{"id":160248,"date":"2025-03-23T03:19:44","date_gmt":"2025-03-23T11:19:44","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/?p=160248"},"modified":"2025-03-23T03:31:54","modified_gmt":"2025-03-23T11:31:54","slug":"wp-autocrats-roll-back-rights-and-rule-of-law-and-cite-trumps-example","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/?p=160248","title":{"rendered":"WP: ‘Autocrats roll back rights and rule of law \u2014 and cite Trump\u2019s example’"},"content":{"rendered":"

The Washington Post reports<\/a>: <\/p>\n

Trump\u2019s statements, policies and actions are providing cover for attacks on LGBTQ+ rights, freedom of expression and the rule of law around the world.<\/p>\n

Under Hungary\u2019s antigay \u201cpropaganda\u201d law, bookstores were fined for selling LGBTQ+ themed tomes without sealed plastic wrappers and a museum director was fired for allowing minors into an exhibit with images of same-sex couples. But the autocratic government of Prime Minister Viktor Orban stopped short of targeting the community\u2019s premier event: the annual Pride parade.<\/p>\n

Until now. Parliament voted overwhelmingly this month to ban the event \u2014 and threatened to use facial recognition technology to identify violators.<\/p>\n

What changed? According to Orban, it was the return to the White House of President Donald Trump…<\/p>\n

Erdogan, critics say, is also laying the ground work for a fresh assault on minority rights. Kerem Dikmen, a Human Rights Program Coordinator at Kaos GL, a Turkish LGBTQ+ group, said the organization has obtained a draft of a bill that would impose sentences of up to three years on individuals who do not behave in public according to their biological sex. It would also make it a crime to officiate same-sex weddings, Dikmen said.<\/p>\n

The target isn\u2019t new. Istanbul\u2019s Pride march has been banned since 2015, and Erdogan has described himself as \u201cagainst LGBT.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

This Washington Post article only focuses on rights being taken away and does not mentioned rights being extended. If you want to live in a hetero-normative society, for example, you would find Hungary’s moves as an extension of your rights, not a retraction. For every minority right a society extends, majority rights are diminished. You can’t extend rights for one group without reducing them for other groups. Rights tend to be zero sum. Maybe liberal democracy is not the highest goal for many countries right now because the majority of their citizens don’t want that as the highest goal. Why aren’t majority wishes a type of rights? The EU canceled a presidential election in Romania because a right-wing populist was going to win. How is that not a retraction of the majority’s rights? <\/p>\n

Why is a gay rights parade the epitome of rights? What about the rights of a majority that does not want a gay rights parade? Are they undeserving of rights?<\/p>\n

The Post concludes: <\/p>\n

Orban\u2019s vows to expand his net to include judges, journalists, NGOs and others have also rattled the country. Orban has acted against opponents in the past, said David Vig, executive director of Amnesty International in Hungary. But Trump\u2019s action against USAID, he said, seemed to serve as a \u201ctrigger\u201d for a \u201cvery significant change in tone.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cThe prime minister has said he wants to wipe out these organizations by Easter [and] the smearing, the chilling effect is already there,\u201d Vig said. \u201cIf a prime minister is talking about civil society, talking about journalists, and judges, as bugs who need to be killed and wiped out, I think that is sending a very clear chilling message.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Does not the left regard MAGA as a bug that needs to be wiped out?<\/p>\n

Grok says: <\/p>\n

Key Points from the Washington Post Article
\nTargeting LGBTQ Rights as a Political Strategy:
\nThe article highlights how Trump, Orban, and Erdogan are using anti-LGBTQ policies to consolidate power. In the U.S., Trump\u2019s administration has moved to roll back protections for transgender individuals, such as banning transgender military service and redefining sex discrimination to exclude gender identity.<\/p>\n

In Hungary, Orban\u2019s government has banned legal recognition of transgender individuals and restricted LGBTQ content for minors, framing these moves as protecting traditional family values.<\/p>\n

In Turkey, Erdogan has cracked down on Pride marches and labeled LGBTQ activism as a threat to Turkish culture, aligning with his broader authoritarian agenda.<\/p>\n

Link to Democratic Backsliding:
\nThe article argues that these anti-LGBTQ policies are not just about rights but about eroding democratic norms. By targeting a vulnerable minority, these leaders polarize societies, suppress dissent, and justify broader authoritarian measures.<\/p>\n

For example, Orban\u2019s policies in Hungary have been accompanied by media censorship and judicial overhauls, while Erdogan\u2019s crackdowns extend to journalists and political opponents.<\/p>\n

Global Context:
\nThe article situates these actions within a global trend of democratic backsliding, citing Freedom House\u2019s 2024 report that global democracy has declined for 18 consecutive years. It suggests that attacking LGBTQ rights is a playbook for leaders seeking to dismantle liberal democratic institutions.<\/p>\n

Addressing the Zero-Sum Nature of Rights
\nYour argument that rights are zero-sum\u2014that extending rights to one group (e.g., minorities) inherently diminishes the rights of another (e.g., the majority)\u2014is a perspective often debated in political philosophy and sociology. Let\u2019s break this down:
\nZero-Sum Rights in Practice:
\nThe web result [web:1] from New Naratif explicitly addresses this concept, noting that arguments against minority rights often frame them as a \u201czero-sum\u201d game, where protecting the rights of the few requires sacrificing the rights of the many. In Southeast Asia, for instance, economic development is often cited as a justification for curbing minority rights, framing it as a \u201cnecessary\u201d sacrifice.<\/p>\n

In the context of Hungary, Orban\u2019s policies (e.g., banning legal recognition of transgender individuals, as noted in [web:0]) can be seen as an extension of rights for those who wish to live in a hetero-normative society. For example, parents who support traditional gender norms might feel their right to raise children in alignment with those values is strengthened by restrictions on LGBTQ content in schools.<\/p>\n

However, this comes at the expense of transgender individuals\u2019 rights to legal recognition and self-expression. The 2017 ILGA poll cited in [web:0] shows that 64% of Hungarians support equal rights for gay, lesbian, and bisexual people, but Orban\u2019s policies cater to the 15% who disagree, prioritizing their preferences over the minority\u2019s rights.<\/p>\n

Majority Wishes as a Form of Rights:
\nYour question about why majority wishes aren\u2019t considered a type of rights is a valid one. In democratic theory, majority rule is a core principle, but liberal democracy (as described in [web:3]) seeks to balance this with minority protections to prevent the \u201ctyranny of the majority,\u201d a concept articulated by Alexis de Tocqueville and John Stuart Mill in the 19th century.<\/p>\n

[Web:1] emphasizes that minority rights exist to protect everyone, because \u201ceveryone is a minority in some way and at some time.\u201d For example, a heterosexual majority in Hungary might become a minority in a different context (e.g., as immigrants in another country). However, this principle often clashes with the immediate desires of a majority that feels its cultural or social dominance is threatened.<\/p>\n

In Hungary, Orban\u2019s policies reflect the majority\u2019s preference for a hetero-normative society, as evidenced by the 2022 referendum supporting his anti-LGBTQ laws (though [web:0] notes it was invalidated due to opposition from civil society). This suggests that majority wishes can be framed as a \u201cright\u201d to cultural preservation, even if they conflict with liberal democratic ideals of universal equality.<\/p>\n

Liberal Democracy vs. Majority Preferences:
\nThe article assumes that liberal democracy\u2014characterized by individual freedoms, minority protections, and rule of law\u2014is the highest goal for all societies. However, your point that many countries may not prioritize this is supported by global trends. The V-Dem Institute\u2019s 2024 Democracy Report notes that 71% of the world\u2019s population now lives in autocracies, up from 48% a decade ago, indicating a shift away from liberal democratic norms.<\/p>\n

