Table of Contents – Foreign – Douglas Murray: Closures Evoke Totalitarian Regimes

Spend a month in Hungary. What is the reason for this long visit?

I received a scholarship from the Danube Institute, lecturing and attending a conference on the subject of international patriotism between the institute and the MCC. In my opinion, life takes place in Hungary, so I didn’t want to miss out.

Aren’t you afraid that the Hungarian government will use you to justify its own policy?

I’m not worried about that because I can’t be used. I have an independent opinion, I have never supported or opposed political parties. In the United States, for example, several journalists have asked me if I support Donald Trump or Joe Bident in the presidential elections. To this I have always answered: I am not a US citizen, that is, I am not competent in the matter. Of course, this does not mean that there are no specific areas of Hungarian politics that are not of interest. Immigration policy, for example, is one of them.

By the way, do you support the Hungarian government’s immigration policy?

I would say that what Hungary represents in terms of immigration is closer to reality than what we are experiencing in other parts of Europe. Here it is worth recalling, for example, the reaction of the German government to the migration crisis of 2015. In politics, I find it particularly exciting for those who, although they are the first to respond correctly to a problem, have still been judged unfavorably. There were them in the Cold War, the so-called early anti-communists: although they were the first to see the danger in the Soviet Union in the spread of far-left ideas, posterity still refers to them as fascists to this day. Take, for example, the initiative of French President Emmanuel Macron at the European Council, which would essentially tighten the conditions for immigration. If we take it this way, France has confirmed the position that the Hungarian government has been adopting for years. This begs the question: when will this be recognized? Monsieur Macron, shouldn’t that have been said already in 2015? So the answer to your question is yes, there are several points in the immigration policy of Viktor Orbán and Fidesz with which I agree.

So Macron got on a platform with Orbán. Meanwhile, however, Democratic candidate Joe Bident was elected in the United States, on which the international press commented: the twilight of illiberal democracies has arrived.

I do not think it is fortunate to approach world politics from the left and the right. This is the narrative of the Anglo-Saxon liberal newspapers, but these processes are much more complicated. Brexit, for example, has nothing to do with Donald Trump, even though The New York Times writes that Boris Johnson and Trump also have funny hair. Brexit was a question of sovereignty, while behind Trumpism there were other complex processes. What is happening in Central Europe is still different, but it is not possible to equate what is happening in Hungary or Slovakia. If we look at the US presidential election as a defense or against decisions made in the Trump era, we do not see a clear victory. The outcome of the elections is still disputed by many.

Therefore, the Biden-Harris government will not have as much legitimacy as it would like. Still, I think it will be an example in many countries, including Hungary. Already during the campaign, some unfair accusations were made. Yet the United States is not in a position to educate others. Which is a big problem anyway, because there are countries in the world that fit the bill.

Have you seen the idiocracy?

I’ve heard of it, but can’t remember it. What was it about?

The story takes place in the future. People can no longer think, they make all their decisions on an emotional basis. Don’t you feel like the western world is heading towards a similar future?

There must be quite a few problems. In the United States, a number of decisions have been made over the past four years that the Trump administration has been unable to implement. Simply because the president was not a good organizer, he could not put together an effective team in four years. There were hardly any people who could work with him for more than six months. So of course I’m not saying Trump was an idiot, but it was a glaring lack of serious design skills. It also failed in the coronavirus epidemic. It is true that most countries in the Western world have serious problems with this. We seem unable to strike a balance between the health threat posed by the epidemic and mitigating the economic damage.

States are mainly trying to tackle the problem through closures and, as you mentioned, they are not very successful. Couldn’t it be that we could try to entrust the decision to individuals, to communities, rather than to an overwhelmed state?

We are treating the epidemic now as if the virus was true to what we thought it was when it first appeared. I agreed with the spring closures because we really didn’t know what we were up against. It could have been another Spanish flu, but now it is known that the virus is not that dangerous. For example, it represents very little danger to young people, thank God we are not dealing with a birth disease. I think when historians look back at this period, they will say: there was a moderately dangerous virus that caused all countries to burn their economic reserves.

In Britain 70 per cent of the population agrees with the closures, but as far as I know, most people in Hungary think so. If a year ago someone told me that 70 per cent of British people want to live in lockdown, I certainly don’t take that person seriously. I think the governments scared the population much more than necessary.

Then people panicked, which scared governments. And now governments are scaring people into making sense of ineffective measures?

This happens. After all, governments have to do the will of the people and the people want closures. But who will break this vicious cycle? At some point, someone has to intervene. I was reminded of another example: a survey was conducted in the UK, and 28 percent of those surveyed maintained closures even after the five epidemiological conditions set by the government were met.

What can you know about these people?

Most of them are probably struggling with old age or chronic diseases. In your case, of course, the fear is justified. But there must be some among them who now don’t have to travel in the morning, they can work from home to earn at least 80 percent of their salary. Most of them have spacious suburban houses and live in a happy family environment. However, this is not given to everyone.

While a wealthy, middle-aged or older couple experiences closure as a blessing, the generation and income gap is widening in many countries. It is particularly difficult for young people who live in big cities. They were pushed into small and very expensive apartments, while the situation on the job market was tragic. I fully understand young people who are frustrated by this. It is a very big request from a beginner to put his life aside for a year.

However, politicians seem to make their decisions through Facebook comments and there is still panic on social sites. Young people may be upset by this too.

Probably yes. The point is that no one in much of the world was counting on the epidemic, we face it immediately. Since then, we have mainly learned to live with it based on our own experiences. In the environment of many, the virus did not require sacrifices. I also remember the moment when I decided to take a risk, to sit at a table for dinner with my friends. Therefore, I took a risk. This was at a time of sympathy for the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement, when crowds also took to the streets in London. Although all predicted an increase in infection data, in the end it did not happen. The demonstrations had no trace of the epidemic curve. I was with him, if thousands could protest in the street, I could also meet some friends. So the question is how our society relates to risk taking. It is clear that governments are afraid to decide to the detriment of security, they fear that it will later be counterproductive. People, on the other hand, will soon have to decide whether they really want to live in such public conditions. I think this becomes a personal problem. It is up to each person to decide for themselves what risk to take. Don’t get me wrong, if there are high-risk people among your loved ones, of course, the strictest precautions should be taken – everything from wearing a mask to physical distance to voluntary quarantine.

(Cover Image: Attila Trenka / Index)