Opinion | I Watched It Happen in Hungary. Now It's Happening Here. - The New York Times
By: David Pressman (nytimes)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Mr. Pressman served as the U.S. ambassador to Hungary from 2022 to 2025.
As the most recent U.S. ambassador to Viktor Orban's Hungary, I'm often asked if the Trump administration's tactics and policies feel familiar. The short answer is yes. But the more important — and unsettling — question is this: Does the way Americans are responding feel familiar, too?
After years watching Hungary suffocate under the weight of its democratic collapse, I came to understand that the real danger of a strongman isn't his tactics; it's how others, especially those with power, justify their acquiescence.
Take the judiciary. I met leaders of Hungary's sole independent judicial body in October 2022 to discuss their work. For months afterward, their faces (and mine) were plastered in the papers, branded as traitors and foreign agents, just because they had raised concerns about the rule of law in Hungary. The response from other powerful judges? Silence.
Or take the private sector. Since Mr. Orban became prime minister in 2010, the state has awarded billions in public contracts to his son-in-law and childhood friend, a former plumber named Lorinc Meszaros. What have Hungarian business leaders said? Nothing.
Last year, when Mr. Orban's close associates reportedly told a multinational retailer to give the prime minister's family a cut of its business, did other multinational companies speak up? They did not.
Hungarians with little power or privilege to lose would occasionally protest. But those with power remained reliably, pliably silent.
The American officials and academics who, like me, lived in Hungary during this period would often tell ourselves stories to explain this submissiveness: that docility is rooted in Hungary's oppressive communist past, that its democracy was simply too young to withstand a strongman.
Then I returned to the United States, and what I've witnessed over these past months at home has exposed those stories as wishful thinking.
Here, too, powerful people are responding to authoritarian advances just as their Hungarian counterparts have — not with defiance, but with capitulation, convinced that they can maintain their independence and stay above the fray.
Major corporations whose logos were once plastered on Pride floats parading down Fifth Avenue now choose to remain on the sidelines. Institutions and professions that have long acted as bastions of critical inquiry, civilized contestation and government accountability have fallen silent.
Many law firms have opted to become instruments of a strongman rather than custodians of the rule of law. Former self-identified defenders of our democracy (back when it cost nothing to support democratic principles), including some who served in Democratic administrations, remain partners at captured institutions, earning millions while skirting their moral and civic responsibility to take a stand.
They cling to the illusion that they can preserve their independence and integrity while making deals with a strongman, just as Hungary's elite believed they, too, could emerge unscathed.
Mr. Orban often describes Hungarians as possessing a unique intellect and cunning that enables them to outlast their adversaries. It is a self-aggrandizing myth and a potent tool of self-deception. Believing you can outfox a fox is how you become its prey. And American elites, confident in their cleverness, have welcomed a fox into the henhouse.
During my time in Hungary, I saw Hungarian mayors tell themselves that they were pursuing a savvy strategy by appeasing Mr. Orban even as he effectively stripped them of their revenues and authority.
Investors and executives bought into this narrative, even as their businesses and entire sectors fell prey to economic policies intended to enrich Mr. Orban's family and friends.
Hungarian judges bought into it, even as Mr. Orban's machine slowly swallowed their profession. Some saw capitulation in simple terms: as the only way to preserve their access to resources and keep the people who worked for them employed. "We'll eventually get through this," they surely told themselves, "but first, we must go along."
So they all made deals that Mr. Orban engineered: peace with the strongman, in exchange for subjugation and humiliation. Going along is what did them in.
Those best positioned to uphold democratic norms chose the comfort of an illusion over the courage of action. They were and are invisible by choice — and that choice disfigured them and ultimately their country.
The lesson of Hungary is this: We cannot claim to care about democracy only when it costs nothing. President Trump, like Mr. Orban, no doubt believes that everyone can be bought. America's elites are proving him right. There is a Hungarian phrase I heard often: "Van az a penz" — "There's always a price."
If we're serious about defending democracy, it's not enough to hold our government accountable in court. Lawsuits against the Trump administration are fine, but they seem almost anachronistic in this increasingly extralegal moment, and they do little to counter our own elites' very Hungarian acquiescence.
Last month, young Hungarians marched in Budapest's Pride — despite the fact that Mr. Orban had banned it. As usual, Hungarians with power and privilege mostly stayed away.
