Slaying the Beast, Péter Magyar, and “Pothole” Politics

Yesterday saw the end to Viktor Orbán’s 16-year autocratic reign in Hungary. Magyar’s Tisza party not only defeated Orbán’s Fidesz, but it secured a “super majority” - a 2/3 legislative majority necessary to reverse some of the illiberal deficiencies put in place since 2011. As tens of thousands of Hungarians took to the streets singing “We are the Champions” and danced into the night, western liberal leaders heaped praise on the election results of this small Eastern European nation.

For nearly two decades, Hungary has been a bellwether for right-wing populist success. From Orbán’s “soft rigging” of elections (which included gerrymandering and vote “importing”), to his consolidation of independent and private media under conservative-friendly control, to his hardline anti-immigration and anti-LGBTQ politics, Hungary’s leader paved the path for Trump’s erosion of American democracy. The President has not hidden his admiration for the Hungarian autocrat either; just last week he sent Vice President J.D. Vance to stump on the campaign trail for the embattled Prime Minister in Budapest. Trump even floated U.S. financial assistance for Hungary if voters turned out to reelect Fidesz.

It should come as no shock then that liberal leaders would celebrate Magyar’s victory; we were reminded Sunday night that even the most corrupt and autocratic regimes can be toppled by popular will. Barack Obama called the results “a victory for democracy, not just in Europe but around the world,” similarly Emmanuel Macron declared Magyar’s win a “victory of democratic participation,” and Mark Carney extended his congrats to the Hungarian people on choosing a “new path” that could bring forth greater cooperation.

This victory feels like a “slaying the beast” moment in global politics. However, the spectre of illiberal and right-wing populist politics did not die with Orbán’s defeat. The real work now begins for Hungary. The next two years of Magyar’s governance will tell us a lot about the resiliency of illiberalism and, possibly, the inadequacy of liberalism. Americans should be keeping a close watch.

Let’s be clear, Magyar is no liberal. For most of his career, he was part of Orbán’s Fidesz party – aligning himself with the isolationist, anti-immigrant, and euro-skeptic policies that made Hungary the veritable “dreamland” of Christian nationalists and civilizationists like Tucker Carlson, Steve Bannon and Stephen Miller. His rather recent split from Fisesz is predicated on a platform of anti-corruption politics. This is laudable, if any EU country needed a “clean up” Hungary would be first in line. Yet, he has kept policy platforms uncharacteristically close to the chest, making it hard to predict what will and what will not change in the new regime.

While the American political system and culture are quite different from Hungary, there are lessons that cut both ways for the two nations. For one, campaigning against “corruption” is a winning formula. Support for Donald “Teflon” Trump can often appear unshakeable, but raising attention to his corruption – particularly at a time when inflation, war, and internal party strife are rampant – is an effective message. However, this means separating attacks on the man from his actions. Trump is deplorable (a term that sank Clinton’s campaign), narcissistic, immoral, and repugnant; but these traits appear to move the needle little with swing voters... let alone his [“Christian”] base.

Whether he runs again or not – and that remains to be seen – it would be a grave mistake to center another campaign cycle around the contemptible character of Trump, Vance, Rubio, or any other successor. These attacks are too easily deflected onto the supporters of the movement and internalized by a disenchanted and “victimized” voter. Instead, by making the next election about Trump’s corruption – like Magyar’s campaign against Orbán’s corruption – Democrats may effectively break the man from the movement.

This means hammering the President on his patronage projects, like the $400 million dollar ballroom financed by donations to the Freedom 250 Initiative, or his fast-tracking of FCC merger approvals to consolidate private media under the control of high-dollar financiers. And let’s not forget Trump’s cryptocurrency ventures that received backing from the Gulf states in return for American AI-chips, nor the new Air Force One gifted to him by Qatar at the same time as U.S. defense contracts were signed with the nation.

For both countries, “slaying the beast” of illiberalism also requires creating hospitable conditions for working class success, economic mobility, and increased political franchise. Those same liberal leaders who praised Magyar should step back and consider how their own failures and shortcomings keep the spectre of right-wing populism alive.

In 2020, Joe Biden defeated Trump on a wave of COVID anxiety and government antipathy. Though health, age, and a congressional stalemate stunted his legacy, Biden also failed to treat his tenure at the head of the Democratic Party as a moment for change. Rather, his victory over Bernie Sanders in the 2020 primary signalled to America that the Democrats were looking to recapture the “good times” of the Obama era. Similarly, Kamala Harris’ 2024 campaign was doomed by a lack of vision. It didn’t effectively treat those economic and political conditions which allow illiberalism to fester (like poverty, alienation, rural rage, etc.) as urgent problems. Instead, we were left with a “hot girl summer” and “vibes” campaign that lacked bold policy initiatives like single-payer healthcare or student loan forgiveness.

Time will only tell if Magyar can create the conditions necessary to stave off a return of illiberalism in Hungary, regardless of his own political affinities. As for America, the Democrats have now had eighteen months of their own “soul searching” while ICE raids, political corruption, and religious fanaticism continue to threaten the future of their democracy. If America wants to avoid a 16-year reign like that of Orbán and Fidesz, then a clear, bold, and dare I say “progressive” vision must be offered in 2026 and 2028.

Need help identifying what that looks like?

One example is NYC Mayor Mamdani’s commitment to “pothole politics.” Over 100 days into office, Mamdani is making his mark by delivering on promises big and small. In other words, he is filling the potholes. Why is this so important? The mayor astutely notes that progressive politics can (and should) deliver on big programs and “small” quality of life initiatives: “Because if government can’t do the small things, how could you ever trust it to do the big ones? How can we promise to transform our city if we can’t pave your street?” What he is doing is establishing trust between the government and its constituents, something that is critically lost today. As for those big programs, the mayor has secured a $1.2 billion dollar partnership to provide a universal 3-K childcare program that will help shoulder a huge financial burden for working-class parents. Next on his docket is freezing rent for over a million rent-stabilized tenants.

It is too early to hail Mamdani’s tenure as a success, but we should recognize that “pothole politics” is an effective approach for progressive candidates. It is possible to campaign on bold initiatives and still deliver on the “meat and potatoes” of everyday governance. Congressional and Presidential politics are of course grander (and more tenuous) in scale, but I believe the message still applies. If you want to “slay the beast” for good, you must rebuild trust in the government, establish programs that tangibly benefit working class people, and offer bold visions for the years ahead.

Like most commentators, I have no clear read on Magyar’s potential political impact. Cleaning up “corruption” and restoring democratic checks and balances may be sufficient to earn his party multiple terms. Yet, if Hungary remains the “poorest country” in the EU by most indicators, it is hard not to envision a potential return of Fidesz or a similar movement. Likewise, if the U.S. fails to address wealth inequality and the growing gap between the “haves” and the “have nots” the fragility of our democracy will only be further exposed.