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?
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
replies: