Despite Vice President JD Vance’s best efforts, Hungary ousted the illiberal authoritarian Viktor Orban this week. As the columnist David French argues, Orbanism was “intellectual Trumpism,” and the prime minister’s defeat could signal trouble for the MAGA movement in the United States. In this episode, French discusses what Orban’s demise means for Trump with the columnist Michelle Goldberg, who just got back from Hungary, and the national politics writer Michelle Cottle.
Below is a transcript of an episode of “The Opinions.” We recommend listening to it in its original form for the full effect. You can do so using the player above or on the NYTimes app, Apple, Spotify, Amazon Music, YouTube, iHeartRadio or wherever you get your podcasts.
The transcript has been lightly edited for length and clarity.
Michelle Cottle: I’m Michelle Cottle. I cover National Politics for New York Times Opinion, and this week I am here with two of my fantastic colleagues, columnist David French, and the other Michelle, Michelle Goldberg. Guys, thanks for being here.
David French: Michelle, Michelle — great to be with you all.
Michelle Goldberg: Yeah, thanks for having me.
Cottle: We’re going to test David’s ability to pivot between the Michelles today.
So, we’re going to talk about the defeat of a MAGA favorite, Viktor Orban, in Hungary, and we’ve got to talk about the pope, so there’s a lot to cover. Let’s get into it. First up, the Hungarian election, where Prime Minister Viktor Orban and his Fidesz Party got absolutely creamed.
Michelle, you’ve been over there, you’ve been reporting from Hungary — you were there until like just the last couple of days or so. What is Orban’s connection to Donald Trump and MAGA, and why does this loss matter?
Goldberg: Sure. Well, Orban was prime minister in the early 2000s. Then he was defeated. When he came back, he really set about creating what he called “an illiberal democracy,” and it was the template for a lot of modern authoritarians all over the world, very much including Trump.
And, you know, JD Vance has said that some of what Orban does should be a model for conservatives. Kevin D. Roberts, the head of The Heritage Foundation, has said that Orban’s state isn’t a model, but the model for conservative statecraft. Orban had a two-thirds majority, which is what you need to rewrite the Constitution. So, he rewrote the Constitution. One of the things he did was create these wildly gerrymandered districts that made it very, very difficult for the opposition. He created a network of foundations. He both was able to shut down the preeminent liberal university in Budapest and then set up his own parallel, right-wing educational institutions. He forced the sale of media outlets to regime-aligned oligarchs, which may sound familiar to people in the United States.
Cottle: I’ve got to say, I’m having shades of Trump panic here.
Goldberg: Well, yeah. I think one of the things that’s striking about being there, is that this was a process of 16 years. And if you look at how much Donald Trump has done over less than two years, it’s kind of alarming. On the other hand, Hungary shows that even when this is very, very entrenched, with enough popular will you can overcome it.
But Orban really held himself out as the model for a new regime at a time when people felt like liberal democracy was exhausted, and he invested a lot of state money — a lot of Hungarian money — into building out this network in other places.
There’s a whole subculture in Budapest of these American expats working at state-subsidized think tanks, writing about how heavenly it is to live in the Orban regime. And I was actually at an event at the Danube Institute, which is one of these think tanks, earlier in the week. And they were all glum because they could sort of see where things were going. And one of the speakers actually said, “Without the Hungarian taxpayer, we wouldn’t have this right-wing infrastructure in Europe,” which I thought was a stunning admission. And I don’t know that the Hungarian taxpayers realized that they were subsidizing this new intellectual infrastructure.
Cottle: David, what are your thoughts? What hit you?
French: You know, it is difficult to understate how much, for part of the Trump right, Hungary was the model. This was the wave of the future. Look, I would not ascribe that to Trump. From the beginning, I think of Trumpism as just the will to power of one man, Donald Trump. It’s not a coherent ideology, but a lot of people who want to have a coherent ideology of illiberalism and authoritarianism have attached themselves to Trump. And I would say Orbanism was what you might call “intellectual Trumpism.” In other words, how do you create a political philosophy around this concept of the strong man in a Western democracy? And Orban was the model. He was the guy. Now, I found all of this deeply confusing. I remember in the ’80s and ’90s, having all these arguments with my liberal friends, who are holding out Norway as the model of social democracy. And I’m like, “Guys. Small Scandinavian countries are not one-to-one comparisons with the U.S.” I was completely right.
