Heather Cox Richardson writes in her blog “Letters from an American” about the Republican Right’s fascination with the authoritarian leader of Hungary, Viktor Orbán. Orbán is a critic of liberal democracy and a great admirer of Trump. It’s scary.
She writes:
At the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) last weekend, Daily Wire host Michael Knowles said that “for the good of society…transgenderism must be eradicated from public life entirely—the whole preposterous ideology, at every level.” He worded his statement in such a way that it would inevitably create outrage that he could then angrily refute by insisting that “eradicating transgenderism” was not the same thing as eradicating transgender people. This sort of word game is a well-known right-wing tactic for garnering media attention.
Make no mistake: this attack on transgender people represents a deadly attack on the fundamental principle of American democracy, the idea that all people are created equal.
CPAC and its representatives have become increasingly close to Hungarian president Victor Orbán as he has asserted autocratic power in his own country. Orbán has explicitly rejected the liberal democracy that his country used to enjoy, saying that its emphasis on multiculturalism weakens national cultures while its insistence on human equality undermines traditional society by recognizing that women and LGBTQ people have the same rights as straight white men. The age of liberal democracy is over, he says, and a new age has begun.
In place of equality, Orbán advocates what he calls “illiberal democracy” or “Christian democracy.” “Christian democracy is, by definition, not liberal,” he said in July 2018; “it is, if you like, illiberal. And we can specifically say this in connection with a few important issues—say, three great issues. Liberal democracy is in favor of multiculturalism, while Christian democracy gives priority to Christian culture; this is an illiberal concept. Liberal democracy is pro-immigration, while Christian democracy is anti-immigration; this is again a genuinely illiberal concept. And liberal democracy sides with adaptable family models, while Christian democracy rests on the foundations of the Christian family model; once more, this is an illiberal concept.”
Orbán has focused on LBGTQ rights as a danger to “Western civilization.” Arguing the need to protect children, his party has made it impossible for transgender people to change their gender identification on legal documents and made it illegal to share with minors any content that can be interpreted as promoting an LBGTQ lifestyle. After Orbán put allies in charge of Hungarian universities, his government banned public funding for gender studies courses. According to his chief of staff: “The Hungarian government is of the clear view that people are born either men or women.”
As the opening speaker at CPAC in Texas last August, Orbán called for the establishment of a global right wing to continue to work together to destroy liberal democracy and establish Christian democracy.
The American right wing has heard the call, openly embracing Orbán’s principles. Vox senior correspondent Zack Beauchamp, who is a crackerjack analyst of right-wing political ideology both in the U.S. and abroad, noted in 2021 the rise of right-wing ideologues who saw themselves as the vanguard of a “post-liberal order.”
Beauchamp explained that these ideologues reject American democracy. They argue that “religious liberty, limited government, ‘the inviolability of private institutions (e.g., corporations),’ academic freedom, constitutional originalism, free markets, and free speech”—all central tenets of democracy—have created “liberal totalitarianism” that has destroyed “all institutions that were originally responsible for fostering human virtue: family, ennobling friendship, community, university, polity, church.”
They see the government institutions that defend these democratic tenets as part of a totalitarian system designed to destroy national virtue. If this were truly the case (it is not), it would be an act of heroism to try to destroy those systems altogether. Right-wing attacks on the FBI, the Department of Justice, and even the government itself over the arrest of January 6th rioters who they insist were peaceful tourists shore up the idea that the FBI and DOJ are part of a government determined to crush Trump supporters. That ideology invites those who believe it to continue to attack our government.
Knowles’s statement last week that transgenderism must be eradicated from public life was not simply an attack on transgender individuals, although it was certainly that. Tapping into the anti-LGBTQ sentiment that Orbán and those like him have used to win voters, the statement was a crucial salvo in the attempt to destroy American democracy and replace it with Christian nationalism.
But there is a very simple answer to the radical right’s attack on LGBTQ people that also answers their rejection of democracy. It is an answer that history has proved again and again.
