Washington Post not unbiased either -- Hungary media law

Remove all ads!

It really doesn't seem that Hungary's politics are that much different than anywhere else....

There are those who made very similar comments about the Bush administration and those who are making very similar comment about President Obama. Just take "socialist" and "communists" and replace them with the party of your choice and use another group for "Bolshevik". Same thing, different players ... I think we understand better than you give us credit for.

 

A couple points that stand out in this paragraph:

(a) Since when is 'They do it too!' an excuse for anything? It doesn't even work in Kindergarten.
(b) A Power grab and de facto nepotism is bad and corrupt when dreadful Socialists do it, but wise and just when Orban does it. That follows from you having simply re-defined it as a counter-grab, a taking back what the dreadful Socialists stole. That's the narrative.
(c) The cleaner means of the Orbánists required to acquire legality some changes of the constitution. That doesn't give you pause, doesn't it?

T2,
Hungarian politics are hyper partisan to an extent unknown in the US. You can't reasonably compare the two beyond basic (and probably universal) narratives.

Also, you brought it on yourself, the Big B is now going to lay out to you the general incomparableness of Hungary, because the dreadful Socialists and their silent and tricky ways are much worse than anything the US, and indeed, and the face of the earth, have ever seen, necessitating everything but the harshest correctives.

 

In an earlier thread, Ragusa defined himself as a "conservative" or something like, if my memory serves well. Based on his latest 100 posts, it looks like he is rather a socialist fan. Nonetheless, he fails to understand that the only way to clean the ruins and mess made by socialists is using the power given by the 2/3 majority. It is not about "they do it too" things, it is that sometimes the ONLY way to correct something is via radical (but legal) changes. Everyone understands this (we all know examples from our life), only those particular people "can't" who pretend that they fail to see the main point. (Ragusa, as usual, just tried to be clever in everything, even in things he doesn't know at all. He selectively takes out points from the context, criticizes them with so-called "counter-arguments", but wisely skips the points that are problematic. It is no big deal to "disprove" something that is taken out of context...)

T2Bruno:

It is similar to other countries, but not to this degree.

Something you Western citizens don't understand (no offense; you can't understand it because you can't imagine it) is the following. While in your countries, every party follows a more-or-less unwritten codex of political culture (OK, every "MAINSTREAM" party I guess, not parties such as Tea Party). Here in Central Europe, socialist parties (in their actions) often lack even the basic rules of political "correctness" and unwritten rules.

Socialists, labour parties, etc. here and e.g. in the UK are so much different. You can't compare e.g. Tony Blair with a previous socialist prime minister, Gyurcsány, of Hungary.

So in the former Eastern Block, things don't work in the way many of you Western citizens imagine. There is a legacy of dictature here, and while at the moment you may think Orbán is the more authoritarian, I can assure that the Socialist Party (former communist party) is much much more dictatoric. It always knew how to present the big "democracy" to the international world & press, but behind the scenes, it was more dictatoric than you could imagine. Hell, its "parent" party was the PARTY that governed Hungary until 1989 and served the USSR!

Most socialists, their highest leaders at least, do not follow any natural and unwritten rules here that their Western counterparts do. Most of them are spineless people who served the dictature until 1989, and now they got positions. Because there was no blood here in 1989. It was a peaceful change, unlike in Romania. We didn't kill our "leaders", unlike they did with Ceausescu. We didn't even take their possibility to get political power again.

Ragusa also wrote this:

My comment to the above funny line is the following. Terrorists have weapons and they can kill people, and they do kill people. Soldiers who are placed to (try to) guarantee safety (and provide some stability) in post-war countries also use their weapons also can kill (and do kill) people. They kill terrorists, for example. So, obviously, these soldiers are as bad as terrorists, because they also use their weapons to kill people in certain situations. Sure sure... And yeah, believing this is not Kindergarten, because I think even in Kindergarten, children are smart enough to be able to make a difference between... between different things!

 

You don't get it.

The Orbanists are seriously overreaching. Period. That is plain as day.

The (cartoonishly exaggerated) narrative they and you provide of the socialists being all savages, who looted the country rotten and stole everything that wasn't welded to the deck and that only the strong hand of Victor Orbán can provide civilisation and order in the jungle that Hungary is as a part of Eastern Europe - something we benighted westerners just cannot fathom - is only providing a (preposterous btw) rationalisation.

That much is true: You need to be a Hungarian hyper partisan to believe it.

 

OT: I rather like your literary technique of always describing Ragusa in the third person omniscient present tense, Baronius.

 

Oh, please. I live in Chicago. We invented this kind of politics.

 

T2,
this kind of politics? You have had marches of uniformed parties in Chicago? I don't mean the Illinois Nazis.

 

You don't need uniforms to intimidate or cross a line of correctness.

 

To quote Han Solo "I can imagine quite a bit!"

I am fully capable of imagining what things must be like in other parts of the world. I read the papers, listen to firsthand accounts from people who've lived it, and I have a fair degree of empathy (a required trait for good teaching, IMHO) so comments that being a westerner makes me unable to comprehend something tend to fall flat with me.

Like every other nation on the planet, Hungary is striving to find a balance in its political arena -- a balance between individual rights, collective rights, societal cohesion, tolerance of diversity, and about 20 other factors. One thing I've learned as an ESL instructor is that we all have a heckuva lot more in common than we have that differentiates us.

So in the case of Orban, I'd bet both of my man berries that he's a politician just like politicians everywhere else -- trying to stay in power (his dark side), and also trying to do what he believes is best for his people (his light side). Until I see evidence of massacres and such, I'm gonna take all criticism (and accolades) of the guy with a grain of salt -- you don't get to such a level of authority in the world without making some enemies and gathering vehement allies.

 

T2,
yes, you don't need that. But adding them makes an extra point.

Likewise, an extra point is made when an elected supermajority mandates the publication of their manifesto in public places.

So can I.

I for one cannot imagine that folks who take power and then hurry to remove checks on it, will not abuse it, for political and financial gain.

 

I apologize to you. The "you Western citizens" expression was tactless comment from me, I didn't notice it, it came naturally. I should have written it more precisely (and this is what I meant): "You Western citizens who attack Orbán so blindly" or "you who are so sure that you understand it completely". So my comment was exactly not addressed to you, LKD. It was addressed to T2Bruno. Nonetheless:

Indeed, you are not unable to imagine it at all, but you can't deny that you may not see some deeper relations and other things behind the scenes. Things that I know better. Similarly, I will never have the insight to Canada that you possess.

Finally someone who shares something similar with my thinking. Orbán was called a dictator and all sorts of other things by certain people and certain newspapers, but we can all see: there are no uniformed soldiers around him controlling Hungary, no laws were broken openly and publicly by the government (like in dictatures), no people were put to prison for political reasons etc. It's just the excitement and obsession of people who have some sort of problem with him (many Western European countries are envious to the 2/3 majority of Orbán's centre-right government, probably that's Ragusa's problem too. They can't just accept the truth that 2/3 majority gives you the LEGAL RIGHT to change things that otherwise you can't. Otherwise, what are the 2/3 rules for? Why aren't they 4/5 instead?).

I never said Orbán is some god. As everyone else, he tries to keep his power (and Orbán does it legally), and has his vision of improving the situation in the country. As every prime minister in a government, he tries to put his own people (who are loyal to him) to proper positions. As everyone else would also do, he uses his legal authority given to him by his 2/3 majority. There is nothing wrong with this.

And the most important: he enjoys the support of many millions of Hungarians. Lots of people believe in him. And if they believe in him, it will mean these people will go to work every day with a hope, and believe that something can be reached by a Hungarian citizen even without cheating and abusing others. Orbán gave back the hope to millions of Hungarians. Arrogant outsiders, self-candidates of eternal wisdom, may shout "The Orbanists are seriously overreaching. Period. That is plain as day.", but that doesn't matter. What matters is that Orbán has a past where he decreased state debt and improved the economy, and now he gave back hope to the majority of the country. Feel free to call him Hitler, Putin, Pol Pot, Kim Jong-Il etc., but then you must find something to prove your "accusation". Soldiers, political prisoners, Nazis/Communists in government, etc.

 

Understatement of the week.

 

Baronius, I've seen more political summaries of countries, rulers, party affiliations, cultural differences, etc. than I care to remember. I've studied different forms of government and the varying ways those governments motivate or coerce their people. You have a very narrow view and don't know much about history or world politics if you think what is happening in Hungary is "unique".

 

No, it's not unique at all.

But understanding it in its deepest details, understanding that there is no better alternative now than this strong and centralizing governing, needs a thorough knowledge of Hungary in more aspects.

If you've seen so much, then you surely know that indeed there is a lot common, but also every country and culture has its specifics, and if you want to understand everything very well and in great detail, you also need to know these specifics.

