Zoltan,

I agree with much of your analysis, especially the link to the onion (thanks) but you need to get over this:

"by his own admission lied to gain reelection and then refused to resign"

Politicians lie, it's part of the job description, take a look at how Obama's positions on Iran and publically financed elections have changed has his presidential campaign developed. Gyurcsany's mistake - and its a big one - was to admit that he had lied, an American or Western European politician wouldn't be so naive. Orbán certianly isn't.

I agree with you that that Gyurcsány is cynically manipulating far-right politics to enhance his electoral position. But sometimes the dodgy things politicians do lead to the betterment of society, or even the world - look at how Roosevelt mislead the American people over his intentions towards Nazi Germany.

Gyurcsány is actually leading here, and forcing the Hungarian people to do some thinking about what is worse: "tanned and oiled boys cavorting in jock straps" or throwing petrol bombs.

Adrian,

If I "get over" the fact that he admitted to lying for reelection and refused to resign, the obvious message I would send is "Please walk all over me. Say and do whatever you wish, I won't mind."

Everyone knows honest people rarely go into politics, but is it too much to ask that politicians not admit they're full of it, or be held accountable when they do?

And while leather thong-clad boys concern me far less than petrol bombs, (combine the two and you've got a money-making formula for a niche market), the only thing Gyurcsány is leading is his own party into the abyss.

Zoltán,

You maybe right that "Gyurcsány is leading is his own party into the abyss." but that would be because he has made a misjudgement about where the Hungarian people are willing to be led. Returning the onion article, on the issue of public "morality" Hungary is more similar to America in 1969 than in 2008.

I can see that he has done nothing more than been naive. What do you think his crime is? "but is it too much to ask that politicians not admit they're full of it, or be held accountable when they do?" seems to suggest that this crime is arrogance. As with lying, anybody who puts themselves forward for high public office, necessarily has this in spades.

As for accountability, he is immediately and continually accountable to his party, and they will decide whether and when it is expedient for him to 'resign'. Come the next election, the Hungarian people will decide to whether or not to hold them accountable for Gyurcsány's performance as primeminister.

Adrian,

In terms of public morality, I'd say it comes down to heterosexual vs. homosexual morality. Hungary is far less open toward homosexuals than America is, but far more open in terms of heterosexual matters.

Neither Gyurcsány nor Orbán are lacking in arrogance, but the Socialists have not held Gyurcsány accountable for the lies speech, and if they dump him before the next elections, it will be for other reasons. Their failure to hold him accountable is the reason the people will dump them in the next election cycle.

Zoltan,

While your anaylsis of the dynamic between the prime minister and the extreme right is persuasive, I must take exception to your breezy dismissal of the value and worth of gay pride celebrations. As humorously clever as the linked "Onion" article is, it, too, is just as guilty as the mainstream media in distorting, under-reporting, and generally missing the point of gay pride events. I live in West Hollywood, where we had 400,000 attendees at last month's parade, very few of whom were shockingly clad. Many of the offputting images are the result of paying parade sponsors who don't want to pay for understatement. But to focus exclusively on the carnivalesque aspect of these events is to reinscribe the same oppressive dynamic against which the marchers are protesting; at best, it's condescending. I marched in Saturday's parade, as I did in the last peaceful parade a few years ago. Except for two or three party floats, that peaceful march was the very image of a quiet summer festival. We walked down Andrassy, old ladies waved from balconies, and hundreds of marchers got tired feet. But what did the Hungarian evening news show? The few racy images, as well as the six protesters who showed up. It's as if the American Super Bowl were aired with only images of the busty cheerleaders and the beer ads. There is plenty of substance and content to pride marches; it's not our fault that the MSM and its allies--even the humorous ones--choose to be dismissive. It's yours.

Zoltán,

I think we are about done on Gyurcsány's culpability. My view is that he has bad judgement for a politician, not that he is morally more reprehensible than anybody else in Hungarian politics. Compared to Blair's lies over weapons of mass destruction, lying over the state of the Hungarian economy was small beer. I am continually surprised by the high expectations Hungarians have of their politicans.

As for homosexual vs heterosexual morality - this dichotomy makes me really nervous, but this is not an ethics blog. It just isn't a matter of "openness" it's a matter of prejudice and discrimination.

Blair,

I think you are right to point out that the media representation of the event was focused on the extremes of sexual behaviour and the right-wing reaction. But your own account seems to understate the scale and intensity of the reaction, presumably because of the position you were in the march.

Given the predictability of the MSM editorial priorities, do you not think that the gay community would serve its own interests better if it limited the sexual display on these parades?

Zoltan,

I do not agree with your "analyze". You do the Fidesz-stunt, mix political ideas with violence. Where else in Europe (out-side the old Soviet-occupied East-Europe) has a number of politicians homes been fire-bombed? Journalists been beaten up for political or racial reasons?

The problem is not the right-wing morons ideas and that they display them publically (which I beleive they should have the right to do in a Democracy). The problem is that they use violence as a political mean. If they would quote the Koran, we would call them "terrorists", so what is the difference?

Ideas should be debated - not molotov-coctailed.

It is certainly about time there was a large public demonstration against extremists, but it’s unfortunate that Gyurcsány should be leading it. With his name attached to the event, turnout will be lower. As Zoltán said, many feel that opposition to extremists means joining the same camp as the prime minister. (Though there’s no compelling reason why people should feel that way. Is it because no other camp speaks out against extremists?)
A Viktor Orbán-sponsored rally against extremists, on the other hand, would probably marginalise them once and for all. But that’s obviously not going to happen.
Ideally, such a rally should be organised by a group or prominent individual with no links to any political party. Only then might it become clear to the far right that the vast majority of society, rather than just supporters of the government, wishes that they would go away.
The space for civil society in Hungary – the scope for people or groups to act on an issue without being seen as agents of one political party or the other – is being squeezed out of existence.

Interesting analysis, Zoltán, but I sense you are uncomfortable not only with Gyurcsány but with gays as well. (Get over the name of Gyurcsány's party. It is socialist in name only. In practice, it's just a social democratic party.)

Gay Pride parades have been attacked in several East European countries, many with right-wing governing parties. Was Gyurcsány responsible for those attacks too?

Looking at the Hungarian situation in isolation will give you a false understanding about the problem. The "problem," of course, is homophobia - a problem shared by a large heterosexist majority.

Blair,

As a former Angeleno, I'm quite familiar with the West Hollywood parade. I believe the Onion article was based off either that or the SF pride parades. As far as I know, most of the people at this past weekend's parade were just folks out marching, due to the lack of photos of people cavorting in leather thongs. Let me put it this way: I have no objection to pride parades, and if it consisted just of people marching with flags and signs while holding hands, that would be great, but there's a reason my gay friends hate these parades: because it gives people the wrong impression of what being gay is.

Adrian,

I prefer not to compare Hungarian politicians to others in the category of "it could be worse." Of course it could, but that's an excuse to keep from improving. I prefer "it could be better."

Viking,

You have missed the point if you believe I've advocated violence. So, in short, the point of the piece was that the government and the far-right "work together" to justify each other's actions. I'm not an expert when it comes to Northern Ireland, but I believe someone more knowledgeable in that area would back me up that during the Troubles, being a politician or journalist wasn't the safest means of employment.

Kincs,

An Orbán-led anti-extremism rally would, I think, do a massive job of pulling out the rug from under the far-right. As for your other point, I agree that non-political groups should become more involved. The problem I find is that while they will sometimes launch something, political parties become involved and therefore "co-opt" it, thus undercutting the point of it to begin with.

Joe,

I'm not denying homophobia exists in Hungary, but as I said, the majority of people weren't there to protest against the parade on Saturday. The Gay Pride March just provided the far-right with a convenient excuse to cause problems.