Once you give up the principle of equality, you have given up the whole game. You have admitted the principle that people are unequal, and that some people are better than others. Once you have replaced the principle of equality with the idea that humans are unequal, you have stamped your approval on the idea of rulers and subjects. At that point, all you can do is to hope that no one in power decides that you belong in the lesser group.
In 1858, Abraham Lincoln, then a candidate for the Senate, warned that arguments limiting American equality to white men and excluding black Americans were the same arguments “that kings have made for enslaving the people in all ages of the world…. Turn in whatever way you will—whether it come from the mouth of a King, an excuse for enslaving the people of his country, or from the mouth of men of one race as a reason for enslaving the men of another race, it is all the same old serpent.”
Either people—men, in his day—were equal, or they were not. Lincoln went on: “I should like to know if taking this old Declaration of Independence, which declares that all men are equal upon principle and making exceptions to it…where will it stop?”

“Scary” is exactly the word.
LikeLike
A bit of background-
Orban is associated with a Christian religious sect that is 16% of the country.
About one-half of the country identify as Catholic. CPAC’s leader is right wing Catholic. The right wing American Catholic League posted praise for Orban at its site. The Catholic League’s voter mobilization can be inferred to have been behind the defeat of Claire McCaskill by Josh Hawley (an article at the Columbia Journalism Review).
Christianity Today describes Orban as being more about powerful symbolism than issues. Rod Dreher has been an Orban fan. Reportedly, Dreher’s major funder at American Conservative has, recently, had second thoughts about Dreher’s writing, unrelated to Orban. If I recall correctly, the criticism was about an unacceptable level of weirdness (charitable license?).
LikeLike
Diane Orban appeals to the high-jacking of Christianity by right-wing A-B-C “religion.” His narration puts “Christianity” in a tribal rather than a civil/democratic framework, <–where it must be, as with Judaism or any other, or nothing will last (again, like Lincoln’s references to kingships and slavery).
And to call it “new” is joke of historical proportions.
Two concerns: First, a missing distinction comes forward in the above narrative: First, the equality that is formally called for is political (as in under the law). In turn and under a democratic political umbrella, equality creates the opening for freedom and diversity in the familial, social, intellectual, and religious domains (a democratic “culture”), including gender affiliations. Only in this way, can the endemic conflict between equality and diversity find a dynamic peace.
Second: “Christian democracy” is an oxymoron. Freedom of religion is a central tenet of democracy, . . . all faiths are invited to flourish . . . again, in a civil atmosphere. So it’s a democracy where people can practice their Christian denominational faith . . . as others do theirs, or none at all. It’s not a door marked “Let Christians only enter here,” as is implied in the whole idea of ‘Christian democracy,” which won’t work, any more than having “Jewish democracy” or a “Muslim democracy” works. The “arch or history,” besides tending towards justice, seems to be averse to living oxymorons.
BTW, Linda is still Catholic bashing and NOT citing or linking her referred-to articles. I this and many other cases here on this site, I think “inferring” is Linda-code for “gotcha-ing” about someone having a Catholic background, a kind of race bating, only this is religious-bias bating. Welcome to Orban’s kind of thinking on this site. CBK
LikeLike
The following is written to prevent Catherine’s escalation.
I don’t “bait” commenters nor, do I construct “gotcha” situations. Catherine’s prior references to blood which she employs in descriptions of me are reminiscent of Trump’s comments about Mika Brezinski and other women.
There are a couple of readers, Catherine is one, who refuse to see that what I write is about the Catholic church’s right wing politicking. When I identify right wing Catholics in comments, they are people who have positioned themselves as political influencers or enactors of legislation and policy and, who have cited the conservative values of their religious sect as their motivation.
When I read about a small minority religious sect’s politicking for the GOP, I seldom comment at this blog about it because the sect has, at most, impact in a small geographic area or one state.
