No one could wish for kinder or more constant friends than those Viktor Orbán has in America.
It's not just the soft interviews he gets from them, though Tucker Carlson once gave the Hungarian prime minister a particularly tender interview on Fox News. It's not just about the proposals for speeches from the Conservative Political Action Conference - a sort of counter-Davos - or even the praise from JD Vance.
No, the real sign of camaraderie is that American populists do all this for Orbán, even when he opposes them on the world's biggest issue.
For them, the rise of China is a historic threat that must be resisted at all costs. For him? Well let's go through some events in 2024 alone.
He was the host and guest of Xi Jinping. China has upgraded its relationship with Budapest to an "all-encompassing" partnership. Orbán hails China as a pole in a "multipolar" (ie, non-US-led) world.
All this, as well as massive Chinese investment, is happening before everyone's eyes, and yet the Carlson-Vance wing of American conservatism gives it an almost dog-like allegiance.
Don't think it's a clever trick. The Republican right is confused on foreign affairs, that's all. Two of her strongest instincts - a distaste for China and a taste for authoritarian leaders, some of whom are pro-Chinese - are in hopeless conflict.
Orbán is not even the brightest example in this regard. Since the invasion of Ukraine, it has been Vladimir Putin. In 2021, it was almost possible, as a last resort, to be neutral or even accommodating to Russia while opposing China.
But in the age of "boundless" partnership between the two countries? When one reinforces the other diplomatically and materially? The Republican line is untenable. Countering China requires a certain firmness with Russia.
So what do American populists think? How can we balance their hatred of an autocracy with their condescension of its chief partner? Well, if the goal is to push Russia away from China over time — like a repeat of the Sino-Soviet rift, but with Moscow rather than Beijing at the center of American overtures — that would at least be rational.
But there are no signs of that. The opinion of the classes attending CPAC is that Russia is at worst an exaggerated threat and at best a bastion of Christian security against the tide of liberal relativism. Either way, the idea of some Nixonian scheme to break up the Eurasian giants doesn't enter into it. Given the extent of Putin's declared commitment to China, how could she?
And so we are left with the simplest, most unforgiving conclusion. I don't think Vance and his ilk even realize the contradiction in their worldview. They haven't given him enough thought.
The hardest thing to convey about modern politics to intelligent readers who tend to accept that ideas drive events is its tribal shallowness.
People take a certain position because the other side does not. Once the defense of Ukraine became a liberal consensus, then the right would lean the other way. This was not predetermined by conservative dogma at all. (Remember that early on, leading Republicans were ahead of Joe Biden in wanting to impose sanctions on Russia before the invasion).
Here in the foothills of middle age, news has reached me that "edgelord" is online slang for someone who seeks to shock and offend the liberal flock. Well, there is an edgelord spirit even in the highest echelons of republicanism.
One result of this is foreign policy as an absolute mess. It is as follows. China is an unprecedented threat to US interests and values. But Russia, which is his main backer? Ease the pressure on her by questioning Ukraine. Orban, her bridge to Europe? A victim of liberal slander.
I wish I could pursue a more nuanced position. But the line of, say, Senator Josh Hawley is literally that resources spent on Ukraine against Russia are resources denied to Taiwan against China. (As if the materials for a land war in Europe would work in East Asian waters).
This is the geopolitics of abaca. What would a more astute Republican say? That nothing has done more for the American cause against China than support for Ukraine. The US has shown all the superpowers that it can tie down one of the world's largest armed forces, on a faraway continent, for an indefinite period of time, with donations from the Pentagon. Not since the first Gulf War has there been a more impotent show of force. After the failure in Afghanistan, the advantages of being in the US orbit were not clear. That has changed. What a thing for American nationalists to oppose. I BGNES
--------------------------------
Janan Ganesh, Commentary for the Financial Times.
.jpeg)