I'm not fond of centralization by all means, by the way. Even in engineering fields, besides its advantages, centralization has its disadvantages as well (as everything), and in politics, there are significant analogies. Centralization of everything is not the way to go. But just like in engineering, there are situations when and where it needs to be done.

Those who truly understand Hungary's history, including (but not limited to) the near past and its events, know very well that what Orbán is doing now (with all of its potential problems) has no reasonable alternative. Of course, there may be flaws with its implementation, but it's the only reasonable, feasible way.

 

The flip side of this is, of course, that an outsider with no ties in the situation is able to way things objectively, without emotional attachment to either outcome.

 

That is obviously true. But intelligent, educated "insiders" who can keep their emotions at bay and look at things intelligently with the plus knowledge they have can have an even better insight (and considering them inherently or necessarily "biased" would be another extreme). I don't say every Hungarian (or Canadian) has this better insight, of course. Not everyone at all, obviously.

And things such as this in the present topic, can never be viewed fully "objectively". All of us views things such as this through own glasses; based on things that we learnt in our life, starting from the child days up to the present days. These are moral, political and other glasses. I will never be able to look at New Zealand and Hungary in the way you do. You will never be able to look at New Zealand and Hungary in the way I do. This doesn't mean I view Hungary "better" just because of this -- in the present paragraph, I just wanted to point out that looking at things such as this topic cannot be "objective" too much for outsiders unless they have really deep knowledge on the matter (which posters of this topic don't possess). You (and others who posted in this topic, e.g. Ragusa) just believe that you can look at Hungary relatively objectively. You don't, because you can't.

 

I don't even care to look at Hungarian politics. I have simply contended what you say about outsiders is inherently wrong. Far too often it is the person on the inside who cannot look at things objectively and cannot fathom someone else, on the outside, may have a better view. We all bring biases to our thinking -- those biases can really alter the perspective.

The view from a microchasm is very narrow.

 

This is oversimplification. I told to Rotku that he is right here (I'm quoting you, but he said practically the same):

But I also added that you NEED IMPLICIT KNOWLEDGE as well to truly understand the interrelations. You can be objective about... nothing, if you don't know certain very important aspects of Hungary. Aspects of Hungary that can't be learned just by reading 100 pages within 2 weeks about Hungarian history, politics, etc. It's implicit knowledge. There is no way to be objective about emptyness (this is exaggerating but illustrates the point well). It needs CONTENT, and much of this content must be implicit knowledge.

Similarly, just because I'm "insider", it does not automatically mean I'm emotionally biased too much. I may be biased, but you can't tell for sure that it's such a great degree that reduces my ability to judge things correctly and relatively "objectively".

In this meaning, your "glasses" are already a prejudice. We can choose not to call it a "prejudice" (because prejudice usually refers to non-justified, baseless assumptions), but the point remains the same: you are viewing through your glasses. For example, through your lawyer glasses. And you're convinced that's the objective. Someone else might be convinced about something different, and believing that he is the one who watches it objectively.

To sum up:

Some of you here simply do not possess the information that I do about Hungary. A certain type of information that can't be expressed explicitly (or it's very difficult and can be expressed only partially), e.g. in written form. This is the implicit knowledge. And since you don't possess this about Hungary, you are building your view (your model) about Hungary based on incomplete information. I think I wrote a very long post about this in the beginning of this thread. In Wikipedia, you can also check the term 'closed world assumption'. And here is a link about tacit knowledge as well (an administrator of SP told me earlier -- with different words -- that I should babysit readers of my posts, so here I gave a working link instead of just a term in quotes that people could have written in google IF they're interested.)

It always makes me smile when I see that many posters delude themselves, thinking that as outsiders, they are necessarily more objective than those who live in Hungary, and that just because they know world politics, laws etc. well, it means their insight is so great and objective in everything. This is especially bad to them, because probably they will spend a considerable amount of their life in this fond delusion, i.e. they are living in incorrect information. They think others are naive, while actually they are those who are naive. I, on the other hand, do not form self-confident statements in topics which I'm not familiar with; and where I do, the practise usually proves me (e.g. about the fact that the Media law didn't end up in court, instead the EU welcomed its amendments -- minor negligible amendments that had nothing to do with the changes demanded by the "protests" and international criticism).

 

Baronius,
it is perfectly possible to get an informed view on Hungary and Hungarian politics and a decent understanding without being Hungarian, or having to rely on your ... views. There is a wealth of information on your country available at the click of a mouse. We all can read.

And never mind these things that only Hungarians can know - to get a pretty good idea what is going on one can do well without that.