MoMo is using it too but more smartly than others: although they are a “party” (which is usually a hindrance, considering that Hungarian public opinion is consistently averse to pluralism and ideologies), they unite the reactionary cliché of “neither left, nor right” with the symbolic signifiers of “novelty” and “youth,” whilst simultaneously seem to be rising above the old conflicts and infamous divisions. At the same time, they connect this with the cliché of hypermodernity and “the twenty-first century.” [...]
Momentum’s most important characteristic is that they take no position in class conflicts, ethnic conflicts, or gender conflicts. They are compassionate to both the poor and the rich by subtly referring to the conservative idea of “national unity” and its faint rhetorical copy: the all-time response of the all-time ruling classes to the challenge of egalitarian movements.
Hurting no one, helping no one. Optimising the congruence or synergy or whatever of potential donations they receive. They are attacking the Fidesz government as being outmoded and obsolete, “twentieth century,” and the ageing opposition as not being “national” enough (which is not true, but never mind), while formulating their own “positive national consciousness” in a way which rejects all historical forms of Hungarian nationalism, and naming a coyly neutralized multiculturalism as “a healthy national consciousness.” [...]
However, since 1848, in Hungary this has mainly translated as anti-Romanianism and anti-Sebianism (anti-Russianism has always been weak here).“Little Entente” is one of the worst insults and the Danube Confederation is considered to be treason, while pro-Germanism isn’t: Merkel is disliked in Hungary not because of the hegemony of German capital, but because of her pro-refugee policies. (N.B, in Hungary there’s no particular hostility towards our former oppressors or occupants, such as the Turks, Austrians, Germans or Russians but rather it is directed towards those whom our own ruling class and state have oppressed and discriminated against – the Romanians, Serbs, Slovaks, Gypsies, Jews: all the more so.) [...]
I have no doubt that the founders of Momentum united selflessly, enthusiastically, with a willingness to make sacrifices, and with worthy intentions – several of them left behind lucrative jobs abroad – in order to help our poor old country, having had enough of the helpless and subpar parliamentary opposition. Undoubtedly, they are disgusted by the provincial, narrow-minded brutality, decadent depravity, irresponsibility, and authoritarianism of the Orbán regime. From the point of view of conventional morality, Momentum is – at least for now – spotless, and it is likely they will remain so. At the same time, by concealing their goals and hiding their basic principles (if there are any, which is uncertain) they radically contradict the contemporary democratic consensus; not with conspiratorial intentions but to secure votes and popularity. They want to discuss everything under the sun, except for their own “values” or “goals” (these terms are theoretically problematic, misleading, and unclear but at least they are understandable in their soft elasticity; so I use them in inverted commas). They want to “gather” these from “the people” and to begin with localized approaches to local issues. I detest the term “populist,” which is used for everything it does not fit (such as Orbán, who is the stark opposite of a “populist”). However, this is populist strategy in the classic meaning of the term. And, as always, it’s the struggle between “volonté de tous” and “volonté générale” (the “will of all” and the “general will” – Rousseau).
