Monthly Archives: June 2021

An ultrawealthy Republican donor and a former British spy spearheaded an effort to train GOP operatives to go undercover and infiltrate liberal organizations, The New York Times reported Friday.

The donor, Erik Prince, is a hardline Trump supporter who founded the private military contractor Blackwater, now known as Academi. Prince worked with a former British spy, Richard Seddon, on a conservative operation to "infiltrate progressive groups, political campaigns and the offices of Democratic as well as moderate Republican elected officials during the 2020 election cycle," The Times reported, citing extensive interviews and documents.

The outlet reported that Prince first recruited Seddon at the beginning of the Trump administration and asked him to hire ex-spies to train Republican operatives in the art of political sabotage on his Wyoming ranch, adding a new layer to the term "ratf---ing."

Two of the undercover operatives were Beau Maier and Sofia LaRocca. They embedded themselves in the Democratic operation in Wyoming, and targeted both progressives and moderate Republicans they believed were a threat to the Trump administration. According to The Times, Maier and LaRocca were based in Wyoming but ingratiated themselves in Democratic politics in Arizona and Colorado as well. Neither Maier nor LaRocca responded to the NYT's requests for comment.

And in retrospect, many of the personal details LaRocca offered to her new friends in Wyoming politics didn't add up: she claimed that she had to live in Colorado and not Wyoming because of her dog, and that she went under a fake name because of a stalker but changed it back because the police told her the stalker had "reformed."

The outlet reported that Seddon secured financial backing from Susan Gore, the wealthy Gore-Tex heiress, by the end of 2018 and began recruiting operatives from the right-wing group Project Veritas. The organization frequently traffics inmisinformationandpropagandaand is known for deceptively editing videos as part of its sting operations against mainstream-media outlets; its CEO, James O'Keefe, defended the group's work in a previous statement to Insider, saying that "not a single one of our videos has been deceptively edited or taken out of context."

One of the targets of the undercover GOP operation was the progressive group Better Wyoming. The head of the group, Nate Martin, told The Times that he believed the operation's goal was to "dig up this information and you sit on it until you really can destroy somebody."

After becoming deeply enmeshed with the Democratic party infrastructure in Wyoming, Maier and LaRocca got their feet in the door to a higher level of Democratic politics with sudden, substantial contributions to other western Democratic candidates like Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold and Sen. Mark Kelly of Arizona, raising questions about the duo's campaign finance activities.

"Sometimes when you're looking at patterns of contributions, you start to see people with relatively limited resources making sizable political contributions," Brendan Fischer, director of the federal reform program at the Campaign Legal Center told The Times. "That can be a red flag."

George Durazzo Jr., a Democratic fundraiser in Colorado who secured sizable donations from Maier and LaRocca, was outraged when The Times told him of the two operatives' true goal.

"If they are indeed Benedict Arnold and Mata Hari, I was the one who was fooled," he said.

The extent of Prince and Seddon's effort underscores the Republican Party's push to dominate national politics by taking over at the state and local level. Indeed, since the 2020 election and Trump's failed efforts to nullify Joe Biden's legitimate victory, Republican state legislatures across the country have passed a slew of lawsthat would not only make it more difficult for voters to cast ballots, but alsomake it easierfor partisan forces to control and potentially overturn states' election results.

Read the original post:

GOP operatives trained by ex-spies infiltrated liberal groups: NYT - Business Insider

Danielle Pletka, senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, pushed back against misleading comments on recent election laws on NBC's "Meet the Press."

On Sunday, Pletka, the lone conservative member of a liberal panel, challenged assertions from PBS White House correspondent Yamiche Alcindor, NBC chief Washington correspondent Andrea Mitchell, and NBC's "The Week" host Joshua Johnson. The panel discussion began with host Chuck Todd playing a clip of Attorney General Merrick Garland announcing a plan for the Department of Justice to sue certain states over their election laws.

WAPO REPORTER ACCUSED OF PEDDLING FALSE INFORMATION ON DESANTIS' FEMA RESPONSE

Alcindor quickly attacked Republicans over the election laws, asserting they are creating an "existential crisis."

