Do they not realize how contradictory their narratives are? If Orban was so authoritarian and was "destroying democracy" for over a decade, how come he was able to be voted out so easily? Was he just that incompetent that he was unable to properly rig the system during all those years in power? If "authoritarian" leaders rely on "populism" to maintain power and win elections, then are they really undemocratic? Is that not what every democratic leader should do? Have a political agenda that is popular and allows them to be re-elected? What makes Orban so different from other supposedly "democratic" European leaders with approval ratings of 30% or lower? Liberals' whole ideological framework is incoherent. No material analysis whatsoever about why he actually lost and how this loss fits into the theory that he was supposedly this uniquely dangerous authoritarian, rather than just another right wing bourgeois politician?

I could easily imagine Trump getting voted out and replaced by somebody like Tucker Carlson, and then seeing an unironic post like this about it. Liberals have two main forms, I find: painfully politically illiterate or pretending to be politically illiterate while normalizing awful systems.

Ask them what they think about Magyar now after him inviting Netanyahu to Hungary to strengthen ties with Israel.