Viktor Orban's Hungary is the model for the Trump/Musk playbook.

More accurate than calling Trump a fascist is describing him as a new authoritarian. There are plenty of far-right leaders in Europe and elsewhere who he can be compared to. The best possible comparison for what is now happening in America is what Viktor Orban's Fidesz Party did in Hungary. Albeit the Trump Whitehouse is moving much quicker.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/feb/07/trump-viktor-orban-electoral-autocracy

A long read on what has happened in Hungary is here:

https://www.journalofdemocracy.org/articles/how-viktor-orban-wins/

I was worried about America before the election and I thought that the new administration would be more cohesive and united. It is. Also, I was concerned because of what Project 2025 said about 'Unitary Executive Theory.' This is worse than I expected though. Americans should be alarmed. Those who thought the criticism of Trump being authoritarian was hyperbolic are ignoring the fact that he didn't have a unified team behind him last time and was blocked from doing everything he wanted. It's not the case now.

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

ArishMell · 70-79, M

There are various reasons for the far-Right attracting votes:

Immigration is one, as so many people are driven from home by wars, persecution or natural disasters. Or simply imagine that the streets of European cities are paved with gold.

Another, more subtle is a deepening dissatisfaction with mainstream parties of all hues seemingly more and more like each other and less and less able to govern effectively. This might be stronger in electoral systems that tend to return coalitions, rather than different sides in adversarial debates.

The European Union as an institution must also shoulder some of the blame. Although it upholds democratic governments it is not very democratic in its own administration, is remote and is a source of never-ending stream of "Directives" (regulation foundations) each member state has to transpose into its own legal system. Most of these affect specific trades and industries, or aspects like vehicle laws and environmental protection; many come from international treaties like the UN and ISO; but the appearance is that of anonymous bureaucrats making rules for the sake of rules about things they don't understand, with no accountability.

There are also those who keep saying "'They' should do something about...." this or that problem; but do not ask of their own contributions and responsibilities. Or expect more and more from less and less, instant answers, 100% perfection in everything, self-entitlement and other frankly impossible demands.

So merely saying it is "THIS" without consider if it is also "THAT" or might even by "T'OTHER" does not go anywhere.

It might go a little way in the USA: a single country with only two Parties though its different States have different needs; but not in an assortment of some 26 independent countries. Ones with their own geographies, languages, cultures, political and legal systems, economies, and often three or more Parties.

In most cases, and it will vary considerably around all those separate nations of "Europe", perceptions are deeper than reality but there seems a strange desire for the certainty offered by more authoritarian leaders... presumably as long as the leader's ideology happens to match that of the desiree.