Since the defeat of Viktor Orbán, the commentariat has convulsed with rejoicing. The reign of a prime minister we were informed was a pocket-sized Putin who would cling to power no matter what the cost was simply … voted out. Progressives declared it a victory for democracy, which we had been told Hungary no longer was. Many announced that Orbán’s loss signals the death of the “post-liberal” Right. Few are willing to admit the truth—that Orbán was seen as an irritating obstacle to the progressive vision for a post-liberal Europe.
For progressives, ‘liberalism’ now means ‘the compelled acceptance and legal implementation of LGBT ideology.’ To oppose it, conversely, is thus ‘illiberalism.’
There are many reasons for Orbán’s loss, including the accusations of corruption increasingly hurled at his government the longer it held power. Corruption is bad; it is also, despite what has been implied, not exclusively perpetrated by populists. Indeed, the violation of democratic norms and the use of ‘illiberal’ means are celebrated or tactfully ignored when employed to further the causes progressives hold dear. If Orbán had led Pride parades, pushed for ‘trans rights,’ and championed abortion, he might have been a hero to progressives.
Consider Prime Minister Donald Tusk of Poland. Tusk has openly stated that in order to counteract the policies of his conservative predecessors, he must commit “actions that may be inconsistent with the letter of the law” and has invoked the concept of “militant democracy” to defend his totalitarian tactics. Tusk has arrested political opponents, launched ideological purges of institutions, and is attempting to illegally force abortion on Poland. Tusk’s version of illiberalism, however, is seen as a necessary corrective to a socially conservative regime. He’s the ‘right’ kind of post-liberal.
Indeed, any nation that attempts to defend its national and cultural character and traditions is immediately accused of implementing ‘Russia-style authoritarianism.’ This smear was trotted out this month when Belarus passed a law restricting LGBT propaganda (especially regarding sex change treatments) in order to protect “traditional family values.” Hungary faced identical accusations when it passed laws against promoting LGBT ideology to children in 2021, as did Bulgaria when it banned LGBT propaganda in schools in 2024.
“This law is not just a Bulgarian issue—this is a Russian law that has found its way into the heart of Europe,” Rémy Bonny, executive director of the LGBT activist group Forbidden Colours, toldPolitico’s Brussels Playbook at the time. “The European Commission must step in and hold Bulgaria accountable.” He did not mention the fact that the bill was passed with support from every major party, including those supportive of the EU.
Georgia also passed a law restricting LGBT propaganda and limiting adoption to heterosexual couples in 2024; leaders stated that it was necessary to safeguard “traditional moral standards” in the country, and the press bemoaned that the “deeply conservative Orthodox Church is highly influential.”
In 2025, Slovakia followed suit with a constitutional amendment affirming two biological sexes, limiting adoption rights to heterosexual couples, prohibiting surrogacy, affirming parental consent for sex education, affirming Slovakia’s sovereignty in matters of “national identity,” especially in “fundamental cultural-ethical questions.” The European Commission promptly opened a formal case against Slovakia, demanding that they amend the law due to a breach of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and contradiction of the EU’s 2020-2025 LGBTIQ Equality Strategy.
Kazakhstan passed an anti-LGBT propaganda law in 2025. President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev frequently condemns the Western-funded international campaign to impose LGBT ideology on other countries. “For decades, so-called democratic moral values, including LGBT, were imposed,” he stated in a speech to the National Congress last March. “This was done by international non-governmental funds and organizations. And under this guise, international non-governmental funds grossly interfered in the internal affairs of many strange states.”
These laws are part of a backlash against frequently foreign-funded LGBT campaigns in countries where traditional values are still predominant and are an attempt to blunt the effects of cultural colonialism. ‘Liberalism’ was not always considered synonymous with the ideology of the sexual revolution, but that is how it is now defined in practice. Counter-revolutionaries—those who resist these forces and seek the preservation of cultures and traditions that conflict with the revolution—are now damned as ‘illiberal.’
Meanwhile, the very commentators rejoicing at the death of the ‘post-liberal Right’ do not seem to care that much of the West is already in the post-liberal age.