In February, Mr. Orban said he was banning Pride because the U.S. ambassador had left Budapest, so "the event is no longer under international protection, and it will not take place." While I appreciate his backhanded acknowledgment of American leadership in advancing human rights, the march in Budapest was never led by me. It was never under international protection. It has always been, and was again last month, a march of brave, young, gay Hungarians with their lives, futures and country on the line. Hungary's elites, like so many corporate logos that once decorated floats on Fifth Avenue, were nowhere to be found.
To the stewards of our nation's great cultural and commercial institutions: Don't dupe yourselves. The illusion that you are smarter than the strongman, that you'll outmaneuver him with silent cleverness, is just that — an illusion. Now, more than ever, your principled leadership matters.
Look at those kids in the streets of Budapest last month — and learn from them.
David Pressman is a former U.S. ambassador to Hungary, ambassador to the U.N. Security Council, assistant secretary of homeland security and member of the staff of the National Security Council.
Tags
Who is online
115 visitors
It can happen here.
No it can't
Karoline Leavitt told reporters yesterday that Trump is serious about forcing the owner of the Washington Commanders football team to change the name back to Washington Redskins.
What the fuck business is it of Trump to meddle in sports teams names?
She was asked if he was serious and she said yes.
It's none of his business. That football team is a privately owned team isn't it?
I believe so.
@realDonaldTrump
My statement on the Washington Redskins has totally blown up, but only in a very positive way. I may put a restriction on them that if they don’t change the name back to the original “Washington Redskins,” and get rid of the ridiculous moniker, “Washington Commanders,” I won’t make a deal for them to build a Stadium in Washington.
[deleted][✘]
Trump demands that a sports team use a degrading, racist name. Of course, his supporters love that.
If Trump is not an aspiring autocrat, why is he threatening to withhold funding for a new DC stadium UNLESS they name their team what HE decides it should be named? Maybe he wants to pick the color of their uniforms too and what brand of beer they are allowed to sell at the stadium.
sounds pretty straightforward, do what I want, or else. That is autocracy.
I know for a fact that the issue of the "Redskins" name was important to Kavika. Getting rid of the name that is.
Yes, it was important to Kavika that the degrading, racist name be changed. Any right-thinking person should agree.
These people don't care.
I read something the other day about the word "redskin". It actually comes from after a scalping and the underside of the scalp is bloody. The blood runs down the face making the skin red. I believe Europeans scalped more Indigenous than they did whites.
They might be right wing but no one could ever mistake them for being right-thinking.
what an insult to the majority of indians who supported the Redskins name. And why wouldn't they? anyone who understands the purpose of a nickname understands its an honor.
why are you carrying water for the term redskin? is it just one of those if you dont like it tough shit things?
According to Kavika and I think 1stwarrior it is not true that the majority of indians approve of redskins. Those guys are in touch with Indian opinions a hellofa lot more than Trump is.
A new Washington Post poll found that 90 percent of Native Americans aren't offended by the Washington Redskins ' nickname and an overwhelming majority consider it an unimportant issue.
Maybe 1st warrior will weigh in. "Redskin" is an ethnic slur, without a doubt. Why would anyone in the 21st century want their sports team named after an ethnic slur?
Yeah they had a tradition and now they have a new tradition "Commanders" . What the hell is the problem?
anyone who thinks the term "redskin" is ok is a racist
sounds logical
It is.
“… anyone who understands the purpose of a nickname understands its an honor. “
So if somebody that has no business in bestowing a ‘nickname’ gave you the moniker ‘Yawn Spacey’, it would be, following your line of reasoning, an honorific?
Then he has no right to demand they change the name back. He's not the Emperor of the World
I resented being called pancakes in 8th grade. I didn't feel honored by that nickname more like humiliated
Correct. I claimed that title years ago.
Then I guess the members of The Native American Guardians Association are racists.
good one
Am I professional sports team? What do you imagine the purpose of team nicknames are?
So you believe 90% of Indians are racist. Harsh.
What an insult your comment is to sane, sensible people.
Not true.
A lie on top of a lie. The Washington Post poll is from 9 years ago.
That's counter-factual and basically, insane.
[✘]
you accuse the Washington Post of lying? Bizarre.
[✘]
Not at all. An honest assessment of my comment confirms that I'm stating that your comment is a lie.
[✘]
Red mesa high school, in the northeast corner of Arizona, is on a navajo reservation and uses redskins as a mascot. They must be racist toward themselves?
You should go to red mesa high school and tell the students that take pride in their mascot that it’s actually an insult. And film it please. I’m always up for a good laugh.
It's a copy and paste of the cited Washington Post article. Enjoy tilting at windmills.
And the feelings of teenagers ,who are almost sure to be unaware of the history of the word, is the most important consideration why?