"This is an existential crisis in America" Alcindor claimed. "Who can actually get the access to vote? Republicans in state legislatures are saying if you- essentially, and critics would say, that if you, if we don't like the way that you voted, we will take away your vote. And that, I think, is a real problem."

Pletka quickly reminded the panel that many of the laws the Justice Department appear to be tackling in Republican-leaning states are overlooked in more Democrat-leaning states.

"You know, there are going to be problems if, at the federal level, they decide that they only need to go after Republican states, that they need to go after Republican-run states for laws that mirror, for example, things that exist in Delaware or New York or Connecticut or New Hampshire."

GEORGIA VOTING LAW: READ FULL TEXT

Pletka also added that more people than ever have voted in the last presidential election, proving that the country has "unbelievable voter engagement." However, the other panelists denied this perspective and continued to claim that the new voting laws had racial motivations.

Mitchell fired back at Pletka stating, "No, I'm sorry, it is specifically aimed at people of color, at people who have voted in this last election, people who had access because of the changes, because of COVID. They had more access. It's taking away, in Texas, taking away Sunday voting, you know, Souls to the Polls. It's exactly aimed at minority voters."

Despite Pletka responding that the new Georgia laws do, in fact, allow Sunday voting, Alcindor pushed back claiming that the laws were only based on a "conspiracy theory" prompted by former President Donald Trump.

"But it was BS, that President Trump didn't like that he lost and then he said the election was stolen. And he said that he won when he didn't," Alcindor explained. "And then Republicans, who are keepingwho are letting him continue to have power, understanding that he has a lot of influence with the base, that, that they are following suit in this conspiracy theory."

Johnson agreed with Alcindor saying the "whole voter suppression big lie thing" feels "like a Hail Mary" for the Republicans "to try to take votes away from people because you didn't like the way the election is going."

Near the end, Pletka further reminded viewers that Georgia laws actually expanded voting access, despite constant backlash from the media.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Pletka said, "On the other hand, I think there, I think that part of the argument that we're making about places like Georgia is unjust, you know? They, they're allowing Sunday voting. They've expanded access. So, and the very hero against Trump, Brad Raffensperger, who was Secretary of State, is now a villain."

Mitchell was given the last word commenting on the Democrats failure to pass their most recent elections reform bill.

Read the original:

Conservative panelist pushes back against liberal voting law narratives on 'Meet the Press' - Fox News

Get Jonathan Bernsteins newsletter every morning in your inbox.Click here to subscribe.

Senate Democrats are attempting to begin debate on their voting-rights legislation. Republicans are expected to successfully defeat itby filibuster not the bill itself, but consideration of the bill.

Its not clear what the next step for Democrats might be. There are several different bills in play. The one the Senate will now consider or, more likely, fail to consider is the sprawling For the People Act, which tackles a bunch of liberal and good-government policies. Theres also Senator Joe Manchins voting-rights compromise bill, which is far more focused. Theres another bill, named after former Representative John Lewis, that would restore the Voting Rights Act after the Supreme Court knocked out key provisions. And then theres a new one that would address the possibility of election subversion. Alsotheres the related possibility ofmaking Washington a state.

None of these effortshave anywhere close to the support from 10 Republicans that would be needed to defeat filibusters. And as of now, at least Manchin and Senator Kyrsten Sinema have saidthey wont vote to change the filibuster in order to pass any of them.

To say that Democrats have no real back-up plan is only to say that they simply dont have the votes. I wouldnt put a lot of stock in the increasingly improbable arguments Manchin and Sinema give for supporting the filibuster (and Sinemas new op-ed on the topicis particularly underwhelming). The truth is that marginal Democratic senators arent on board with some of the liberal agenda and that the filibuster protects those senators from tough votes. Theres nothing new or unusualabout politicians using procedural mumbo-jumbo to get out of no-win situations. For that matter, while Republican obstruction in the Senate has beenextreme by historical standards, the basic idea of the minority party using the rules to their advantage when possible and succeeding because some inthe majority areless than eager to bend those rules to satisfy the party agenda is an old and frequently told story.

What could change the situation? Two things. So far, Manchin and Sinema havent found something they truly care about something they consider must-pass that Republicans are blocking. That might or might not change. Ive suspected that voting-rights bills, no matter how important, werent the most likely to strike marginal Democrats as must-pass; they just dont fireup enough constituents. Ive thought all along that the bills most likely to lead toprocedural change would be those that could produce cleareconomic effects if they were blocked.