I just didn’t know which region of Europe, which small country, was going to be the model for the U.S. Apparently, it’s Central Europe. And a small Central European country is the model. And it was important enough for the intellectual Trump right, for JD Vance to go there, to actually essentially appear in a campaign rally to interfere blatantly, grotesquely in the election. And then after Orban loses, it was like, “Oh, but the right won anyway, because Peter Magyar is conservative, and is more conservative than the rest of the European Union.”
And look, he is a conservative politician by European definitions — or a right-wing politician by European definitions — but very fundamentally different in the approach to liberal democracy. That was always the beef with Orban. It wasn’t so much that he was a right-leaning politician, it was the illiberal authoritarianism. That’s why Trumpists here at home found him compelling. It wasn’t his right-leaning ideology, it was his illiberal authoritarianism. And it’s the defeat of that illiberal authoritarianism that is really the big development out of Europe.
Goldberg: I just want to say one quick thing about the comparison between Norway and Hungary, right? So, I take your point that maybe you can’t base a model for American governance on these relatively small European countries, but I think the big difference is that Norway at least works on its own terms, right? Like, Norway is a thriving, happy, rich, successful country, whereas even on the right’s own terms, Hungary has become one of the poorest countries in the E.U., right? It is the most corrupt on many measures. One of Orban’s big policies was that he was going to raise the birthrate. I mean, he hasn’t; the birthrate is really, really low. I think it’s 1.31, or something like that.
And so, the model doesn’t even work on its own terms, which is another reason why I think that this has been such a blow. Because — this is not on the same scale, but think about American leftists grappling with the failure of Communism, and what it means when your God has failed. This is a much lesser God, but the failure is still, I think, going to create an intellectual crisis.
Cottle: So, somebody talked to me about JD Vance’s role over there. It seems to me that it was extremely risky to send him. I mean, I get his fanboy tendencies with Hungary. Especially because he himself is a very enthusiastic natalist. I can see some of the appeal. But to send the vice president over there, to wrap his arms around Orban on the eve of these elections, and then have such a spectacular belly flop. What do you make of this little adventure, and what happens now in terms of where it takes the postliberal right in the U.S. and what it does for that movement? David, go first.
French: Can I call this “the Strait of Hormuz of electoral interventions”?
Cottle: Please do.
French: So, one of the things that has happened is that you have seen MAGA take this view where they don’t believe bad news now, or bad polls or negative reports.
Cottle: It’s all fake.
French: It’s all fake. There’s a good reason why, for example, there’s some skepticism towards polls. In all three of Trump’s presidential elections, he outperformed his polling. But this would’ve been outperforming by orders of magnitude greater. But what we have seen is a consistent pattern with the administration; just overreaches and overreaches and overreaches. There’s this underlying hubris, that they can bend the world to their will. And it’s interesting, Michelle, I honestly think that what was the political project of Orbanism — if you were going to hear the right — it really wasn’t to turn Hungary into a thriving democracy. The political project was authoritarianism, sustainable authoritarianism — that was the political project. Because for years, when I was writing against this Hungarian experiment in conservative media, and I was comparing Hungary to all kinds of other countries on exactly those metrics, Michelle — birth rate, economic prosperity.
I mean, the contrast between Poland and Hungary is just extreme here. It’s a large contrast. But that was not what was motivating them here. It was not really, “I’ve gone to Hungary because Hungary has shown how to make its citizens happier, healthier, and more prosperous.” It was, “I’ve gone to Hungary because Orban has shown how to deal with Wokesters.” And it’s the failure of that particular political enterprise, which was not really rooted in human flourishing and mutual and shared prosperity. It’s the failure of that particular enterprise, and what they thought of as sustainable authoritarianism — that’s the real blow there.
Goldberg: Right, and can I say something that has been driving me crazy since the election? I think you’re hearing this over and over again. The new line is, “Well, the fact that he lost and there looks like there’s going to be a peaceful transition of power —— ”
French: Oh yeah.
Goldberg: “Proves that he was never an authoritarian to begin with.” I would point out that there was a peaceful transition after the fall of Communism in 1989, and nobody says that proves that Communism was never authoritarian.