Commanders is a fine name that I suspect most Washington fans have already accepted. What is the purpose of Trump or anyone else bringing this back up?
No one has lost anything of value. Move on.
“And the feelings of teenagers ,who are almost sure to be unaware of the history of the word, is the most important consideration why?”
it’s not only teenagers. If the school admin thought it was bad their mascot would not be the redskins. There are other high schools with the same nickname, all on indian reservations. Polls show that many are in favor of the name “redskins.” Do you think all those polled were teenagers? I don’t.
”Commanders is a fine name,,,,”
i don’t. They will always be the washington redskins to me.
“What is the purpose of Trump or anyone else bringing this back up?”
knowing trump, he’s bringing it up to inflame virtue signaling liberals, and i’d say it’s working.
”No one has lost anything of value. Move on.”
no one lost anything of value when the name was redskins, you move on.
Meh. He has just as much right as you or I do.
The overstep would be if he attempts some sort of actual official sanction about it.
Oh great. They were trying to sneak by under the radar, and here you've gone and told everybody.
Now they'll have to deal with blue-haired protesters spouting some slogan they can't explain
Interestingly Trout - the Euros "taught" the Native Americans how to "scalp" for money - true story
The ancient Celtic peoples of Europe were inveterate whole-head-hunters, and their more recent descendants occasionally used that old custom to make bold political statements. “Behold the head of a traitor!” was the rallying cry, both about British King Charles I in 1649 and about French King Louis XVI in 1793, after their respective beheadings. Likewise, the severed head of Wampanoag Chief Metacomet (aka King Philip) was displayed atop a pole at Plymouth Colony Fort for years, after he was shot by an Indian scout for dismemberment by the English in 1676.
As early as the Pequot War (1637-38), New Englanders in Connecticut had paid bounties to their Indian allies for scalping their Indian enemies (specifically, they paid Mohegans for Pequots’ scalps). But during the wider-spread & more-deadly King Philip’s War (1675-76), Connecticut & Massachusetts governments extended the bounties-offer for Indian-enemy scalps to their own White soldiers also. And thus began the Hair-Trade as an economic opportunity for New Englanders–not to be confused with the older Fur-Trade in (lower) animal pelts. The highest bounties offered for adult male Indian-enemy scalps gradually grew from £3 late in King Philip’s War to £300 late in the (4th) French & Indian War (latest 1750s), £300 then being a relative fortune & an utmost incentive.
As scalp-bounties rose, New Englanders devised devious means of obtaining Indian scalps. Re-using already-paid-for scalps was thwarted by immediately burning every scalp submitted, in a keg of tar. But the problem of counterfeit scalps was never solved: friendly Indians had to worry about being more-easily & less-dangerously targeted than hostile Indians. In Maine, the worst known case of such scalp-counterfeiting was the Owls Head Massacre of July 1755, wherein Capt James Cargill’s all-White bounty-posse deliberately sought & killed a dozen or more peaceful Penobscots. Later, Cargill went to court to protest being denied the bounties for their scalps, after protesting Penobscot warriors had joined already-hostile Abenakis in frontier raids and Massachusetts had declared war on all of the Penobscots. Capt Cargill got no bounties for that batch of scalps, but soon he was back in the Hair-Trade again, with promotion to Colonel of Militia in the wider war that he personally had expanded because of his crime.
.
The practice of scalping has complex origins that involve both Native American cultures and European settlers. While scalping was practiced by some Native American tribes long before European contact, the specific practice of scalping as it became known in colonial America was influenced by a combination of indigenous and European practices.
In summary, while scalping existed among some Native American tribes prior to European contact, the widespread and systematic practice associated with colonial America emerged as a result of interactions between Native Americans and European settlers, with contributions from both sides.
And, here we go with Trump's standard "shock and awe" BS - to get us off the scent of something else that ain't right.
Virtue signaling, blue haired sky screamers protesting against a minority is as likely as that same group siding with trump on any issue. I think they’ll be fine.
Thanks for the update John.
Went back into my history of comments on NT dealing with the "Redskins" and the first thread was done 12 years ago when Snyder was the huge azzhole - wuz quite lengthy 'cause there is so much information available that totally eradicates the "We're doing it to honor them" BS.
The Washington Post survey of 2012 has been debunked very thoroughly. No, 9 out of 10 Native Americans were not offended by the name as the article sez
2019: Different survey finds nearly half of Native Americans find the existing name offensive
Researchers at the University of Michigan and University of California, Berkeley, published findings from a 2019 survey of 1,019 Native Americans from all 50 states and representing 148 tribes.
