about European countries “committing suicide” by embracing immigration, Schlapp said: “I think Orban is skeptical of their solution, and I think in America we have a solution that could be right around the corner.” 

That’s some good old American problem solving for you. The solution to the great replacement, then, is to simply force women to give birth against their will. Someone wrote a book about that a while ago. Everyone said it was a dystopian science fiction novel. It appears that it was actually a premonition. 

The New Right in Europe

CPAC, Orban and … LePen?

Tom wrote about today’s French election below. As I write this we still don’t know how it went. But it’s been clear for a while that the right is on the rise around the world, including here, so it’s very important to keep a close eye on where this is going.

I wrote before about CPAC going to Hungary to kiss the ring of Viktor Orban. Here’s a full analysis of what’s going on there by Craig Unger:

Come May 18, the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), for nearly 50 years the largest and most influential gathering of conservatives in the world, will assemble in Budapest, with Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán as its keynote speaker. 

That means leading American conservatives who are supposedly deeply committed to the ideals of personal liberty, limited government, free markets, human dignity, and the like will be joining forces behind one of the most authoritarian and antisemitic heads of state in the world. The speakers reportedly will include Orbán, who won his fourth term as prime minister on April 3; Eduardo Bolsonaro, the son of Brazil’s president; and Santiago Abascal, leader of Spain’s far-right Vox party.

At this writing, it’s unclear which big name American conservatives will be headlining the event. “I can’t tell you who is actually scheduled to speak,” said Daniel Schneider, executive director of the American Conservative Union (ACU), which sponsors CPAC. In recent months, however, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Alex Jones, and Tucker Carlson, have all made highly visible appearances on the Orbán bandwagon, with Carlson repeatedly extolling the virtues of the Hungarian strongman to millions of viewers on Fox News.

The hard-right’s growing affinity for Orbán’s Hungary should come as no surprise to anyone who has followed how the Republicans became Putin’s Party and how they have responded to the ongoing Russian atrocities in Ukraine. Think of Hungary in terms of Russia’s trajectory in recent years, during which Putin ushered in an era of global theft on an unimaginable scale, putting together a mafia state in which his handpicked oligarchs had monopolistic control of Russia’s strategic resources—an authoritarian kleptocracy in which billions in dark money were stashed in anonymous shell companies. As has been widely reported, Ukrainian-born billionaire Leonard “Len” Blavatnik, a naturalized American citizen, has contributed millions to leading GOP candidates, including Donald Trump, Mitch McConnell, Marco Rubio, and Lindsey Graham. Similarly, as I reported in House of Trump, House of Putin, and American Kompromat, Russian oligarchs have paid countless millions to huge white-shoe American law firms representing their banks and energy companies and have plowed millions of dollars into supporting right-wing, populist movements elsewhere in the West.

But now that Russian atrocities in Ukraine dominate the news cycle 24/7, the mechanisms through which Putin’s propaganda, disinformation, and dark money flow to the West are finally being shut down. More than a thousand Russian businesses and individuals have been sanctioned. Russia has defaulted on foreign loans. Its banks have been removed from Swift. All Russian flights have been banned from United States, the U.K., the EU, and Canadian airspace. New investment in Russia from the West is being shut down. Yachts are being seized. One by one, the faucets are being turned off. And, as The Bulwark put it, that’s why the right has begun to increasingly “launder its Putinism” through support of Orbán.  

Indeed, Putin has become so toxic that even the sponsors of CPAC Budapest take pains to assert—rather unconvincingly, I might add—that the Hungarian prime minister is no friend of the Russian ruler. “It’s untrue to say that Orbán is an ally of Putin,” ACU’s Daniel Schneider told me in a phone interview in which he further asserted that “Hungary and Orbán voted for sanctions” against Russia.

But that assessment does not hold up under close scrutiny. Even in the wake of Russia’s murderous attacks, Orbán has declined to criticize Putin directly, has prohibited arms shipments to Ukraine through Hungary, and has fought proposals for EU sanctions on Russian natural gas.

It is true that initially Orbán condemned the Russian invasion and did not veto the EU sanctions against Moscow, a stance that helped him win reelection on April 3. But just four days later, on April 7, Hungary announced that it would continue to receive nuclear fuel for power plants from Russia.  Ukrainian Foreign Ministry spokesman Oleh Nikolenko said that now that Orbán’s election is over, Hungary is “on to the next step—to help Putin continue his aggression against Ukraine.”

Hungary’s position is particularly striking in view of the astonishing unity of the rest of  Western Europe. As a member of both NATO and the European Union, Hungary is the only country in those organizations that remains firmly in Putin’s pocket. It is the fox in NATO’s henhouse.

“For CPAC to have its conference there, it’s absolutely a security threat,” says Richard Kraemer, senior fellow at European Values Center for Security Policy and the co-author of a recent report for the center that characterized Hungary as a Russian proxy state. “Just take the International Investment Bank [IIB] in Budapest as an example. It’s essentially a staging ground for Russian intelligence interests. Everyone at the bank has diplomatic immunity. Why you need that is completely beyond me.”

Kraemer noted that the president of the IIB, Nikolai Kosov has long-standing ties to Russian and Soviet intelligence through his parents, Nikolai Kosov and Yelena Kosova, both of whom were well-known KGB agents.  

In a similar vein, a piece by Dr. András Göllner in the Hungarian Free Press notes that Budapest is home to approximately 1,000 members of the Russian secret service, many of whom are allowed “to work and travel without any restrictions within the EU, and more importantly, to travel to the USA without a visa.”  

A Hungarian born author and academic who is emeritus professor at Concordia University in Montreal, Göllner worked with Orbán in the 1990s but broke with him in 2001 “after I became aware of his wholehearted embrace of corruption.”

 Such security vulnerabilities are compounded by rampant corruption in Hungary, which will now provide a place for CPAC political operatives to mix with intelligence assets and the criminal class of Hungary and Central Europe. “It’s mind-blowing,” Göllner told me. “It’s almost as if the FBI or the Department of Justice decided to hold a bash in a village in Sicily that is the home of organized crime.”

There were other alternatives. “Paris is a nice place,” Göllner said. “London is nice. Why did CPAC choose to have the conference in the center of criminal activity? Because they can make financial transactions with the criminal class of Central Europe for funding that provides the leverage to gain political influence.”

The Hungarian connection with the Republicans dates to 2008, when Arthur Finkelstein, the late GOP political consultant, secretly worked to get Orbán elected. Finkelstein, you may recall, was the legendary Republican attack dog and “merchant of venom” who did more than anyone else in the U.S. to transform the word “liberal” into a vile political epithet. Finkelstein’s greatest strength as a political warrior was a shamelessness so profound that it allowed him—a gay Jew—to mastermind viciously homophobic and virulently antisemitic political campaigns without the slightest compunction. In 1996, Finkelstein was “outed” by Boston magazine in an article by Steve Rodrick that I edited. It noted that his clients—Senator Jesse Helms (R-NC), Lauch Faircloth (R-NC), and Don Nickles (R-OK) among them—were instrumental in defeating a bill that would ban anti-gay job discrimination.   

When it came to helping Orbán get elected prime minister in 2008, once again Finkelstein’s shameless hypocrisy won the day. As Buzzfeed described it, at the heart of Finkelstein’s secret work for Orbán was the demonization of George Soros via a series of antisemitic attacks on the billionaire investor. The fact that Soros had not lived in Hungary for years was of no consequence. He was a rich Jew and a liberal who supported protecting the climate, equality, and the Democrats, so Finkelstein devised a massive campaign that transmogrified Soros into a dangerous and conniving Jewish billionaire who could be portrayed as an enemy in different countries all over the world. Before long, there were billboards all over Hungary featuring Soros with the text “Don’t let him have the last laugh.”

With the exception of Paul Manafort, who helped elect pro-Putin candidates Viktor Yanukovych as president of Ukraine and Donald Trump in the United States, no American political consultant did more for the Russian president than Finkelstein. Putin liked Finkelstein’s anti-Soros campaign so much, he joined in with antisemitic dog whistles. Similarly, Donald Trump’s final TV ad before the 2016 election featured Soros as a force representing “global special interests” who do not have “your good in mind.”

The campaign was so successful that Finkie, as Orbán called him, got a home in Budapest and served as the prime minister’s chief strategist for 10 years, according to the Hungarian Free Press. As Steve Bannon put it, by helping Viktor Orbán get elected prime minister, Finkelstein allowed Hungary to give birth to “Trump before Trump.”  

