A thread about the implications of last Sunday's election in Hungary and the French presidential election coming up over the next few weeks (first round this Sunday, second round on April 24). 1/17
Earlier this week I wrote a column about Viktor Orban's sweeping victory. My argument: This is bad, but this isn't mainly a story about a stolen election, the consolidation of authoritarianism/dictatorship, etc., as many liberals are claiming. 2/17 theweek.com/democrats/1012…
As with their reaction to Trump's election in 2016, liberals are too quick to point to evidence of cheating: In the US, it's Russian interference, Comey's idiocy, bias against Democrats in the electoral system; in Hungary, Orban's media consolidation, gerrymandering, etc. 3/17
There is some truth to all this. Republicans have certain marginal advantages in our system, just as Orban has done some things to give his party an edge. But none of them come into play unless the vote is already quite close, which means they each need considerable support. 4/17
Both get this support from outside of cities. This pattern has been reproduced across the democratic world in recent years: the provinces are uniting politically against urban-progressive establishments. 5/17
This electoral configuration is what first brought Orban to power in 2010, obviously before he'd done anything to give himself an edge. He won then with 53 percent of the vote, w his party winning 2/3 of the seats in parliament. The outcome was much the same last Sunday. 6/17
My point is that Orban is what he says he is: an antiliberal democrat. He's good at winning elections, not primarily because he's stealing them, but because he has persuaded more than half the population of Hungary to support him and his antiliberal agenda. 7/17
For evidence, consider what's happening in France, where no one would claim the electoral system is rigged in favor of the far right. Marine Le Pen has been surging in the polls and is now just a few points behind the centrist incumbent president Emmanuel Macron. 8/17
Regardless of whether Le Pen wins a plurality of the vote on Sunday, neither she nor Macron are at all likely to win a majority, which means there will be a second round run-off between them two weeks later. Head-to-head polls currently show them tied. 9/17
Why is this happening? I'd say it's obviously because growing numbers of French voters are drawn to the far-right's vision for the future of the country -- and that points to the need for liberals to offer a more compelling vision of their own. That's how democracy works. 10/17
But in an op-ed for the NYT, author Harrison Stetler offers another take: French debate is being molded by the media mogul Vincent Bolloré, whose Fox News-inspired outlets shape public debate in a rightward direction. 11/17 nytimes.com/2022/04/07/opi…
So there we go: It seems there *are* systematic biases in favor of the right, even in France. But wait: Is it really "bias" to offer right-leaning programming that ends up being successful and influential? Isn't that an example of how a free society is supposed to function? 12/17
Is there something inherently unfair to liberalism about the fact that when American consumers of news are given a choice between Fox, CNN, and MSNBC, a plurality choose to watch Fox? 13/17
Isn't it up to liberals to offer an alternative set of ideas that can prevail politically? If that effort fails, does it really mean the system has been rigged against those liberal ideas? Or is it more accurate to say that democracy is delivering antiliberal outcomes? 14/17
I say the latter: Urban-progressive establishments are struggling to prevail democratically against antiliberal movements rooted in less densely populated regions of free societies. That points to the need for a redoubled effort at crafting messages that *can* win. 15/17
If that effort fails? In that case, I don't have a great alternative to offer. But I'm also not convinced liberals have done anything close to everything they can to win. You can call this my personal variation on the case for "popularism" if you like. 16/17
In any event, here's my most recent column, about the upcoming French elections. Thanks for reading. 17/17 theweek.com/world/1012289/…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
This thread deserves some kind of award for the most reckless thing tweeted in the English-speaking world today. That people who should know better are retweeting it with criticism makes it much worse. 1/
In the current situation there is already a non-negligible chance the US and NATO are going to end up in a shooting war with a nuclear power simply through a series of escalatory provocations and miscalculations. We don't need cheerleaders on the sidelines egging it on. 2/
We really don't know how this will end. Putin could crush Ukraine next week. A bloody insurgency in Ukraine could cause Russia pain for a decade. Putin could be assassinated or deposed in a palace coup by the end of the month. 3/
1. It’s always possible to find things to criticize when events go worse than one might have hoped. But this is the reality Joe Biden faced: The Trump administration negotiated with the Taliban for American withdrawal by May 1, 2021.
Biden pushed it back a few months, both because of logistical challenges and because he hoped it would go well enough to have withdrawal folded in a positive way into 20th anniversary stories about 9/11.
The latter was a blunder for which Biden will pay an indeterminate political price. But reneging on the withdrawal was not an option w/o a new surge, because the Taliban would have stopped holding back on attacking American troops. 3,000 soldiers wouldn’t have been nearly enough.
@DarrenJBeattie Interesting thread. Velkley’s Strauss isn’t quite mine, though it’s much closer to mine than most of the other Strausses out there. I also have immense respect for Heidegger as a philosopher, though I side with Strauss against him. I’d like to explain why. 1/22
@DarrenJBeattie I’d summarize Velkley’s position on Strauss as follows: The city is the natural starting point for philosophy because it reveals itself as a whole—a kind of cosmos, a moral order that makes sense of everything, and thus can satisfy eros. 2/22
@DarrenJBeattie Philosophers notice contradictions in accounts about the character of this whole that ultimately point to the reality that the city’s account is not a true whole, thus stymieing eros’ satisfaction. 3/22
Here’s a thread about the latest developments in “cancel culture.” I’ll use that term as shorthand, but I agree with the Harper’s letter in thinking it more accurate to describe it as a rising censoriousness in American life, usually backed up by cultural power. 1/20
Two things are obvious to me about this trend: First, it is getting worse, with every week bringing news of new firings, books being banned, etc. Second, many on the center left are anxiously eager to mock and dismiss those who are concerned about it. 2/20
This eagerness manifests itself as a series of assertions about why the trend is really No Big Deal. The latest example is the claim that the years following 9/11 were far worse for censoriousness than anything we’re seeing today. 3/20
I get that there are good and important libertarian arguments against the tech companies’ Trumper ban. But here’s a thread in its defense … 1/14
It’s a thread on why conservatives and liberals (as opposed to insurrectionists who would topple American democracy if they could) should favor banning speech that encouraged or cheered on Wednesday’s obscene events. 2/14
They should favor the ban because the lunatic agitator ranting on the street corner has no *right* to be given a megaphone that enables him to be heard by every potential lunatic follower of his cause in the country. 3/14
Cancellation is: You can’t say that and I’m going to try and get you fired or considered a moral monster for daring to say it.
1/
All cultures cancel things. I suspect just about everyone thinks it’s a good thing, including most of those who signed The Letter, to cancel outright Nazis, defenders of slavery, and child molesters who would seek to advocate for their vile hobby.
2/
The question is: Should the list of things marked for cancellation be greatly expanded in this moment? Or is our culture healthier, better for its members on the whole, when relatively few things are deemed off-limits for public debate and discussion?
3/