The survey asked respondents to share their thoughts about the team name and the term Redskins by ranking statements on a scale of 1 to 7, with 1 being strongly disagree and 7 being strongly agree. The study found that "overall, Natives opposed the Redskins team name in particular."
For comparison, the researchers grouped their respondents’ perceptions of the Redskins team name into roughly the same categories as the Washington Post’s 2016 poll. The study said 49% of Native Americans surveyed found the team name offensive, 38% did not find it offensive and 13% were indifferent.
One of the greatest discussions regarding "mascots" was conducted on the Oprah Winfrey during her "Racism 1992" show.
Here's the link - bit long (42 plus minutes) -
Susan Harjo, Michael Haney, Tim Diago - all great and highly respected Native Americans were on her panel - totally awesome.
Yeah - mascots named using Native Americans is wrong - big time.
Still waiting for the "New Jersey Jews/Baltimore Wops/New York Ni**ers/Chicago Irish Criminals/Dallas Wet-backs" Where are they - or is it just "OK" to denigrate Native Americans?
Because, of course, it's not denigrating. That would defeat the whole purpose of a team nickname. It's simply bizarre to think so given the whole point of team nicknames. If other teams were called the "cowards" and other insulting names then there would be a point, but to claim Indian nicknames are unique among all team nicknames in being denigrating is simply an abuse of logic. No one imagines the nickname Spartans denigrates the Greeks etc etc.....
I actually agree that no one should be nicknamed the Apaches or tribes like that. Similar to calling a team the Gestapo. I played on a basketball team called the Apaches when I was a kid, and if I knew then what I did now I would not have been happy wearing that uniform.
Sean - remember our past conversations on this topic.
No. the mascot name is not denigrating to/of/for the teams unless the individual offended is a member of the offended class.
But, if you think that I won't/am not offended by some of the BS names used in sports being used to "honor" Native Americans - that's BS.
I spent many years being raised in the SE where bigotry is well known. Was told many a time that I couldn't ride a bus unless I sat in the back 'cause I was a "Red Ni**er". Couldn't eat at some restaurants for same reason. Was "made" to do a "war dance" prior to playing on the field. Was given the nickname "Chief" in 'Nam 'cause everybody knows Indians can track better than anyone else.
I am, as an individual, offended by the idiotic corporate types who think they know better of my culture/heritage/history than I and that "I" should be proud that they are "honoring" me/Native Americans with their choice of a mascot.
But, hey, that's the dominant culture way - keep'm down boys - names can't hurt'm - and, no, not a whole hell of a lot offends dominant culture as long as the dollars and whiskey flow.
The world has changed and the dominant race ain't so dominant anymore. They need to get used to that.
If you do a search on bing for "redskin" the first thing you see is an AI generated summary saying the term is a slur against Native Americans.
The question we have to ask is why people want to dispute this? What is the point? Do conservatives really truly want an ethnic slur to be used as a team name?
IMO this is all about trying to contradict the "woke" who called for changing the name. "Redskins" never existed to honor the Indians, it existed to honor the football team. As time passes now, the football team will be just as honored to be known as the Commanders, especially when and if they win the Super Bowl.
So if a few people decide the fighting irish is an offensive caricature, all mention of the Irish, or Gaels or similar nicknames become slurs? That's now how it works. Teams do not name themselves after things to denigrate themselves. It's a real simple concept going back thousands of years. The Romans didn't use the Eagle as the symbol of their legions to mock eagles or make fun of how weak eagles are.
I have no doubt you suffered those insults and abuse. But this simply not the same thing and the only thing renaming does is erase Indians from our common culture.
You might want to read this article and tell me if this is virtue signaling.
I'm Indian and Jewish, and I don't want to see a team with that name as much as I wouldn't want to see "The K*kes"
It is a very sad state of affairs if the only way Indians can stay in the "common culture" is if they are appropriated as sports mascots.
Then I demand one of our local high schools change their mascot back to the Red Devil
You will never hear ANY argument from me on that.
Trump and his cohorts are trying hard to make it happen here. His fascist supporters pretend it can't as a distraction.
As I seem to recall the name was changed because they bowed to the pressure of the woke crowds (many of them liberals that were not actually native Americans) at the time that were offended by everything and demanded that everyone bend to their will or be canceled. The tide is changing and the perpetually insulted are being ignored more and more. If the owner wants to change the name back he should. He should not be pressured by anyone to do so. Trump is just as bad as the woke trying to put pressure on a sports team owner to do his bidding. Maybe he could spend his time with more important issues.