Media covers, almost daily, the politicking of the Christian Right, a term that is understood by the general public as protestant, not Catholic. Media’s exhaustive coverage of that sect’s politicking and almost total omission of the Catholic Right’s, compels me as a citizen who believes in democracy, to review and write. Theocracy equates with an oppressive patriarchy that, over history, has created and/or facilitated exploitation and gross disparity in incomes.
Catherine’s process is flawed. She paints me falsely, and then, presents herself as an opponent, the type of critic that a person should be, of the Catholic church’s right wing politicking.
Media appears to be driven by a no names, conflict avoidance, soft approach when it comes to the Catholic Church’s public square activities on behalf of the GOP
It is not new. And, it has not been effective in stopping the religious right’s takeover of the nation, most of it driven by the powerful Republicans in the Catholic Church.
LikeLike
Hi Linda “When I identify right wing Catholics in comments, they are people who have positioned themselves as political influencers or enactors of legislation and policy and, who have cited the conservative values of their religious sect as their motivation.”
Linda, you bought the bait . . . that fascism wraps itself in. Better use the cloth of “conservative values of their religious sect” than the flag, however; because, though Christianity is a hard sell when falsely cited by careless capitalist/oligarchs, the Flag is much harder to cite when ALL of The People are involved, and when their funding, practices, and programs are so obviously anti-democratic.
As long as you focus your gotcha efforts on Catholicism and religion itself, you will be carrying water for those (I guess) you are trying to expose; and while you are at it, you are red-baiting others who share your thoughtless and reactionary bias.
The irony is that the use of half-truths (diversions, selective omissions, logical fallacies) is a well-worn fascist tool. CBK
LikeLike
First of all, if one believes what is stated in the Bible, GOD is the Alpha and the Omega. So, based on what I know and studied, GOD created us all, in his image. So even the “free will” thing is a double-edged sword because we can make our own decisions, but GOD already knows the outcome. So what gets me is when terms are used, i.e., “…make this a Christian nation…” they are cherry picking scripture. And again, I read and study and read and study again and listen to information to gain insight into what people are thinking whether I agree or not. And from dealing with many children who were trying to figure out “who they were” to the point of suicide, we must remember GOD is a loving GOD. But, this is an interesting podcast from the LGBTQ community. Education is key. More love less hate. https://www.queertheology.com/podcast/lgbtq-people-are-made-in-gods-image-genesis-11-24/
LikeLike
The Founders never intended this to be a Christian nation. They wrote into the amendments to the Constitution a ban on religious tests for holding office.
LikeLike
@Diane –exactly. And it is exactly what I taught my students. That’s why there is a separation of Church and State and items of concern are decided on facts of law. Imagine a Muslim walking into a courtroom displaying the 10 Commandments (Roy Moore and establishment clause). Bias zone? Court of Law, not religion. I always loved this, “God and Satan were walking along the beach. God turns to Satan and said, “I am going to develop religion.” Satan responds, “Let me organize it for you?” More blood has been shed “In the name of God” going all the way back to the Crusades. And if you are interested in Vikings, boy I learned a tremendous amount about “Christians and Pagans” and how they would kill each other about it. More love less hate and most of all educate. The more I learn, the more I realize I have tons more to learn.
LikeLike
Thank you. Over the ages, people have found many reasons to kill one another. Religion has inspired mass violence too many times to count. Too much “my religion is best for everyone,” too much hatred where should be love and kindness, too much violence where should be peace.
LikeLike
Diane My first thought upon reading your note was that Jefferson would agree with you wholeheartedly. His study of history revealed to him (what we might refer to now as) the “tribal aspects of religion.”
It seems to me from my reading of his works, Jefferson wanted NOT to eliminate or sever religion from culture, but to both
(1) separate formal religion from the formal political order (personally, this becomes a differentiation of mind: aka, civilized). . . an order that must cover all varieties of religion, namely, a democratic framework with its rule of secular law (secular/as in distinct-from); and so
(2) to set the conditions for a tribal-to-civil transformation of religion among the people, away from its tribal/totalitarian zero-sum game aspects (mine or yours; you die or I die).
