Mandiner conducted a so-called big interview with the American historian Stephen Sholl, who has been living in Budapest for a year and a half. The conversation also reveals why you chose Hungary instead of the USA? Below are some excerpts from the interview.
- The democracy debate has been raging between the American and Hungarian governments for a decade. You have lived here in Budapest as an American for a year and a half, and you know the place. What is true and what is false among the American accusations?
– The American perspective of judging the rule of law is a bit distorted. Because when American politicians, representatives and senators raise this issue, they are informed from very similar sources. They mostly refer to the Freedom House index, which is not the most objective statistical source. In these data series, the allies of the United States tend to appear with better metrics, and the states that oppose American interests with weaker ones. Based on this index, Hungary shows the image of a weakening democracy.
The majority of Americans either do not know or misunderstand what is happening in Hungary. And very few make the effort to look beyond the resources at hand, mainly from left-wing NGOs, to get a more accurate understanding of reality. Many employees of the US State Department come from the world of NGOs, including the new ambassador to Hungary, David Pressman - he worked for a very left-wing NGO, the Southern Poverty Law Center, which deals with discrimination cases.
"Why did you write your article on this subject in the American Conservative?" How do you counter this stereotypical American point of view?
– Because I felt that the Americans should understand how the American foreign affairs works, what happened in the American-Hungarian relationship in the last 12 years.
Conservative Americans do not understand why their state's embassies become representatives of a specific political ideology abroad. An example: a rainbow flag flew at the United States Embassy in Budapest on Budapest Pride Day. But I was also motivated to write the article by the David Pressman's Senate hearing, it is clear that Hungary is on the radar waves of the Democratic Party and the US administration led by him, and a confrontation is expected in the relations between the two countries in the near future.
– You write in your article that American diplomats have recently communicated with the Hungarian government in a threatening, threatening tone. Hungarians feel this is arrogance, and it is interesting that an American living here feels the same way.
This is because I have been living here for a year and a half, so I see things a little differently. I read the articles of the New York Times and the Washington Post about Hungary, and they report on an authoritarian state. Even my own professor, who is a scholar of international relations in his country, asked me when I first came here if it was possible to take photos freely in Hungary. Do you understand? The doctor of international relations has such a deep knowledge of Hungary... You don't have to like the Hungarian government, but it's bizarre that professional people can't differentiate between the Hungarian and the North Korean system.
Let me also say something in defense of the American position. Indeed, the way they represent it often seems arrogant, but believe me, they mostly sincerely believe that their own political system is the best and their views are the most correct. That is why they expect others to acknowledge it. When they criticize Hungary's rule of law, they do so because they seriously think that democratic institutions are weakening here. And when the Hungarian and other governments reject their advice, they take it as an insult...
...- America canceled the double taxation treaty with Hungary, but maintains it with Russia. Illogical.
Most of the people running the US State Department are politically and ideologically driven employees, not necessarily professionals. Logic would indeed have dictated that America, which supplies weapons against Russia and is engaged in a proxy war with Moscow, should cancel this agreement in the first place. Termination of the Hungarian treaty was a big mistake on the part of the US State Department. Hungary had to be punished because the Republican Party and Fidesz got too close to each other. Viktor Orbán will give an opening speech at CPAC in Dallas, it's a huge bang. I don't remember that a foreign politician has ever been invited here.
Every successful conservative leader—like Ron DeSantis —is ostracized by liberals in America today. Orbánism is being brought to the United States - the Washington Post and the New York Times write about it every two weeks. In the Florida child protection law debate, liberals accused DeSantis of importing the Hungarian child protection law into Florida, which they say is homophobic...
image: Mandiner
... - Today's left-rooted cultural mass influence is the culture of abolition, but interestingly you write in another article that there is also a danger in taking action against it: a return to total freedom of expression...
That's right. As the cancel culture reached extreme proportions, it began to be criticized not only from the right, but also from the left. Bill Maher , the well-known left-wing talk show king, also defended the celebrities who were temporarily blacklisted because of their dissenting opinions. It is a positive phenomenon that they are already speaking out against this, but at the same time, it would not be good if we returned to the trends of the 1990s, when it was accepted that everything could be taken apart verbally, without any moral or taste reservations. Under the spell of free speech, neo-Nazis could march in Jewish neighborhoods, and so on.
It is important that freedom of speech has moral limits.
- Where are these located ideally?
- These boundaries must be established in every mature society. Public morality is an important aspect; red line, for example, that pornographic and obscene content should not be available to minors on TV. Freedom of speech should not extend to sensitive content, such as defamation of religion or praise of Nazi regimes.
- It is a remarkable discovery in his writing that both unlimited freedom of speech and the culture of abolition are the product of left-wing ideology. They are completely different phenomena, yet the same political environment puts them on the shield. How do you explain the psychology of this?
- How unrestricted freedom of speech led to the restriction of expression of opinion can be due to several reasons. As soon as we allow anyone to express any opinion in public without reservation, the danger of bad, dangerous ideas gaining ground immediately becomes real. The culture of restriction and suppression of opinion would not have spread if 20 years ago a barrier had been raised in university circles. But they didn't raise it, because unrestricted freedom of speech also included the fact that some people propagated the suppression of opinions.
– You write that there could be a solution to the division of America: if not all controversial matters were raised to the federal, national level, but some of the regulations were left at the federal and state level. What is the evidence that this would reduce tensions?
- Amazing tensions arose during the 2020 presidential election. But we see that, apart from the swing states, the majority of residents in the majority of federal states are of the same opinion, they know what regulations they want to live by in that state. Alabama one way, California another. One was organized based on conservative values, the other liberal, and their local laws reflect this. When they say that DeSantis will bring the Hungarian model to Florida, it is indeed possible at the state level, but not at all at the federal level. Because it is based on the 2/3 government majority that made possible the amendment of the constitution and an uninterrupted government lasting 12 years. This cannot be done in America: no one will ever have a 2/3 majority, the three branches of power cannot be controlled by one party, and no party can stay in power for 12 years. However, there are examples of this at the federal state level, so if we were to refer some of the powers back to the state level, the governance could be efficient - even based on the Hungarian model.
However, due to recent developments, I am no longer very optimistic about this matter. The latest decision of the Supreme Court referred the regulation of abortion back to the jurisdiction of the member states, which was a very rational and legal step, yet we could see that the left could not accept this: they do not think that each community should decide this for itself, but they want the regulation they approve of everywhere.
- Are you living in Budapest because of such trends?
– (laughs) In a way, yes. Maybe yes.
Source and photos: Mandiner