Zoltan,

Regrding your assertion below that your gay friends dislike Gay Pride "because it gives people the wrong impression of what being gay is," I rather think it's more a combination of ignorance and self loathing. I saw one or two drag queens on Saturday, out of hundreds of marchers, but guess whose photo made it into some of the papers. When you were an Angeleno, did you ever actually attend the West Hollywood parade? To dismiss Pride events for some of the spectacle is like dismissing Venice because it holds Carnivale, or maybe even Budapest itself because it allows blatant hetero prostitution every evening in the center of the downtown tourist district. I walked in the recent parade with a Hungarian graduate of an American ivy league school; there were numerous PhD's as well. But if the press remains too smug--or lazy--to report the real story, how can we expect Hungarian gays to take the next step towards social awareness? They will keep reading stories from a smug, lazy, condescending press that presents tired, one-dimensional images, and they will remain afraid. I don't say the press should necessarily agree with my position; I say the press should do its job, which should not include reinforcing tired stereotypes.

Blair,

I agree with your comments. They're right on!

But don't get too worked up about the media in Hungary.

Just look at who owns this site: The All Hungary Media Group.

They also own:

http://www.sexiside.hu/

Check it out and you will understand the heterosexual bias here.

-

Here's a picture from the Budapest-Parádé 2004 augusztus 28.

http://www.qsl.net/hg5acx/Budapest_parade_elemei/PICT2852.jpg (NOT WORK SAFE)

So, what's the big deal about gays and lesbians marching in Budapest?

NOTHING!!!

-

Joe,

Thank you for that priceless photo from Aug. 2004! Like Zoltan does about Pride Marches, I must make assumptions about this parade based on photos I see in the press. Maybe these figures of Hungarian maidenhood were baring their breasts for the glory of St. Istvan and Hungarian Christendom.

Zoltán,

"I prefer not to compare Hungarian politicians to others in the category of "it could be worse." Of course it could, but that's an excuse to keep from improving. I prefer "it could be better."

Good point.

I don't know enough about the original Hungarian "we screwed up" speech, but what I have read in translation leads me to think that Gyurcsány was actually speaking against lying in politics.

Surely - by your standards - that is a better position than that of Fidesz, who used the same prognoses about the Hungarian Economy in their manifesto, rather than challenging these assumptions, which is how an opposition should function. The reason Fidesz did this is not because they naively assumed the government wouldn't lie about the economy, but because they knew that the electorate was in no mood to hear economic bad news.

Yes, Gyurcsány made this speech at a private meeting. Yes, he didn't feel the need to resign or even apologise. But, I still feel that the response of the opposition and the public was a retrograde step in the development of honest public discourse in Hungary. No Hungarian politician will ever be so foolish again to admit that he lied, and soon we will have - like Bush and Blair - a generation of politicians who do not consider the of truth of their statements at all, only their persuasiveness.

A problem as old as democracy: remember they killed Socrates.

In reaction to Joe's charge of hetero bias, as the proprietor of this and the other sites of the All Hungary network, let me just say in all sincerity that one of our few actual "corporate policies" is to be as GLBT/ LGBT-friendly as possible, whether in terms of hiring or inflicting the maximum torture possible on Hungary's shovel-headed homophobes. Regarding sexiside, the reason it may seem to have a hetero bias is that it's supposed to be about people being naughty, sex-wise, in Hungary, and most of these people happen to be hetero.

As for whether I was at the march, I'm afraid to say I wasn't. (I was having a nice quiet weekend in the country with - yes - a few gay BP friends.) But I will make sure not to miss it next year. I know all this has a whiff of "some of my best friends are..." but you hopefully get my point; call us what you want, but I don't think the charge of hetero bias is valid.

Blair & Joe,

If drag queens don't show up at gay pride events, the media can't take pictures of them, even if they comprise only a minority of those present. And please point out where in relation to Saturday's events any of the All Hungary websites focused on drag queens or people in leather chaps. It's because of the stereotypes that are reinforced by some participants at these parades that both I and my gay friends have mixed feelings about them.