Meanwhile, Orbán had his own ties to Russia’s mafia state through Semion Mogilevich, the so-called Brainy Don of the Russian Mafia, who is alleged to have orchestrated a vast array of global crime scams, often working out of Budapest, and is back in the news with a bounty on his head. On April 6, in partnership with the FBI, the State Department’s Transnational Organized Crime Rewards Program put out a $5 million reward for information leading to his arrest and/or conviction “for his alleged participation in a scheme that defrauded thousands of investors out of more than $150 million.”

Especially renowned when it comes to money laundering, Mogilevich and his network have been particularly successful in using resources culled from organized crime to win favor among the powers that be. Back in 1984, David Bogatin, a Russian mobster who had ties to Mogilevich, met with Donald Trump and laundered millions through Trump real estate, buying five different condos in Trump Tower.

In addition, as I reported in House of Trump and House of Putin, Orbán’s ties to the Russian Mafia date back to 1994, when Mogilevich was allegedly overseeing a vast array of criminal operations for that organization—arms dealing, contract murder, drug trafficking, pump-and-dump stock swindles, extortion, sex trafficking, and more—based largely out of Budapest. His close ties to the powers that be in the post-Soviet world, including Hungary, were crucial to Mogilevich’s success.

It was in service to this network that Mogilevich allegedly arranged for Dietmar Clodo, a longtime associate who was a suspected drugs and arms trafficker, to make a one-million-deutschmark payment to a rising young star in Hungarian politics who had been instructed to come by and pick it up in a suitcase. Given the scale of his operations in Hungary, Mogilevich wanted to make sure the authorities looked the other way. This was protection money.

As Clodo recalled, when the man arrived, he “didn’t want to come into the house. I told him, ‘Listen to me. I have that damned money in a suitcase. I don’t want to go out in the street with the suitcase. If you refuse to come in, I’ll give it back to Mr. Mogilevich. I don’t care.”

Of course, Clodo didn’t explain why he really wanted the transaction to take place indoors—namely, that there was a hidden camera recording the transfer.

At the time, Clodo didn’t even know the name of the young pol who had arrived on his doorstep, but it turned out to be Viktor Orbán, of Fidesz, Hungary’s right-wing populist party. Orbán went on to become prime minister from 1998 to 2002 and from 2010 to the present. Throughout his early career, and even in his first term as prime minister, starting in 1998, Orbán was quite free in criticizing the Kremlin and denouncing other European governments as Moscow’s puppets. But in 2009, he abruptly reversed field and became a key Putin apologist.

And what was behind Orbán’s dramatic U-turn? In 2008, Semion Mogilevich had been jailed in Russia on tax evasion charges and desperately wanted to get out. According to Dietmar Clodo, as first reported by Anastasia Kirilenko on The Insider, that’s when Mogilevich gave the videos of Orbán taking the million-deutschmark payment to the Financial Stability Board in exchange for the Kremlin’s agreement to release Mogilevich.

In other words, thanks to Mogilevich, Putin had Orbán exactly where he wanted him. “Whatever happened to Orbán in such a short period of time?” asked The Insider in a story whose headline provided a likely answer: “A Suitcase Full of Cash from the Solntsevo Mafia: Does Putin have a Video Kompromat on the Hungarian Leader.”

In the years since, Orbán has become an astute practitioner of the authoritarian playbook. He centralized power, changed elections laws in his favor, assembled his own clique of oligarchs, promoted white Christian nationalism, passed anti-LGBTQ legislation, curtailed freedom of the press, cracked down on dissent, and drew closer to Putin.    

He also began to raise his profile in the West with the help of Fox News host Tucker Carlson. Now one of Orbán’s most fervent fanboys, Carlson already had family ties to the Hungarian leader through his father, Richard Carlson, whose lobbying firm, Policy Impact Strategic Communications, is a registered lobbyist for Orbán. According to The New York Times, in 2019, the firm introduced Tucker to the Hungarian ambassador, set up an interview on Carlson’s show that year with Hungary’s minister of foreign affairs and trade, and otherwise helped Fox News orchestrate meetings and interviews with relevant Hungarian officials.

Then, last August, Carlson spent a full week broadcasting his nightly Fox News show from Budapest, replete with fawning interviews with Orbán and gushing voice-overs about how Hungary was a “small country with a lot of lessons for the rest of us.”

Earlier this year, Carlson went even further, releasing a “documentary” called Hungary vs. Soros: Fight for Civilization, which portrays the country as a rightist utopia that has conquered illegal immigration thanks to its supposedly impenetrable border fence. Not one to shy away from antisemitism, Carlson depicts Soros as a villainous Jewish financier pulling the strings of the world leaders, directing a global conspiracy to keep borders open, and serving the interests of leftist ideologues through his support of civil society groups. “It’s appalling to see Tucker Carlson and FOX invoke the kind of anti-Semitic tropes typically found in white supremacist media,” tweeted Jonathan Greenblatt, CEO of the Anti-Defamation League.  “There’s no excuse for this kind of fear mongering, especially in light of intensifying #antisemitism.”

Whether Carlson shows up in Budapest or Marjorie Taylor Greene comes with her Jewish space lasers, CPAC’s expansion into Hungary and other countries—it has similar events planned in Brazil, Israel, Japan, South Korea, and more—raises a number of troubling questions.

Inept as the Russians have been in invading Ukraine, it is easy to forget that not too many years ago they created an amazingly creative and efficient new kind of hybrid warfare that eschewed bombs, bullets, and boots on the ground for a sophisticated blend of disinformation, cyber warfare, kompromat, and the like, in the end helping install Donald Trump in the White House.

All of which creates opportunities for CPAC conferencegoers to seek out opportunities to reap the same kinds of vast sums that Manafort and Finkelstein got from Putin’s and Orbán’s coffers. It comes at a time when effects of the sanctions have not yet been fully felt, but are just starting to kick in. “I think the new sanctions are quite effective,” says Swedish economist Anders Åslund, the author of Russia’s Crony Capitalism. “Oligarchs are being sanctioned and are losing property the world over.”

However successful they turn out to be, it will be important to keep an eye on Hungary. Because it is integrated into both the EU and NATO while Orbán maintains his loyalty to Putin, the conference in Budapest provides fertile breeding ground to resurrect Putin’s most effective influence operations. As the only Putinist in power in the EU, Orbán is a pivotal force promoting Putin-style authoritarianism in the West.

This right wing movement is very, very incestuous as you can see. The question is whether or not it really starts to pick up speed.

Putin’s invasion of Ukraine may have set back the cause. The world is appalled by what it’s seeing and it’s made this right wing movement dance on the head of a pin trying to justify it. So perhaps there is some hope that it’s lost some traction. They’re betting that the culture war is more important than a real war in people’s minds. I wonder.

The upcoming French election is looking scary

Tucker Carlson’s favorite right wing authoritarian Viktor Orban handily won re-election last weekend and it was hardly unexpected. He has successfully tilted the playing field to such an extent that it would be very difficult to beat him. But that doesn’t mean his voters weren’t real. They were. They like him. And this right wing movement is gaining steam.

We’ve already experienced our first brush with the movement with the presidency of Donald Trump. And they aren’t done yet. If the polling is correct, it appears that the chaos of his four years combined with the stress of the pandemic and resulting economic destabilization has opened the door for the right to make yet another comeback here at home.

Maybe you can chalk that up to each country’s unique characteristics. But how about this? Arthur Goldhammer writes about what’s happening in France:

Emmanuel Macron’s five-year term as president is drawing to a close. Most observers believe that Macron will be the first French president to win reelection since Jacques Chirac in 2002. That election is remembered, however, not for Chirac’s victory but for the shocking surprise that made it inevitable: Jean-Marie Le Pen, the far-right xenophobic demagogue and antisemite, outpolled the Socialist Lionel Jospin by a hair’s breadth in the first round, thus winning the right to square off against Chirac in round two. The prospect of a Le Pen presidency so stunned the French that even leftist voters “held their noses” and voted for their old nemesis Chirac, who handily won reelection with more than 82 percent of the vote.

Times have changed, and so have the French. Odds are that there will once again be a Le Pen in the second round to face a sitting president. But in 20 years, the once solid wall that stood between the far right and the Elysée has crumbled. Polls still give Macron an edge: IFOP, for example, has him defeating Marine Le Pen, Jean-Marie’s daughter and successor, with about 53.5 percent of the vote. But 53.5 percent is a far cry from 82 percent. As Macron himself noted in his only major public rally of this campaign, his predicted margin of victory is now similar to the margins predicted for Britain to remain in the European Union and for Hillary Clinton to beat Donald Trump. Turnout is predicted to be unusually low, and anti-Macron voters are far more passionate about unseating him than Macron supporters are about keeping him in office.