But also, I went to one of the last Peter Magyar rallies in this town, a few hours from Budapest, in the northeast — kind of a Fidesz stronghold and a town of like 16,000. Pretty run-down. A lot of Soviet-style architecture is still around. And there were well over a thousand people that turned out in this square. And Peter Magyar kept saying: “Don’t be afraid. Don’t be afraid.” And the people were chanting: “We are not afraid.” And so, I asked a woman, “What does he mean? What have you been afraid of?” And she was an elementary school teacher, and she told me that, in the past, she would’ve been afraid to show her support for the opposition, because she would have feared that she would lose her job and her ability to support her family. And it was only seeing this tidal wave of people that made her think that there was a preference cascade. But you hear that kind of thing all the time. And what’s so frustrating is that, on the one hand, it’s this strong-hand, to put it lightly, that the MAGA-right admires, and now that it’s been rebuked, they want to pretend that it was never there to begin with.
French: Right, right. Exactly.
Cottle: That’s part of the whole, “Admit no defeat,” right? It’s just baked into that movement, that nothing is truly a defeat. But you mentioned Poland, Michelle, and you’ve reported from there, where the far-right Law and Justice Party undermined democratic norms for nearly a decade, before it was booted in 2023. So, what have they done to rebuild that democracy? And is there a lesson, or lessons, for Hungary to pull from that?
Goldberg: Well, in some ways it was a similar election, in that it was the center-pro-European-right versus the far-populist-right. It’s much more difficult in Poland, even though the Law and Justice Party hadn’t become quite as entrenched, because of the size of the victory in Hungary.
So, when I was in Poland, it was just a few months after the election, and what the government was dealing with is, I think, what we’re going to end up dealing with here, too. Which is, when you have all of these regime cronies infiltrated into all of these institutions, it becomes very hard to remove them without traducing democratic norms yourself, right? And so, it’s this paradox of reform.
In Poland, they had created these new judicial roles. They had done complicated things to shore up the judiciary. How do you undo that without exerting extra-judicial powers yourself? The difference in Hungary — and again, we don’t know how this is going to play out — but because Peter Magyar won what they call there a “constitutional majority,” — he won two-thirds — his party is going to be able to revise the Hungarian Constitution. And so, they have a much freer hand to undo what Orban has done.
Cottle: David, what does Peter Magyar, what kind of challenge is he facing with this and ridding the country, cleansing it of this authoritarian bent? They took 16 years to get this project rolling.
French: I think Michelle identified the problem very well, and it’s a version of the problem that we are going to face the next time there is a non-Trumpist, or a Democratic administration. And that is, if one of the violations of norms was purging the bureaucracy and replacing it with your own loyalists, is the correction to that purging the bureaucracy again? And have you, essentially, created a pattern where — in the desire to avoid something like the corrupt ideological spoil system — you then push it to another level, because you have to try to cleanse the products of the corrupt ideological spoil system. Which then the other side codes and understands it as “just a purge of my allies.” And you realize how much one person, who is breaking both legal and traditional moral norms around democracy, how much they can do a generation-long amount of damage.
Cottle: OK, so I want to be a little bit of a worrywart on this. You’re talking about what happens when we have moved beyond the Trump era, and how we get back to some sort of democratic norms ——
French: You’re saying that may be wildly optimistic.
Cottle: We still have a few years. And so, what lessons do we think that this administration and this president will take from what happened to Orban, and what could we be looking at?
Goldberg: So, I’m not sure that Trump is capable of learning these kinds of lessons. I mean, you could argue that they would say: “Well, this requires an even greater level of repression.”
Cottle: That’s what keeps me up.
Goldberg: I hate to be Pollyannaish about this country, because God knows I feel a tremendous sense of despair and horror. But at the end of the day, the reason I think Orban didn’t try to steal the election — even though there were weird, dirty tricks in the run-up to it; there was this false flag accusation of Ukrainian sabotage; there were things that Orban was doing that it looked like he might be tiptoeing up to some state of emergency. And we’ll never know how real that danger was. But I think part of the reason that they didn’t attempt anything like that was because the opposition was just so overwhelming. You could see it everywhere. They just couldn’t have gotten away with it. And I would say, similarly, Donald Trump’s coalition — although he still has his hardcore base — you already see it falling apart. And a lot of the people who would’ve been, in the past, cheerleaders for some of the most radical action that Donald Trump could take — who would’ve been out there excusing or encouraging a Jan. 6-type thing — those people have fallen off the wagon. Alex Jones is gone. Candace Owens is gone.
Cottle: When you’ve lost Candace Owens.
