The NY Times dedicated lots of space to an analysis of Hungary and how it might start to resemble Russia-within-the-EU as, in their opinion, Orban starts resembling Putin. Unmistakeaby the NYT prefers personalizing the countries that it doesn't consider conform to its own self-righteous ideology.
Today they didn't hide what that ideology really is. They actually named it - liberal democracy. I for one am mesmirized by what this new form of government stands for. My only interpretation is that it belongs to a category quite similar to absolute monarchy, autocratic imperialism or technocratic oligarchy. In any event, it ought to mean more than just simply a "democracy", as defined at the end of the 19th century.
How much more? Or, how much less? I truly wonder! It seems to me, based on their analysis of the newest Hungary, they mean a democracy mitigated by a kind of dictate from the (so-called) "liberals" - in US lingo, "liberal" carries a load that makes many ordinary observers think of elitist communism and self-righteous principles.
Given the amounts of money spent in the US to "democratically" elect senators and others, one may wonder whether the Hungarian democracy is any worse than the American version. Then again, liberal democrats wouldn't know, because they believe to be to part of the supreme liberal religion, in a seculairzed Western society!
Orbans' orbs may yet prove to be better for its citizens than Obama's urbs!
Grimburger, 7th of November 2014