So an upset is possible. If it were to happen, it would be far more shocking than the elder Le Pen’s breakthrough in 2002. In the midst of the Ukraine War, a Le Pen victory would install in the Elysée a candidate who has made a point of her sympathy for Vladimir Putin and who has borrowed from Russian banks to keep her campaign afloat. It would bring the far right into power in the heart of the EU. How did we get to this point?

Emmanuel Macron has never been a popular president. In 2017, he led all first-round candidates with 24 percent of the vote, and his base of support has barely wavered since then. This year, polls show him doing slightly better, with about 28 percent approval, after receiving a rally-round-the-flag boost at the outset of the Ukraine War.

Even during the darkest period of his presidency, when the so-called Gilets Jaunes, or Yellow Vests, were protesting every weekend across the country, Macron’s base remained constant, neither expanding nor contracting. He is fond of comparing French society to a team of mountain climbers, in which those “at the head of the rope” lift those who follow—a French version of the “trickle-down theory,” if you will. And those at the head of the rope return the compliment: France’s well-educated, prosperous managerial and administrative class constitutes the bulk of Macron’s support. His abolition of the wealth tax, labor market reforms, and promise in his next term to raise the retirement age to 65 have endeared him to business leaders. Eric Woerth, who served as budget minister under Nicolas Sarkozy, recently abandoned his center-right Republican Party and announced his support for Macron. He is just one of many former Républicains to do so. Republican voters have followed their leaders in transferring their support to Macron, more than compensating for his loss of left-wing support compared with 2017.

Macron has thus become the dominant figure of the center right. This accounts for the failure of Valérie Pécresse, the official candidate of the Republicans, to gain any traction. Pécresse’s background is similar to Macron’s: Both are products of France’s elite training system who held important administrative and ministerial posts before rising to executive positions (Pécresse is currently president of the Île-de-France region). Both staked out positions independent of their nominal parties: Pécresse quit the Republicans to protest what she saw as their turn to the hard right, just as Macron turned on his patron François Hollande. But unlike Macron, Pécresse returned to the fold to win her party primary and has since espoused some of the more extreme positions that had earlier prompted her withdrawal. This opportunistic flip-flopping backfired: First-round polls currently place her fifth with a dismal 9.5 percent, behind the two far-right candidates (Le Pen has 21.5 percent and Eric Zemmour 11 percent) as well as the candidate of the far left, Jean-Luc Mélenchon (15 percent).

This extreme dispersion of the opposition has served Macron well. Indeed, before Zemmour announced his candidacy, Le Pen seemed likely to dominate the first round, with polls putting her as high as 33 percent compared to Macron’s 25. But Zemmour, who made his name as a TV personality with a gift for polemic and a vociferous hostility to immigrants that earned him three convictions for “incitement of racial hatred,” claimed half of Le Pen’s base in the days immediately after his announcement. His campaign, like Macron’s in 2017, had the benefit of novelty, which assured him a disproportionate amount of media coverage and, for a short time, a small lead over Le Pen.

While Le Pen’s working-class base stuck with her (her Rassemblement National has for some time been France’s leading working-class party), Zemmour attracted many older, better-educated, and more affluent and more traditionalist Catholic R.N. supporters, who responded to his nostalgic evocation of la grande nation of yesteryear. Intoxicated by his own rhetoric, however, he went a bridge too far, embracing the theory of the “great replacement” promoted by writer Renaud Camus (and endorsed by Trump advisor Steve Bannon)—the idea that immigrants of color have moved to France with the intention of overwhelming the white population by producing large numbers of babies. This was a step that Le Pen studiously avoided. Frightened, some of his early supporters reverted to Le Pen, whose toned-down rhetoric made her seem the “safer” choice. Zemmour thus inadvertently ensured the success of Marine Le Pen’s efforts to “de-demonize” her party, purging it of her father’s vitriolic legacy (both Jean-Marie Le Pen, still kicking at age 94, and his granddaughter Marion Maréchal endorsed Zemmour).