Goldberg: Tucker Carlson is wondering if Donald Trump is the Antichrist, which is maybe a conversation for another episode of this podcast ——
Cottle: On the religious overtones.
Goldberg: And so, I don’t want to underestimate how much power Donald Trump still has. He has the military. But I think that the loss of a lot of his most powerful propagandists, would just make it much, much harder.
Cottle: Yeah. David?
French: You know, I think you’re already seeing the smarter folks in MAGA looking at Hungary, looking at the collapse in support, looking at the Iran war — I mean, the Iran war was a breakpoint beyond the Epstein files, especially in the most hardcore elements of the MAGA right. Because if you were on the other side of them in the 2024 election, all they ever would say to you was: “Warmonger, you want to go to war with Iran.” So, for a segment of these people, it has been a bridge too far. But here’s where I want to introduce a thought to people’s minds: This part of MAGA, that has broken with him, has broken with him not necessarily because this was an unconstitutional war, but because they’re furious at him; because his foreign policy is distracting them from the real mission, which is the enemy within. And so, part of the frustration with MAGA is that Trump hasn’t concentrated enough on the left, in suppressing the left in this country. Even if Trump loses — and let’s just say Democrats sweep the midterms, Democrats win the next presidential election and return to power — then the question is really going to be, is this populist reaction, that is now drifting increasingly antisemitic, just what the opposition party’s going to be in America? Or would the defeat of that form of the opposition party result in a change in the opposition party? And that’s what we don’t know.
So, I’m sitting here hoping that a defeat of the populist version of the Republican Party could mean at least a ghost of a chance that you have a revival of a classical liberal version of a Republican Party. But I could see it going the other way. And I feel like in Hungary we’re getting a small European version of a dilemma we’re going to be facing. And Poland was interesting.
One last quick thing on Poland: I did this really fun and interesting interview with a Polish law professor, and she, along with a number of judges and other law professors, had done a massive program on civic education in Poland, where they had done things like go to local communities, judges and law professors, and teach people what the rule of law is, what constitutional law is. It wasn’t, “Vote for this person and not this person,” — it was a massive civic education program. And that has stuck with me ever since. One thing we absolutely need in this country is a massive civic education program, so that people understand what it is that we are about to lose here in this country if the present trends continue towards Trumpist authoritarianism.
Goldberg: Can I say two quick things? When you talked about the judges — and I know what you mean about the judges in Poland — something not quite analogous, but something that I thought was really interesting in Hungary was what they called “Tisza Islands.” And Tisza, again, forgive my pronunciation, is the name of Magyar’s party. It’s named after this Hungarian river. And there would be these islands in small towns, of just people who would meet and organize and kind of shore each other up, show people that they weren’t alone in their opposition. And I think that this was very important — that kind of local infrastructure.
The other thing I just want to say about the future of the Republican Party: I mean, my guess is that the future of the Republican Party is more nakedly antisemitic. And I say this as someone — I think it’s always important to say this when you talk about criticism of Israel — I would like to see the United States foreign policy break with Israel, I would like to see Benjamin Netanyahu in The Hague. This is not about thinking that criticism of Israel is antisemitic.
However, I do think that there is now a lot of naked antisemitism in the Republican Party. After World War I, in Germany there was the stab-in-the-back theory, the Dolchstosslegende, the idea that it was the Jews that had caused them to be defeated. I think you’ll see something similar with MAGA. Especially because this war in Iran was so inexplicable, and nobody could quite understand why Trump just turned on a dime. And there’s going to be an obvious explanatory conspiracy theory. And so, I would be very worried that we will look back on this period as the precursor to an even more fascist Republican Party.
Cottle: One of the things that I’m assuming is that the recovery of the Republican Party — and I do mean recovering from this Trumpish fever — is going to depend on how thoroughly discredited Trumpism is, and I think the Iran war is an important point in that.
And so, I feel that we should also point out that, in addition to his field trip to Hungary, the vice president was sent to Pakistan to lead the highest level talks between the U.S. and Iran in nearly 50 years; to ostensibly try and reach a deal, even though that seemed very unlikely. And it just struck me — Vance is completely opposed to this war. He stands by the president in public, but this is a violation of the part of the MAGA base that he has always vibed with.
And it seems like this is putting a nail, so to speak, in the coffin of his future within the movement. Now, obviously there’s still a lot of time, there’s overstating, anything can happen. But it does feel like that’s an important schism that’s going to speak to how discredited the movement winds up, and how quickly the party can recover. Or maybe I’m just being too optimistic.
