Authoritarianism
'Trump's Mussolini': Orban's Mar-A-Lago Visit Signals Fascist Alliance

Viktor Orban

This weekend, while President Biden championed the merits of democracy during various campaign stops in swing states, former President Donald Trump hosted far-right Hungarian autocratic president Viktor Orbán at Mar-a-Lago and even took him to a concert.

Trump's friendliness with the Hungarian prime minister is likely due to the fact that Orbán's central guiding philosophy and preferred method of governing are similar to Trump's, and could provide insight as to what a second Trump presidency would look like. Like Trump, Orbán is hostile toward immigrants, and notably built a massive border fence in the wake of the Syrian refugee crisis to keep asylum-seekers out of Hungary. His political party, Fidesz, has cracked down on press freedom and has sought to revise textbooks to exclude mentions of the LGBTQ+ community. And most revealingly, Orbán has made changes to Hungary's government that allow him to stay in power for an extended period of time.

While addressing a crowd at Mar-a-Lago, Trump extolled his leadership style publicly, saying "there’s nobody that’s better, smarter or a better leader than Viktor Orbán, he's fantastic... He says, 'This is the way it's gonna be,' and that’s the end of it. He's the boss."

Trump's comments caused significant alarm on social media, with journalists, commentators and elected officials urging voters to pay attention to the former president's praise of an "autocrat."

"How many different ways does Trump need to tell you he's going to rule as a dictator before you believe him?" Philadelphia Inquirer columnist Will bunch tweeted.

Former federal prosecutor Richard Signorelli wrote on X/Twitter that Orbán was "Trump's Mussolini," suggesting the former president and the Hungarian leader could be the "new Axis powers' alliance."

"History is repeating itself but outcome not inevitable if we defeat our modern day Hitler & his deranged MAGA/Nazi cult at [the] ballot box," Signorelli tweeted. "Unfortunately, I do not see law enforcement timely addressing the menace so it's left to us again."

Others viewed the video as an illuminating preview of what Trump hopes to do if he retakes the White House. Sen. Brian Schatz (D-HI) called the former president "the leader of a global fascist movement" and added his role as the catalyst for the global far-right should be seen as the "central historical context of the coming campaign." Journalist and lawyer Daniel Miller called on the New York Times in particular to publish a "massive headline about Trump wanting to be a dictator" every day until the election. And Sarah Longwell, who is publisher of anti-Trump conservative website The Bulwark, urged news outlets to not hold back in calling out Trump's affinity for far-right dictators.

"Just because it’s old news that Donald Trump loves autocrats doesn’t mean it doesn’t deserve wall-to-wall coverage when he does things like this," she wrote. "Because it’s insane."

Columnist and podcaster Charles Adler tweeted about his firsthand experience with Orbán's brand of governing, writing that he "destroyed democracy in Hungary - land of my birth."

"Hungarians of my generation fled for the US and Canada to get the hell away from authoritarianism," Adler said. "Now this decaying Mar-A-Lago conman is huckstering Hungarian authoritarianism. It's as if [Russian President Vladimir] Putin is producing this s---show."

Reprinted with permission from Alternet.

Start your day with National Memo Newsletter

Know first.

The opinions that matter. Delivered to your inbox every morning

Former President Donald Trump
Donald Trump

Apparently interpreting the Supreme Court's decision on the 14th Amendment as a personal vote of confidence, Donald Trump pushed his luck, urging the justices to rule swiftly that he has absolute immunity as well.

That is not likely. Most observers thought the court would reject Colorado's action because permitting it would have invited chaos in the middle of an ongoing election and because the court husbands its legitimacy. Had it upheld Colorado's disqualification, the court would instantly have become a hate object for 70% of Republicans, who would have perceived its ruling as baldly political, denying to voters their free choice of candidate.

The presidential immunity claim is another matter. A ruling that completely adopted Trump's position in that case would essentially gut the Constitution, permitting a president to accept bribes, use taxpayer money to build a series of palaces for himself all over the world, or arrest and torture his critics. As the D.C. Circuit Court put it: "At bottom, former President Trump's stance would collapse our system of separated powers by placing the president beyond the reach of all three branches."

Here's the rub: If Trump is reelected in November, he will essentially have total immunity, regardless of what the court says.

A reelected Trump would have the voters' imprimatur for lawlessness. If he wins in November, the message from voters will be: Yes, we know he mishandled the most sensitive classified documents and obstructed justice rather than return them. And we know he caused the deaths of millions of COVID patients by lying about the threat of the virus and discouraging precautions. And we know he invited his followers to threaten and harass innocent election workers, secretaries of state and governors. And we know that he called for shoplifters to be shot on sight and said the Constitution should be terminated. We know he said he'd be a dictator for a day. Above all, we know that he attempted to subvert the peaceful transfer of power and remain in office despite the will of the people. And we chose him anyway. Reelection would grant absolution for all of it.

The supposed guardrails of democracy are already creaking and groaning at the prospect of another Trump term. Just look at the state of the GOP. As a "might be" president, he is already able to dictate the composition of the Republican National Committee, rig a primary in Nevada, kill a border bill that would have given Republicans 90% of what they've been demanding for years and undermine Republican support for Ukraine.

Now imagine that Trump is president again and instructs the Justice Department to bring treason charges against Jack Smith. Who will stop him? The carefully vetted MAGA lawyers he has hired precisely for their loyalty?

What if he instructs the IRS to audit and fine Liz Cheney, Adam Schiff, George Conway, and hundreds of other prominent critics? This violates IRS rules. But will IRS employees, again hired for loyalty to Trump, demur? After all, he did run on the promise, "I am your retribution," and his voters agreed.

What if he directs the SEC to investigate banks that refuse to loan the Trump Organization money? Would any whistleblower risk his job or worse?

What if, in response to street demonstrations, Trump invokes the Insurrection Act and federalizes the national guard, allowing the military to shut down protests and arrest (or worse) demonstrators without cause?

In Trump's first term, he was partially thwarted by strong institutions, yes — but above all by a deep commitment to the rule of law among the citizens of this country. A mid-level NSC staffer found the courage to defy the president's illegal and immoral acts because of his deep faith in the people's values. As Alexander Vindman said to his father, who, having grown up in the totalitarian USSR, worried about what might happen to his son for opposing the president, "Do not worry, I will be fine for telling the truth."

Except he wasn't. Not quite. He and (for spite) his twin brother were fired from the NSC. His military promotion was put on hold. He was harassed. It would be far, far worse in a second Trump term. Would there even be Alexander Vindmans in a second Trump presidency?

Doubtful. The mob justice that Trump has practiced and been rewarded for would intimidate nearly all. And they would not be enough to preserve constitutional democracy.

As Judge Learned Hand said in his 1944 "Spirit of Liberty" speech:

"I often wonder whether we do not rest our hopes too much upon constitutions, upon laws and upon courts. These are false hopes; believe me, these are false hopes. Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it."

On April 22, the Supreme Court will hear arguments on presidential immunity and will perhaps issue a ruling full of pious talk about the rule of law. But the words will be empty if Trump is elected.

Reprinted with permission from Creators.