If must-pass bills (in the eyes of those senators) are the most likely to produce filibuster reform, the other possibility is that Manchin and Sinema just get fed up with Republican actions.Manchin, in particular, has been actively involved in negotiating compromises on infrastructure and on voting rights. Its plausible that if he eventually perceives that knee-jerk Republican obstruction means that hes been wasting his time, he might eventually turn against the filibuster, even against his better interests.

About that op-ed: I doubt that the specific public arguments that Manchin and Sinema make are all that important. Elected officials are obligatedto give reasons for their actions that are based on the public good; they arentobligatedto actually believe those explanations, or to give the real reasons for their actions. Thats basically a good thing. We dont want senators to just tell us that they voted for a givenbill because it wouldhelp them get re-elected, even if thats what theyre thinking. Its good that they have to tell us why what they do is good for the nation or for their districts. And because they in effect have to do that, they also need plausible stories to tell. So while it might not matter whether Manchin and Sinema believe the reasons they give for supporting the filibuster, it could nevertheless matter if events keep undercutting the stories they tell because it might make them look foolish. In other words: One of the ways that Manchin and Sinema might get fed up is if the Republicans keep them from getting things they want; another way is ifthe Republicans make it increasingly difficult for them to justify not getting fed up.

Will it happen? Five months into unified government, I still dont know, and I dont think anyone else does either.

1. Keneshia N. Grant and Sheena Harris at the Monkey Cage on Juneteenth.

2. Dan Drezner on returning to the Iran deal.

3. At Bloomberg Opinion, Taylor Branch on Joe Manchin.

4. David Dayen on the infrastructure bill.

5. And Kevin Drum cautions, sensibly, against reacting too quickly to economic indicators always, but especially after the pandemic.

Get Early Returns every morning in your inbox.Click here to subscribe. Also subscribe toBloomberg All Accessand get much, much more. Youll receive our unmatched global news coverage and two in-depth daily newsletters, the Bloomberg Open and the Bloomberg Close.

This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.

To contact the author of this story:Jonathan Bernstein at jbernstein62@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story:Timothy Lavin at tlavin1@bloomberg.net

Before it's here, it's on the Bloomberg Terminal.

Continue reading here:

Liberal Agenda Simply Doesn't Have the Votes - Bloomberg

In the summer of 1992, a 29-year-old Hungarian with political ambitions made his first visit to the US. For six weeks he toured the country with a coterie of young Europeans, all expenses paid by the German Marshall Fund, a thinktank devoted to transatlantic cooperation.

America had long fascinated Viktor Orbn, but he seemed disengaged and unaffected as the group walked around downtown Los Angeles, which was still reeling from the Rodney King riots two months earlier. One Dutch journalist on the trip recalled that the eastern Europeans in the group preferred to spend their daily stipends on a Walkman and other electronics rather than on food or fancy hotels. The free market and cutting-edge technologies certainly appealed more to Orbn than American debates and struggles over equality, justice or the rights of people of colour.

Orbns indifference to the plight of western minorities became more apparent during a tour of the Umatilla Indian Reservation in Oregon. Orbn and one of his travel companions, the Polish journalist Magorzata Bochenek, listened to local complaints about economic injustice. He responded with questions about land distribution. Why didnt the native tribes draft a strategy to monetise their common lands? After all, this was what Hungarian smallholders like his parents had been doing with local collective farms since the end of communism. Orbn began to sketch a business plan for the reservation, but when his Umatilla interlocutors didnt respond with enthusiasm, he quickly lost interest.

What fascinated Orbn most during the rest of the trip was high politics. The group tour finished in New York City in July, where he attended the Democratic National Convention at Madison Square Garden and watched Bill Clintons nomination to the sounds of Fleetwood Macs Dont Stop. The excitement of the occasion was not lost on Orbn. Visiting the US reaffirmed his own desire to become prime minister of Hungary.

At the time, the nature of the wests appeal to young eastern Europeans was changing. In 1989, when Orbn studied at Oxford University on a Soros Foundation fellowship, the western consensus of the late cold war deregulated capitalism, social stability, and national traditions still held sway. These were the values he wanted to bring back to his home country. Three years later, by the time of his trip to the US, a shift was palpable. While free markets still reigned supreme, European and north American culture had moved into a more introspective mode. Orbn liked Clintonism as an approach to administration and economics, but had little interest in western human rights discourse, discussions of gender and race, or the legacies of colonialism and the Holocaust.

Orbns enthusiasm for American economics and indifference to American cultural concerns was a sign of the direction Hungary and Poland would eventually take in the coming decades. In the 1990s, the two countries led eastern Europe in economic shock therapy, pushing market reforms beyond what their western advisers demanded. But in cultural terms, the Polish and Hungarian right chose a more conservative course. The result is that both countries have continued to see themselves as deeply European, even as they have steered further away from EU-style liberalism.

A decade after she visited the Umatilla reservation in Oregon with Orbn, Magorzata Bochenek became an adviser to Polish president Lech Kaczyski, who together with his brother, Jarosaw, founded the conservative nationalist party Law and Justice, which now has the support of nearly 45% of the Polish electorate. Orbns Fidesz party commands a supermajority of two-thirds of the seats in the Hungarian parliament. Both parties have enacted similar policies: filling the courts and media with pro-government judges and journalists; driving out leftwing and liberal NGOs, academics, and universities; violating the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights by restricting or banning access to abortion and denying legal recognition to transgender people; and ignoring attempts by European institutions to hold them accountable for these provocations.

At the same time, four out of every five citizens of Poland and Hungary support their countrys EU membership. For the anti-liberals in Budapest and Warsaw, the goal is autonomy within Europe, not independence outside of it.

How did the revolutionaries of 1989 become the nativists of the 2010s and 2020s? There are a number of ways to answer this question. Depending on the narrator, it can be told as a story of gradual estrangement, or a forced reversion to self-interest brought on by external shock, or the adolescent rebellion of pupils against their former teachers.

In their 2019 book, The Light That Failed, Bulgarian political scientist Ivan Krastev and US law professor Stephen Holmes made the case for the rebellion hypothesis. They argue that the transition from communism to capitalist democracy was driven by copycat liberalism. Eastern Europeans took it upon themselves to adopt the habits, norms and institutions of the western world, whose prosperity and freedoms they wanted to enjoy. The problem, according to Krastev and Holmes, was that submission to this imitation imperative was inherently stressful and emotionally taxing. Modelling oneself after an external ideal was bound to produce feelings of shame and resentment when the outcome fell short of an unattainably perfect original. Faced with the humiliation of perpetual inferiority, Orbn and Kaczyski used the 20082015 economic and migration crises to reject western liberalism and advance an illiberal alternative.

Krastev and Holmes see emigration from central eastern Europe as a key factor in the appeal of nationalist politics. Decades of brain drain have caused a demographic panic, which, they suggest, heightens fears about the arrival of Middle Eastern and African migrants. Especially in Hungary, anti-immigrant politics have indeed gone hand in hand with efforts to stem population decline through low birth-rates and emigration. Orbn has unfolded an ambitious and popular family policy involving the nationalisation of IVF clinics and generous loans and tax breaks for newlyweds and large families. Orbn has also granted citizenship to more than one million ethnic Hungarians living in Slovakia, Romania, Croatia, Serbia and Ukraine, creating a Fidesz-led diasporic civil society in what Hungarian nationalists see as a Greater Hungary.

Yet other countries have seen millions of citizens emigrate and not swung towards illiberalism. Between 1989 and 2017, Latvia lost 27% of its population, Lithuania 22.5%, Croatia 22%, and Bulgaria 21%. But the Baltic and eastern Balkan states have not changed in the same way as Poland and Hungary. Although nativism is present, it has not become the dominant tenor in national politics. In Bulgaria, a pro-EU protest movement became the second-largest party in parliamentary elections this spring, and the countrys departing prime minister, Boyko Borisov, has emphasised that he wants the countrys Euro-Atlantic orientation to be seen clearly. Romania, a fifth of whose inhabitants have left the country since 1990, has been gripped not by strongman politics, but by fervent anti-corruption efforts and pro-Brussels protests. By contrast, Poland and Hungary, where illiberalism has advanced the farthest, have some of the lowest net emigration rates in the region.

Migration shapes nativist politics, but does not fully explain the wider crisis of liberalism. Exclusionary policies on immigration are being pursued in most European countries. Yet despite general anti-immigrant sentiment, it is only in the UK, Poland and Hungary that nationalist governments have departed from the European Union or turned their back on its values, and only in Budapest and Warsaw that open season has been declared on liberal civil society and the rule of law. Kaczyski and Orbn are special among Europes nationalists not for their chauvinism, but for their authoritarian actions against domestic opponents and European and international institutions.

Poland and Hungarys ruling parties pursue what they see as a truer break with the past than the mirage transition of 1989. Anti-liberal nationalism in eastern Europe is more than an outburst of uncontrollable passions. Common to both is the belief that a historic task has befallen them, and that the end of communism was only the beginning of the road to national liberation. The fact that these ideas were formed during the transition decade also suggests that illiberal democracy is a purposive project something not just reactive, but with clear ideological goals of its own.

The revolt against liberalism began to stir in the late 1990s and early 2000s, as growing fractions of the Polish and Hungarian right started demanding a harder break with the past. Orbns first premiership, from 1998 to 2002, when Fidesz ruled together with the agrarian conservative Independent Smallholders Party, promoted Holocaust revisionism, racism against Roma populations, and support for Jrg Haiders far-right government in neighbouring Austria. But since Hungary kept recording solid economic growth and entered Nato in 1999, the cabinets rightwing policies were quickly forgotten in western capitals.

In 2002, his narrow election loss to the socialists left Orbn embittered and convinced that reformed communists throughout Hungarian society had conspired to prematurely end his tenure. When Hungary entered the EU in 2004, massive European funds flowed to a group of liberal politicians around centre-left prime minister Ferenc Gyurcsny, an economist who had been head of the Hungarian Young Communist League in the 1980s. During the transition from communism to democracy, Gyurcsny and his old comrades had made a small fortune running pop-up consulting firms with names such Eurocorp International Finance Inc. By the mid-2000s they were regulars at Davos. While this kind of shapeshifting and economic opportunism was common everywhere in eastern and central Europe, these links made it easier for Orbn to portray Soviet communism and European liberalism as successive forms of external rule.

As in Hungary, the role of reformed Polish communists in smoothing the political transition to liberal democracy ultimately radicalised the right. In 1997, conservative thinkers first began to call for a fourth Polish republic to replace the third iteration that had followed the end of communism. Four years later, Lech and Jarosaw Kaczyski founded Law and Justice, promising a radical purification and political renewal of Polish society. The Kaczyskis aim was to use the full force of executive and legislative power in pursuit of a final reckoning with the contaminants of state socialism. For many years, Polands constitutional court restricted efforts to purge state institutions and civil society of anyone with communist associations, a process known as lustration. This protection received support from EU laws protecting personal dignity and privacy.

When Law and Justice first came to power in 2005, however, it took lustration to a new level. A law was proposed that would have required 350,000 civil servants, journalists, academics, teachers and state managers to declare past political associations, no matter how mundane, on pain of losing their jobs. Widespread resistance from Polands progressive elite against this deeply intrusive purge helped push the Kasczyskis out of power in 2007 in favour of the liberal pro-European Civic Platform led by Donald Tusk.

This failed first attempt at a wholesale purification of Polish society forms the backdrop to Law and Justices renewed assault on the countrys judiciary since 2015, which has attracted more international attention. But Law and Justices illiberal agenda was not, as Krastev and Holmes would have it, a reaction against western imitation. It is precisely the desire of Polish illiberals for a more thoroughgoing expunging of the communist past, at the cost of ignoring EU protections, that has led them to stack the countrys courts and attack progressive civil society. As in Hungary, the very thing that made the transition from communism to liberal democracy so peaceful its negotiated character has provided an insurgent nationalist right with a powerful accusation of original sin. In this turncoat myth, 1989 was not a clean handover but a massive elite whitewash. What is at stake is not western identity something about which Poles have never been in doubt but rather who is fit to join a purified Polish nation-state.

Ultimately, Polish and Hungarian opposition to EU norms and civic rights has not produced, as it has among Brexiteers, a corresponding desire for economic sovereignty. Brussels financial faucet has simply been too lucrative to resist. Even as Orbn has dismantled liberal institutions, he has drawn vast amounts of EU funds to feather the nests of a loyal oligarchy of tycoons and agro-entrepreneurs tied to Fidesz. Conservative nationalists in Poland have also raked in material support from a political and economic union whose influence they routinely attack.

This insensitivity to political behaviour is the result of how the EU disburses funds to its members. Money is allocated in large tranches that are sent over many years in accordance with pre-arranged spending and investment plans; short-term political friction between national governments and Brussels does not alter these long-term entitlements. Between 2007 and 2020, eastern European member states received 395bn, half of which went to Hungary and Poland.

Just how difficult it has become to restrain illiberalism within the EU became clear at the end of 2020. As EU leaders prepared an unprecedented 1.8tn budget and stimulus package in response to the pandemic, Budapest and Warsaw nearly derailed the negotiations. Objecting to a mechanism that would tie funding to their observance of the rule of law, Poland and Hungary threatened to veto the entire EU budget for the next six years.

As member states, Poland and Hungary argued that they were fully entitled to their chunk of the funding; illiberal governments turned out to be fluent speakers of the language of law and treaty rights. Ultimately the standoff was defused through a last-minute interpretative declaration ensuring that the rule of law sanctions mechanism must be approved by the European Court of Justice before it can be applied. It is uncertain if such measures will be taken soon, if at all.

For the time being, funding will come with relatively few strings attached. The struggle between liberals and illiberals in eastern Europe will continue on its main battlefield: political, legal and cultural institutions. As the nationwide womens strike against Law and Justices abortion ban in October 2020 showed, this is an acute and important fight. What is not in dispute, however, is the character of the regions economic model. Liberals and illiberals both agree that after the end of communism, the only developmental path that remains for their societies is a capitalist one.

If Krastev and Holmes see Poland and Hungarys backlash against western liberalism as a psychological reaction, the renowned German historian Philipp Ther puts forward a different explanation. In his view, the new nationalism is a reaction less against imitation than against the exposure of entire societies to the vicissitudes of the world market. In his book Das Andere Ende der Geschichte (The Other End of History), he writes that the nativist right has a coherent worldview, which can be characterised as a cluster of promises of protection and security.

Ther argues that the rapid transition from state socialism to free-market capitalism triggered an impulse towards self-protection. Signs of popular distress became visible in elections in several countries in 1993 and 1994. Polish and Hungarian voters elected centre-left cabinets with substantial ex-Communist personnel, but this brought little protection. Polish privatisation slowed but never ceased. In Hungary, the new government soon pushed through a more savage austerity package. A different course was taken in Slovakia, where prime minister Vladimr Meiar didnt just break with the neoliberalism of his Czech colleague Vaclav Klaus, but split the unified Czechoslovak state into two parts. In every respect, the years of Meiars rule in 1990s Slovakia were a harbinger of contemporary illiberalism combining populism, nationalism and protective welfare to mask an increasingly autocratic government. It was due to Meiars arbitrary rule that Slovakia was deemed unfit for Nato membership in 1999; the country joined the organisation five years later than its Central European peers.

The eastern European transition to free markets in the 1990s was made difficult by the local weakness of liberalisms preferred agent of capitalist transformation, a property-owning bourgeoisie. Sociologists Ivn Szelnyi, Gil Eyal and Eleanor Townsley described this challenge as one of making capitalism without capitalists. Western European funds initially prioritised market expansion over democratisation: from 1990 to 1996, just 1% of the European Unions international aid mechanism for former socialist states went towards funding political parties, independent media and other civic organisations. But as markets advanced, the middle class remained anaemic.

Thirty years later, the benefits of the free economy have been very unequally divided; income gaps between city and countryside are wider in eastern Europe than anywhere else on the continent. Yet the ubiquity of free-market thinking in the region is an accomplished fact. In the famous July 2014 speech that set out the need for Hungary to adopt illiberal democracy, Orbn predicted that societies founded upon the principle of the liberal way to organise a state will not be able to sustain their world-competitiveness in the following years, and more likely they will suffer a setback and announced, we are searching for the form of organising a community, that is capable of making us competitive in this great world-race.

Yet it would be wrong to ascribe this conversion to global capitalism entirely to westernisation. In their book, 1989: A Global History of Eastern Europe, James Mark, Bogdan Iacob, Tobias Rupprecht and Ljubica Spaskovska leave no doubt that eastern European elites interest in capitalism preceded their embrace of democracy. Reformist bureaucrats under late socialism looked above all to east Asia. The successes of Deng Xiaopings China were an example for Gorbachevs later economic reforms. In the 1980s, Polish and Hungarian market-oriented reforms were modelled partly on South Korea, whose authoritarian capitalism had achieved high levels of economic growth.

Eastern Europe didnt just take other regions as its end goal. Its transition in the 1990s became a new global script for African, Latin American and Asian countries to follow. Ruling elites and oppositionists from Mexico to South Africa took eastern Europes political democratisation and economic liberalisation as a guiding light. In time, eastern Europeans graduated into a position where they could offer their own experience as advice to others. In 2003 the architect of Polands neoliberal reforms, Leszek Balcerowicz, toured Washington DC to suggest how the US should overhaul the Iraqi economy. During the Arab Spring, Lech Wasa visited Tunisia to tell them how we did it in the words of Polands then-foreign minister Radosaw Sikorski, who flew to Benghazi to provide counsel to the Libyans overthrowing Gaddafi.

The fact that eastern Europeans eventually acted as ambassadors of the west solidified the belief that 1989 was a long overdue return to a natural cultural home. But that turn had been initiated long before the end of communism. In the 1970s and 80s Czechoslovak, Polish and Hungarian elites and dissidents steadily abandoned anti-imperialism and socialist solidarity with the Third World, and emphasised their common European heritage instead.

This focus on high European culture had clear anti-African as well as anti-Islamic overtones. In 1985 the Hungarian minister of culture declared that Europe possessed a cultural heritage a specific intellectual quality the European character. On a visit to Budapest two years later, the Spanish king Juan Carlos was shown the ramparts that Habsburg troops had seized from the Ottomans in the 1686 a Communist celebration of Christian Europes fight against Islam. Observing the ferocity of the Afghan mujahideen, the Romanian dictator Nicolae Ceauescu warned that the Islamic world was a billion-strong and they are fanatics. A long-term war can be the result.

Meanwhile, Romanian exiles attacked Ceauescu himself as a foreign ruler who had foisted a tropical despotism on their country. The dissident Ion Vianu wrote in 1987 that Romania today resembles an African country more than a European one. He railed against the disorganisation of public life, the administrations inability to maintain its activity at the level of one from the old continent; the state of roads, the squalor in the streets empty stores, the generalised practice of graft; the polices arbitrariness. All this, he wrote, reminded him of Haiti. Romanians with western ideals are some sort of silent majority in todays Romania.

Before communism ended, a new sense of cultural belonging had taken hold among many eastern Europeans. This growing identification of their countries as European and Christian explains why during the last decade, anti-immigrant rhetoric about a Fortress Europe to keep out African and Middle Eastern migrants has found fertile soil in the region.

In the long run, the year 1989 therefore marked a moment when eastern Europe both closed itself off from old influences and opened itself up to new ideas. Socialist planning and international solidarity with the developing world were abandoned, while identification with a narrower European civilisation went hand in hand with integration into the liberalised world economy. Eastern European countries still display this combination of open and closed characteristics today. Hungary is the prime example of this hybrid approach: under Orbn it has repudiated the liberal idea of an open society, but has nonetheless remained firmly connected to the transnational European car industry as well as the military networks of Atlanticism through EU and Nato membership.

Orbn has further complicated the question of his international allegiance by sustaining close ties with Moscow and Beijing. Russia supplies Hungary with energy, while Chinese state capitalists have made Hungary the regional hub for Huaweis efforts to expand 5G technology across Europe. Budapest is also the terminus of the new Balkan railroad that runs from the Greek port of Piraeus through Belgrade part of Chinas sweeping Belt & Road initiative, a vast infrastructure construction spree across the world to boost trade. The construction of this freight railroad costs 2% of GDP, making it the largest investment project in Hungarian history.