And I can't say I've gone to the WeHo parade since I don't go to parades, regardless of if Santa Claus is involved or if it's the Rose Parade.

Adrian,

I acknowledge that Gyurcsány's speech was meant to bring a new "cleanliness" to the Socialists. It even included a veiled charge of blackmail toward the end if they don't follow him. But a man who has admitted to lying doesn't possess the political or moral capital to then undertake what Gyurcsány is doing. The best thing at the time would have been for Gyurcsány to resign with someone else in the party replacing him, not new elections.

Eric,

I appreciate your comments very much.

It's true that bias almost always has a negative connotation. But it also means a preference or an inclination for something. Even in Hungarian, elfogultság can mean "fondness." That is the sense I used the word to describe sexiside.

I don't look at that site much because I don't have a keen interest in tits and naked women. But I don't have a problem with *anyone* being naughty sex-wise. After all, I do my fair share of naughty queer sex stuff. ;-))

And I really hope you do go to next year's BP Pride parade. And take your gay friends with you! I would probably get teary-eyed if I saw several hundred PFLAG (parents and friends of lesbians and gays) members in next year's parade.

I really have to admire those who took part in the parade because it seems everyone knew there would be violence by the extreme right-wing. I hope I would have the same courage if I lived in BP.

Zoltán wrote:

"It's because of the stereotypes that are reinforced by some participants at these parades that both I and my gay friends have mixed feelings about them."

You know, Zoltán, I didn't like drag queens when I was young. I was gay and I didn't want anyone to think I was like "that." I wasn't. I looked straight and acted straight. But as I grew to except the fact that I'm queer I stopped my self-loathing and I lost my fear of drag queens.

While it's true that not everyone likes a parade, it's also true that most parades are over-the-top, extravagant, outrageous fun events.

In Toronto's Pride parade, bare-breasted women and naked men (members of TNT - totally nude Toronto) parade alongside heterosexual mothers, clergy, politicians, cops and (this year for the first time) members of Canada's military.

No one fainted and no one had a coronary attack.

I say, get with it - leben und leben lassen.

Erik,

I don't consider this site to have a hetero bias, and I think it would be terrific if you came to see next year's march.

Zoltan,

Sorry, but fearful, closeted gays who make drag queens the "scary other" and who refuse to bring their own "normal-looking" selves out in the open are the problem here. It's not who attends, but rather who sits at home with their tails between their legs. If all of the boring gays in Hungary would give up one Saturday afternoon in the year, then not only would the perceived character of the event change, but so would the dialogue about sexuality. In this respect, the drag queens proved that they have bigger balls than the girly gays sitting at home . . . because that's really what keeps your gay friends at home. Fear, not distaste.

Blair,

as my comments on the negative aspects of drag queens being the "scary other" have been in line with Zoltán's for the duration of these comments, I feel I also have the right to have it implied I am also a "fearful, closeted gay[] ... who refuses to bring their own "normal-looking" sel[f] out in the open.

Needless to say I am living as a happily married heterosexual with three kids, but having watched "Pick up your ears" only yesterday I have a theory about this...

Zoltán,

"But a man who has admitted to lying doesn't possess the political or moral capital to then undertake what Gyurcsány is doing"

I don't think you should equate political and moral capital like this: I was always taught a man who honestly admits a mistake has plenty of moral capital, the fact that he doesn't also gain politcal capital is a reflection on the morals of the polity in which he operates, or on his judgement.

Adrian,
Do you speak Hungarian? Have you listened to any of Gyurcsany's speeches recently? If yes, you should know that he's still lying.
Now you say that all politicians lie, that's what they do. That's true, but they occasionally do something for their country or at least make an effort. Well, Gyurcsany does nothing (nothing good or useful), he's busy lying to the people.
You seem to like him, tell me why?
Do you approve his way of dealing with our financial troubles by ordering and paying for yet another completely unnecessary government website? Did you know that it cost the taxpayers 200 million? This alone should make him unelectable.
He's about to unleash another costly media campaign selling more lies and nonsense to the people. He lost his credibility years ago and hasn't done anything useful since. He refuses to even consider a much needed tax reform or any other business friendly changes. Last year alone more than 10,000 small and medium businesses moved out of Hungary. Any kid who ever played Sim City can tell you that high taxes and bad regulations can be a deadly combination to the economy.
Anyway, it's your turn to explain why you still believe in Gyurcsany. Is it a religious thing?

Stan

- Do you speak Hungarian?
Please read my previous comments before you challenge anything you think I think, it will make you look less stupid.

- You seem to like him?
No, I don't like arrogant liars. But Gyurcsány seemed to still be aware of the significance of the difference between true and false, unlike all the other politicans I have mentioned in this blog.

- He lost his credibility years ago and hasn't done anything useful since.
Ordinary Hungarians do not pay their taxes yet they expect government largesse in nearly every aspect of their lives. Gyurcsány has collected taxes, I think this is very useful. Small businessmen are the main perpetuators and beneficiaries of this widespread tax fraud. "Simor said. Similarly, April wages at large companies slowed and increased rapidly only at small companies, which could be due to an increase in legal employment" http://www.realdeal.hu/20080624/analysts-baffled-as-hungarian-national-bank-keeps-rate-unchanged

- it's your turn to explain why you still believe in Gyurcsany.

I don't believe in Gyurcsány, he's a poor politician, but some of the criticism against him - like yours - has been hysterical. I don't think its a good idea to let hysteria flourish unchecked, that aids the real anti-liberals.

Adrian,

In terms of moral and political capital, it depends on what happened. If Gyurcsány had received a blowjob from an overweight intern, I would have no qualms about that, as it is something that does not relate to his duties as prime minister. However, when the very thing he has admitted to is misleading the nation which is a central tenet of his job description, something he had no difficulty doing until winning a new term, then I take exception.

I would add that all of my friends on the left who aren't beholden to partisan politics believe he should have resigned after the speech became public.

Zoltán,

this is turning into a labour of love...

So, if Gyurcsány had not admitted to misleading people in that speech, but had chosen some other line of argument, say "statistical error" or "adverse international economic environment", to explain the abrupt change in policy, it would all have been OK?

For me lying is morally wrong, admitting lying is morally good (courts look favourably on confession): lying is often politically necessary, admitting lying was in this case politically disastrous. You are lumping these four different things together.

Give me a genuine example of a politician resigning in a fit of moral disgust with his behaviour and I'll eat my keyboard. They don't jump, they are pushed. The only interesting question about Gyurcsány's "resignation" is why the MSZP is keeping him on.

PS "the very thing he has admitted to is misleading the nation which is a central tenet of his job description". Are you sure you wanted to write that?

Zoltan,

For me as a non-Hungarian I do have a problem (like Adrian D?) to understand why you and other Hungarians seem to have the biggest problem with that Gyurcsány admitted to have done unethical things during the run-up to the 2006 General Elections. It seems like you are most upset that he actually admitted this? Not the act itself, just the admittance - That makes him "un-worthy".

Also, which we have debated before, Gyurcsány never made any "threaths" to the audience. He simple outlined his ideas for the future and asked his "bosses" (the MSZP Parliamentarian group, who actually are the ones who choose Gyurcsány as PM) to support him, or choose another leader. Normally what any Board would expect from any CEO.

Adrian D - It was not a "private" meeting, it was an official meeting with the MSZP Parliamentarian group, close to 200 people, who met after the election to outline the policies for this Parliament period. Every Party have these meetings and they are normally closed to the public.

There is an English version of the speech on wiki, keep on searching for Gyurcsány and you will find it. I found it too boring for me to read through. It is a bit long.

Following Zoltan and Stan (and a few others) one can get the feeling that Gyurcsány is living in a fish bowl. He is not an. He has had and still have enough support from his "bosses", the MSZP Parliamentarian group. The demand to get rid of Gyurcsány should be targeted at them. Gyurcsány hardly will change his mind

Adrian,

I admit to phrasing that badly. What I meant to say is that leading the nation is the central tenet of his job description, and if he spent the first two years of his prime ministership doing a bad job (or nothing at all, which he himself admitted to), that shows he shouldn't be in that position. It's not so much what he said, but that he admitted to doing wrong until "Gee, I won an election, guess I can 'fess up now."

Thing is, if let's say a similar situation happened in the United States, or western Europe, the person in question would resign not out of the goodness of his/her heart, but because his/her party would force them to. The Socialists should have forced him out, but they didn't. They will pay for that at the polls. We know Nixon resigned because his own party was about to have his head.

Adrian/Viking,

It's not the lying so much as it's that for two years, he contributed to putting Hungary into a hole that he now says he can take us out of. So while the lying part is a big deal, the question it comes down to is are you going to trust the doctor who cut off your wrong foot to then reattach it? He was part of the problem, which is why I don't trust him to be part of the solution.

Viking,

In the original text on Gyurcsány's own blog, toward the end of the speech he said:

"Amíg nagy tempóval lehet menni előre, addig megyünk. Ha nem lehet menni, és elmagyarázzátok, hogy igen, de… Ahhoz énszerintem én nem köllök. Ahhoz más kell. És írok majd kibaszott jó könyveket a modern magyar baloldalról. – As long as we can go forward with a good tempo, then we go. If we can’t, and you make excuses, then you don’t need me for that. For that you need someone else. And I’ll write fucking good books on the modern Hungarian Left."

To me, that doesn't read like he'll be a biographer of the left, but as "follow me, or I'll expose you all."

Zoltán wrote:

"Thing is, if let's say a similar situation happened in the United States, or western Europe, the person in question would resign not out of the goodness of his/her heart, but because his/her party would force them to."

That didn't happen with the Republican Party and George Bush. Bush lied and fabricated "evidence" to carry out an illegal war in Iraq. Not only did his party not force him out, the Americans re-elected him. And look what is happening to the American economy. It's going down, just like it did after Vietnam.

The "weapons of mass destruction" turned out to be the American army. Truly disgusting.

By comparison, Gyurcsány is a saint.

I remember an old Hungarian saying my mother told me and it goes something like this: Tell the truth and expect to get slapped in the face.

Gyurcsány is getting slapped!

Zoltán,

"If I "get over" the fact that he admitted to lying for reelection and refused to resign, the obvious message I would send is "Please walk all over me. Say and do whatever you wish, I won't mind."

"It's not the lying so much as it's that for two years, he contributed to putting Hungary into a hole that he now says he can take us out of"

You seem to have changed yur position over the significance of lying. Can I (light-heartedly) suggest that like a politician you've realised that your argument is not making much headway, so you've moved to one that is maybe more persuasive.

I agree that Hungary is in a hole politically, but how much is a result of Gyúrcsány's poor judgement (the same thing seems to be happening over his anti-extremism) and how much is due to the reaction of the opposition. As Joe has pointed out Bush has lied with far more evil consequences than Gyurcsány has, but the Democratic party is not claiming that Bush's government is illegal or that as a consequence the constition needs an overhaul, nor is the democratic leadership boycotting the president.
A commitment to due process of government is more important than castigating the behaviour of one bad politician.

But as everyone now seems to agree the important question is why the hell is the MSZP tolerating him?

Adrian,

It's not so inherently contradictory if you consider that what's behind the two statements is a lack of accountability for one's actions.

In regards to Fidesz not reacting in the best way, well, duh, but at least unlike the Democrats they've shown they have spine. The Democratic Party, despite being the majority party in the house and senate, is still acting like the minority party, on the defensive, refusing to bring articles of impeachment when Bush is a bigger crook than Nixon ever was.