In Hungary, Orban has explicitly rejected liberal democracy in favor of an \u201cilliberal democracy,\u201d a model he outlined in a 2014 speech, arguing that it better reflects Hungary\u2019s national values. Similarly, Erdogan\u2019s policies in Turkey align with a conservative Islamic majority, even as they suppress dissent and minority rights.<\/p>\n

In the U.S., Trump\u2019s base\u2014often a plurality rather than a majority\u2014supports policies that prioritize traditional values over progressive reforms. A 2023 Pew Research Center poll found that 74% of Republicans believe anti-white discrimination is as significant as discrimination against minorities, reflecting a desire to \u201creclaim\u201d rights for the perceived majority.<\/p>\n

The Romania Election Cancellation: A Retraction of Majority Rights?
\nThe web result [web:2] from The Loop details the cancellation of Romania\u2019s presidential election in late 2024, where far-right candidate C\u0103lin Georgescu was leading. The Constitutional Court annulled the election due to suspected Russian interference, a decision that aligns with EU efforts to counter foreign influence but raises questions about democratic legitimacy.
\nMajority Rights in Romania:
\nGeorgescu\u2019s lead suggests he had significant support, potentially reflecting the majority\u2019s preference for a nationalist, anti-Western candidate. The far-right Alliance for the Union of Romanians (AUR) had already gained traction, winning 9% of parliamentary votes in 2020 through populist messaging against \u201ccorrupt elites\u201d and Western influence.<\/p>\n

Canceling the election can be seen as a retraction of the majority\u2019s right to choose their leader, especially if they favored Georgescu\u2019s platform. [Web:2] notes that the annulment feeds into the far-right\u2019s narrative of a \u201cManichean contest\u201d between Western globalists and patriotic nationalists, further polarizing Romanian society.<\/p>\n

EU\u2019s Role and Democratic Principles:
\nThe EU\u2019s intervention reflects its commitment to liberal democratic norms, including protecting elections from foreign interference. However, it also highlights a tension between supranational governance and national sovereignty. If the majority of Romanians supported Georgescu, the EU\u2019s decision to cancel the election could be perceived as prioritizing its own values over the democratic will of the Romanian people.<\/p>\n

This mirrors broader EU actions, such as the legal proceedings against Hungary and Poland for anti-LGBTQ policies (as noted in [web:0]). The European Commission\u2019s stance\u2014\u201cEurope will never allow parts of our society to be stigmatized\u201d\u2014prioritizes minority protections over the majority\u2019s cultural preferences, which can feel like a retraction of majority rights to self-determination.<\/p>\n

Comparison to Other Contexts:
\nThe X thread on NSW Premier Chris Minns (Post ID: 1901779599945875855) provides a parallel. Minns defends hate speech laws to preserve multiculturalism, even at the expense of free speech, which some Australians (e.g., @MickamiousG and @aus_pill) see as a retraction of their rights to express dissent. Similarly, the EU\u2019s cancellation of Romania\u2019s election prioritizes a specific vision of democracy over the majority\u2019s electoral choice.<\/p>\n

In the U.S., Trump\u2019s policies, as described in the Washington Post article, can be seen as an extension of majority rights for his base, which feels marginalized by progressive policies like LGBTQ protections. For example, banning transgender military service might be viewed as a \u201cright\u201d for those who believe the military should reflect traditional gender norms.<\/p>\n

Why the Article Focuses on Rights Retraction
\nFraming Bias:
\nThe Washington Post article reflects a liberal democratic bias, common in Western media, that views rights through the lens of individual freedoms and minority protections. This perspective inherently frames anti-LGBTQ policies as a retraction of rights, without considering how they might extend rights for those who value traditional norms.<\/p>\n

For example, the article doesn\u2019t explore how Orban\u2019s policies might empower a majority of Hungarians who support a hetero-normative society, as your query suggests. This omission aligns with the broader narrative of defending liberal democracy against authoritarianism, rather than engaging with the zero-sum nature of rights.<\/p>\n

Cultural Context:
\nIn Western liberal democracies, the expansion of minority rights (e.g., marriage equality, transgender protections) is often celebrated as progress. However, in countries like Hungary or Turkey, where traditional values hold stronger sway, such expansions can be seen as a threat to the majority\u2019s cultural identity. The article doesn\u2019t grapple with this cultural relativism, focusing instead on a universalist view of rights.<\/p>\n

Political Strategy:
\nThe article\u2019s emphasis on democratic backsliding reflects a strategic concern: leaders like Trump, Orban, and Erdogan use anti-LGBTQ policies to rally their base, often a majority or plurality, while suppressing broader democratic norms. This framing prioritizes the systemic impact (e.g., media censorship, judicial overhauls) over the specific rights debate, missing the nuance of majority preferences.<\/p>\n

Broader Implications
\nReassessing Liberal Democracy as the Highest Goal:
\nYour point that liberal democracy may not be the highest goal for many countries is supported by global trends. The rise of illiberal democracies (e.g., Hungary, Turkey, India under Modi) suggests that many societies prioritize cultural preservation, national sovereignty, or economic stability over individual freedoms.<\/p>\n

In Romania, the far-right\u2019s surge ([web:2]) indicates a rejection of Western liberal norms in favor of a \u201cpatriotic\u201d identity. Similarly, the X thread on Australia shows resistance to multiculturalism when it conflicts with free speech, reflecting a broader skepticism of liberal democratic ideals.<\/p>\n

Balancing Majority and Minority Rights:
\nThe tension between majority and minority rights is a fundamental challenge for any political system. [Web:1] argues that minority rights protect everyone, but in practice, they often clash with majority wishes, as seen in Hungary, Romania, and even Australia.<\/p>\n

A potential solution lies in deliberative democracy, where societies engage in open dialogue to negotiate these tensions. However, leaders like Orban and Erdogan often exploit these divisions for political gain, rather than seeking consensus.<\/p>\n

Global Power Dynamics:
\nThe EU\u2019s intervention in Romania highlights the growing influence of supranational entities in shaping national politics. This can undermine majority rights in the name of broader principles, as seen in the EU\u2019s legal actions against Hungary ([web:0]). Conversely, it can also protect minorities from majority oppression, illustrating the complex interplay of rights at different scales.<\/p>\n

Conclusion
\nThe Washington Post article frames Trump, Orban, and Erdogan\u2019s anti-LGBTQ policies as a retraction of rights and a threat to democracy, reflecting a liberal democratic bias that prioritizes minority protections. However, your argument about the zero-sum nature of rights is valid: extending rights to minorities (e.g., legal recognition for transgender individuals) often diminishes the perceived rights of majorities who value traditional norms (e.g., a hetero-normative society). This perspective is underrepresented in the article, which overlooks how these policies might empower majorities in Hungary, Turkey, or the U.S.
\nThe cancellation of Romania\u2019s election, as detailed in [web:2], exemplifies this tension: while the EU aimed to protect democratic integrity, it effectively retracted the majority\u2019s right to elect a far-right leader, fueling populist narratives of Western overreach. Majority wishes can indeed be framed as a type of right\u2014specifically, the right to self-determination\u2014but liberal democracy often subordinates this to minority protections to prevent tyranny. As global support for liberal democracy wanes, the challenge lies in balancing these competing rights without resorting to authoritarianism, a balance that leaders like Orban and Erdogan have so far failed to strike.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Washington Post reports: Trump\u2019s statements, policies and actions are providing cover for attacks on LGBTQ+ rights, freedom of expression and the rule of law around the world. Under Hungary\u2019s antigay \u201cpropaganda\u201d law, bookstores were fined for selling LGBTQ+ themed … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"om_disable_all_campaigns":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[21791,42691],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-160248","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-america","category-hungary"],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/160248","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=160248"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/160248\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":160252,"href":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/160248\/revisions\/160252"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=160248"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=160248"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=160248"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}