In mid-March 2020, as the coronavirus spread across Europe, Hungary closed its borders to entry by all non-citizens. While Hungary was under lockdown, the only foreigners allowed into the country were 300 South Korean engineers tasked with completing the accelerated opening of the countrys second plant producing batteries for electric vehicles.

Korean conglomerates have recently moved into Hungary and Poland, establishing themselves as the main battery suppliers to the European car industry. With VW, Audi, BMW, Mercedes-Benz and Renault clamouring for batteries, the Polish government also waived its quarantine requirement to let specialists from the Korean chemical company LG Chem continue work on a massive plant near Wrocaw, a 2.8bn project backed by the European Investment Bank. Thirty-five years after eastern European economists looked to Seoul as a model of authoritarian capitalism, South Koreas industrial giants are entering the region in force.

Since the start of the pandemic, liberal commentators have frequently warned about the risk that nationalism and great-power conflict will cause a collapse of the international political and economic order. But instead of such dramatic deglobalisation, what is more likely is that we will see nationalist leaders around the world construct politically closed societies undergirded by open economies: a globalisation without globalists.

An earlier version of this article originally appeared in n+1

Follow the Long Read on Twitter at @gdnlongread, listen to our podcasts here and sign up to the long read weekly email here.

Go here to read the rest:

The revolt against liberalism: what's driving Poland and Hungary's nativist turn? - The Guardian

Fox News host Sean Hannity blasted the mainstream media Thursday on "Hannity" for failing to hold President Joe Biden accountable and actively attempting to protect him.

Taking aim at the liberal media, Hannity said, "Ifyou're a self-proclaimedjournalist atthe New York Times,Washington Post, fake news CNN,MS*DNC*, ABC, NBC, CBS, you actuallyhave two jobs.One, protect Democrats,especially Joe Biden at allcosts. Number two, stalk, harass,smear, slander Donald Trump andhis family and anybody whosupports him."

Hannity went on to declare journalism "dead" and said that most people at those "so-called" news outlets are not in fact journalists.

"Unfortunately, honesty and truth is not a priority for people at the New York Times like Ben and Maggie, and, well, the rest of the media mob over the past five years, they got dozens and dozens and dozens of stories dead wrong."

Over the past week, Hannity has written two open letters to the New York Times, specifically Ben Smith and Maggie Haberman, asking about their journalistic ethics covering Biden. Tonight he asked them about a series of stories they wrote about former President Trump.

BRIAN STELTER CALLS FOR HEALTHY, BALANCED MEDIA DIET, CITES WASHINGTON POST AND LA TIMES AS NUTRITIOUS MEAL

"Doyou still believe in the Russia hoax that you peddled toyour audiences? do youbelieve that Clinton-Steele dossier is unquestionablytrue?Do you care about premeditatedfraud that was perpetratednumerous times against the FISAcourt?Do you care, will you nowadmit that candidate and laterPresident Trump was illegallyspied on because of Hillary'sdirty Russian disinformationdossier and the lies told to theFISA court?"Hannity continued. "Will you ever, ever hold Biden accountablefor anything?Will you investigate his corruptinternational family business?Will you ever try and find out whysketchy foreign nationals, let's see, from Kazakhstan,Russia, China, Ukraine why were theypaid in Joe Biden's crack-addicted son zero experiencemillions and millions ofdollars?"

Hannity also asked if they were going to investigate where Hunter Biden's laptop came from, a story that the media buried during the 2020 election, and noted that a recent study found that the United States media was ranked "dead last" in trust.

"By the way, that's because ofthe media mob,The New York Times,The Washington Post, ABC, CBS,NBC, fake news CNN, MS*DNC*, and pretty much therest of the media You're not the journalists youclaim to be.Stop pretending.It's time to own who you are.Own it, on your truths."

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Hannity again called on the New York Times to give their Pulitzer prizes back.

"This is a free country, freedom of the free press, freedom of speech. I believe in all of it I never support boycotts, I call for cancelations, but if they were decent and ethical, and if they were true journalists as they claim they would at least be honest about their own political agenda."

See the article here:

Hannity blames mistrust in US news on the liberal media - Fox News