Meanwhile, the left ignominiously collapsed. The Socialist Party, which never recovered from the debacle of François Hollande’s presidency, is polling at a historic low of 1.5 percent behind its candidate, Anne Hidalgo, the mayor of Paris. The Greens, unlike their counterparts in Germany, have failed to expand their appeal and are stuck at 4.5 percent behind Yannick Jadot, while the Communist Fabien Roussel, an affable fellow who stoutly defends the French bistro staples of beefsteak and wine against vegetarian and abstemious critics, has 3.5 percent. With none of these three candidates likely to pass the 5 percent bar needed to secure reimbursement for campaign expenses, leftist voters hoping to see Macron obliged to debate a left-wing candidate rather than Le Pen in a runoff have been trying to persuade themselves that a vote for Jean-Luc Mélenchon will be un vote utile rather than a wasted ballot. As in 2017, the absence of any other viable left alternative has generated a surge for Mélenchon in the final weeks of the campaign, but with 15 percent against Le Pen’s 21.5 percent, this is unlikely to be enough. Mélenchon, who has reinvented himself as an eco-socialist while remaining an egocentrist running a one-man show, has already drained the reservoirs of left-wing support and is unlikely to pick up enough votes in the remaining days to close the six-point gap separating him from Le Pen.

The election will therefore come down to two things. First, there will be a debate between the two survivors of the first round, in all probability Macron and Le Pen. If this debate is a rerun of 2017, Macron will be home free: Everyone agrees that in their previous confrontation he humiliated the candidate of the far right. The president is a skilled debater, a master of the issues, and, as Europe’s leading representative in the current confrontation with Russia, in a position to embarrass his opponent over her past support for Vladimir Putin.

But political debates turn on optics more often than on issues. In 2017, Le Pen got herself into a muddle over a half-baked proposal to dump the euro. Things could go differently this time. Macron’s greatest weakness is his inability to keep his arrogance in check, especially when confronting intellectual “inferiors.” If Le Pen can lure him into a display of contempt, she might just come out on top.

The other thing Macron has to fear is Mélenchon, or more precisely his voters. Although the leader of France Unbowed has little chance of making it to the second round himself, some think that there is a possibility that a majority of his supporters would prefer “the fascist” to “the neoliberal”—to put the choice in the crude categories in which it is often framed. This was not the case in 2017, when, despite Mélenchon’s refusal to endorse Macron, 53 percent of his supporters voted for the future president in round two (36 percent abstained). With the polls this time putting Le Pen within striking distance and Mélenchon again unlikely to endorse Macron, his voters could make the difference. Others argue that this fear is exaggerated.

The other great unknown this year is what will happen in June’s legislative elections. Five years ago, Macron benefited from a surge of support for his fledgling La République en Marche Party, or LREM. But he failed to capitalize on that victory by building his party’s infrastructure. LREM therefore has only a limited presence at the local level, where the traditional parties, while weakened at the national level, retain power. Although the French presidency structurally dominates the legislature under the constitution of the Fifth Republic, a well-organized opposition can stymie ambitious top-down reform proposals, such as Macron’s announced plans to revamp France’s pension system and restructure schools and universities. Lacking a broad base of support in the population, the reelected president could be obliged to compromise with the National Assembly. The disintegration of the Socialists and Republicans—the traditionally dominant parties at the national level—may thus be alleviated somewhat by their resurrection in the next legislature.

This time, however, there will be no pretense that the president belongs “neither to the right nor the left.” He is now unambiguously the leader of the right, and the various factions of the center right, arrayed around a handful of hopefuls already eyeing the presidential elections of 2027, will be vying more with one another than with Macron, who for now is clearly primus inter pares—no longer the “Jupiter” of 2017, but still a long way from a hapless lame duck.

A Le Pen victory would be devastating for both France and Europe. While she has worked hard to soften her image, at bottom she remains a candidate committed to rounding up immigrants and sending them back where they came from. Although she no longer calls for withdrawal from the EU, she remains hostile to its spirit and would make common cause with her friend Viktor Orbán, whose reelection last weekend was followed by a European Commission disciplinary procedure to sanction Hungary for violations of the rule of law. Her closeness to Putin would break Europe’s united front (Orbán excepted) against Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

But even if she loses, the fact that she has come so close shows that the dike has been breached: With the left in a shambles and Macron dominating what used to be the center, the far right has become the not-so-loyal opposition. Le Pen, Zemmour, Marion Maréchal, and far-right-leaning Republicans such as Eric Ciotti have become the New Right—not yet united but ripe for consolidation behind a charismatic leader. Macron’s attempt to halt the slide by introducing a new, Silicon Valley–inspired entrepreneurial energy has failed. An ominous darkness hovers over France’s capital, the City of Light.

When things are unstable, people get anxious and you don’t know which way they will turn. And it’s not out of the question that they will go sharply to the right.

Can't find what you're looking for? Try refining your search: