When Viktor Orban faced defeat in last month’s Hungarian parliamentary elections, the media often portrayed the situation as a typical battle between liberal democracy and nationalist authoritarianism. The left emerged victorious over the right. Though there’s truth to this narrative, it glosses over essential factors that go beyond Hungary’s borders.
What really influenced ordinary Hungarians at the polls? Surprisingly, it wasn’t a specific ideology. Instead, it stemmed from economic stagnation, rising inflation, and declining living standards.
Despite the varying political rhetoric, traditional right- and left-wing parties can be found both in Northern and Southern contexts. Often labeled as far-right, Orban ruled with a heavy hand, nationalizing industries, rewarding allies, and sidelining competitors. Hungary didn’t shift left; rather, his form of right-leaning economic intervention backfired on people—poor individuals especially.
This distinction highlights a flaw in our political lexicon developed over centuries. The left-right spectrum, originating from the French National Assembly where royalists sat on the right and revolutionaries on the left, has become an outdated model. It’s almost as if we’ve decided that the spatial arrangement of an 18th-century parliament holds all the answers, but that’s simply not the case.
In truth, the political landscape resembles a compass. There’s a North, South, East, and West—split between support for party competition, free trade, and property rights in the North versus nationalism and government intervention in the South. This North-South discussion is critical and can blur party lines.
Herein lies the traditional axis fallacy. Our focus on horizontal issues like left vs. right or progressives vs. conservatives distracts us from essential vertical inquiries. Instead of asking who should hold power, we should ponder how much power the state should wield.
According to the Heritage Foundation, economies classified as “free” boast an average per capita GDP of roughly $112,000, while “oppressed” economies sit around $10,000—a tenfold difference that’s remained consistent over decades. Yet, while some criticize the index as a more accurate reflection of current assets, it still reliably illustrates that greater economic freedom usually correlates with increased prosperity.
Once you accept this, the old map of political thought shifts. True North represents genuine economic freedom characterized by voluntary exchanges and minimal coercion. Directly South lies the nationalist snares, whether run by socialists or nationalists—the common thread being a desire to enhance state control and achieve similar results.
What’s vital isn’t the ideology behind the flag we wave but rather how far south we venture. The horizontal axis doesn’t vanish; it transitions from economics to cultural matters, with distinctions existing on both the left and right. Market-friendly progressives may be located in the Northeast, while conservatives occupy the Northwest. Interestingly, the interventionist left and right in the Southern quadrant share more in common than either group likes to admit.
The Northeast quadrant is particularly instructive, featuring leaders like Paul Keating in Australia and Roger Douglas in New Zealand, who implemented serious market liberalizations amid leftist leadership. They weren’t converts to a new ideology but were pragmatic realists who recognized that vibrant economies fund social initiatives.
Critics may argue that both leaders enacted substantial social spending alongside reforms, but that misses the point. They recognized that a government eroding market structures to achieve social ends would ultimately undermine both.
In contrast, Orban’s Hungary fell into the Southwest quadrant—culturally conservative and economically interventionist, resembling many leftist governments it opposes. There’s no ideology in this quadrant, just outcomes.
This isn’t to say markets are flawless. But the comparison should always be between flawed markets and flawed governments, not between an ideal market and a perfect state. The historical evidence supports this view. It suggests voters will eventually seek explanations based not only on cultural indicators but also on vertical implications.
Hungarian voters confronted tangible repercussions of nationalism, making their economic choices clear. They weren’t looking for ideology; they wanted lower grocery prices and a promising future for their children. In essence, it’s a straightforward, practical drive—prioritize results over rhetoric.
Discussions between left and right will persist. Perhaps they should. However, what truly matters isn’t which camp you affiliate with, but rather how far north you’re inclined to head.