When we break down those secular institutions (as Trump et al are still trying to do) there is nothing left but to “return” to a “new” tribal beginning. CBK
LikeLike
Well said, CBK!
LikeLike
Maybe this is why I always rooted and felt sorry for the Lions in Quo Vadis. Apropos, Christians and lions is also a Hollywood-based myth.
LikeLike
It’s all so depressing. So hard to get through the day anymore. Here’s a needed break for a few minutes.
LikeLike
GregB In another note, the political differences between liberal cities and more conservative (so to speak) rural areas came up. I think there is a direct relationship between what happens in:
(1) cities, where people are in close and daily contact with people of all sorts of diverse and unequal backgrounds as they go about their work, play, and lives, and
(2) in the whole idea of public schools, even if you go back to the old idea of “melting pot.” Though I’d call it more of an “acquaintance pot,” which, over the long term, is a central aspect of one’s social and civic education, regardless of what’s on the test . . . and also in a more comprehensive version of what education means.
No wonder the (understatement alert) “right wing” want to get rid of all things public. CBK
LikeLike
Doggone it, CBK, I was looking for escapism! 😜
Good points all!
LikeLike
I started thinking of the melting pot as a salad bowl. That’s what happens in diverse urban areas.
LikeLike
When that salad bowl happens, it is a pleasure to watch. To me it is the promise of the America we need, a society in which people judge others based on character, not color or money. Good, diverse public schools provide that experience and have the potential to fulfill that promise.
LikeLike
American constitutional governing must be accompanied by genuine, sought-after pluralism in order to function. Pluralism is a dirty word to most white Americans and they will destroy their society rather than accept it.
LikeLike
GregB Do you really think ‘most white Americans’ hate pluralism? CBK
LikeLike
Given that Obama was elected and re-elected by sizable margins, I don’t think most Americans oppose pluralism. I don’t think most are bigoted.
LikeLike
Considering the fact that a majority of white voters have voted republican for the past 50 years, and based on how I see it — isn’t that the standard for truth these days? — I think that statement is not controversial, just a statement of fact. Drive and take a few stops in rural and suburban America. Anywhere, not just the South.
LikeLike
GregB I know some people in the South who have NEVER gotten even CLOSE to getting over slavery, and insist the Civil War was about States Rights, and not about slavery . . . they are still of the “some of my best friends are . . . ” mentality.
But still, I guess your criteria comes as close as we can probably get, considering that, even if you took a poll, few would own up to racism, etc., and especially since many of our biases are still tacit/implicit, so habitual and accepted as the only reality that they are even unknown to us. CBK
LikeLike
CBK,
I know some people in the south like that. They used to keep their racism quiet because there was no social approval. Trump gave them permission to be racist in public.
LikeLike
Diane I had to “ghost” a relative who is both a trenchant racist (“they’re soon going to be 50 percent of the nation!”)
If I were Trump follower and heard about all the lies by Trump and his followers. . . as have been found out over the Dominion lawsuit, . . . I’d be hopping mad. But it doesn’t seem to matter. It’s really psycho. CBK
LikeLike
My Trumper relatives refuse to believe anything that they didn’t hear on FOX and refuse to inform themselves that the FOX hosts lied to them.
LikeLike
Diane Yes, their refrain is “Fake News!” How painful it must be to give up on a cherished idea. A loved lie is better than a hated truth. CBK
LikeLike
Xenophobia is not supported by scripture. Philoxenia is.
LikeLike
That Lincoln campaign speech is a rouser. Perhaps could be snuck into a FL K12 American History course in a unit on “Great Presidents,” or in background leading up to the Civil War.
Some Jefferson goodies along the lines of what Catherine suggests above would fit right into a unit on “Writings of the Founders.” Many suggestions here: https://www.monticello.org/research-education/thomas-jefferson-encyclopedia/thomas-jefferson-and-religious-freedom/#fn-8
None would pass muster with DeStalinist’s curriculum police if given a close reading. So sneak ’em in! What parent would dare object to an Abe Lincoln speech or a Jefferson letter?
LikeLike