French: Look, political eras do end, parties do reform, so when it comes to when will this era end, I feel confident it will at some point. I just don’t know when and how much damage will be done before it does. And that’s very much an open question. And I do think in JD Vance’s failures, we’re beginning to see maybe how this political era ends. Because the question has always been: Who is getting the baton from Donald Trump? Who is the next standard bearer?
And for a long time it’s been JD Vance. JD Vance is sort of the heir apparent, and he has been faceplanting time and time and time again.
And one way to think of his phase as a leader of the Republican Party is that he’s got all of the toxicity of Trump and none of that real charisma that Trump has. It’s charisma that I don’t fully understand. It’s never landed with me. Although I will say, early on I did enjoy “The Apprentice.” But it has never really landed with me, this hold, this charisma that he has. But one thing I know is that JD Vance does not have it. He just doesn’t have it.
Cottle: No, the man can’t order a donut without alienating people.
French: Right. To the point where we saw this poll — and I never thought we’d see this, that Dick Cheney is now much more popular than JD Vance.
Cottle: It feels like they keep throwing him under the bus. Vance had barely made it back to the U.S. from his globetrotting, when his boss picked a fight with Pope Leo XIV.
Goldberg: Well, can we just remember why we have Pope Leo? What happened to the last pope after JD Vance met with him?
Cottle: Oh, I like that conspiracy theory. We’re floating back to that.
French: Michelle.
Cottle: OK, moving along from Michelle’s dark view of JD Vance’s supernatural powers —
Goldberg: I’m sorry. That was a joke, sorry.
Cottle: Vance is the highest-ranking Catholic in U.S. politics, and his basic response was that the pope should stay out of it. This feud with the pope has not played well among a lot of conservative Catholics. Pope Leo is not as unpopular with conservative Catholics as his predecessor. A lot of them are very pleased with him. David, what’s going on? What’s going on here? What’s the pope up to? What do you make of Vance’s response?
French: Boy. This is fascinating, because MAGA will say: “Well, this pope is going after Donald Trump.” Well, I’m old enough to remember when John Paul II, who was — you know, conservatives love John Paul II — very much against the Iraq war in 2003. So, it is not the case that popes “stay in their lane,” or however you want to say it. Popes have been talking about war and peace forever. It’s what they do.
This is something that’s been going on for a long time, and a role that the church should play. Going back to Martin Luther King Jr., and I’m paraphrasing this quote, but, in essence, the church is not the master of the state, the church is not the servant of the state, the church is the conscience of the state. And so, it’s not that the church runs the country — or the church serves the country — it’s that it has an entirely separate meaning and purpose and relationship to a country. And that is to provide a moral argument about what a country is. And now, of course, that’s not the sum total job of the church, but in the church-state relations context. So, the pope is doing exactly what popes have done. What popes, in my view, should do. But Trump is stumped by people who do not bend to his bullying and to his will. And so, it was only a matter of time before he was going to do this. I felt this has been inevitable for a while, that there was going to be a direct attack on the pope and that it was not going to phase the pope. The pope was not going to be intimidated by that, because they’re two very different people with ——
Cottle: Because why should he be?
French: Right. They’re working on two very different institutions, two very different time horizons. It’s so absurd, this attack on the pope. And Trump is giving his own people off-ramp after off-ramp after off-ramp.
Goldberg: David, can I ask you a question? Because I think you can’t talk about this fight with the pope without also talking about that extremely blasphemous image of Donald Trump as a “doctor.”
Cottle: Oh, the Jesus image!
French: Yeah. You mean the doctor image? The “doctor.”
Cottle: My doctor looks just like that.
Goldberg: Right. But yes. Of Donald Trump ——
Cottle: Light coming out of hands.
Goldberg: Of a Christ-like Donald Trump healing someone, with both patriotic paraphernalia but also a demon figure in the background. But I’m curious, because I saw people who had supported Trump suddenly saying, “Wait, he is the Antichrist.” A lot of, I think, evangelicals who are still very much on board with Trump — I’m curious, is this just a thing they can dismiss as Trump being Trump, or is this causing some genuine qualms?
French: Let me put it this way: It has, in a small slice of people, caused genuine qualms. It’s a chip-away moment, but it’s more than that. This is wider-scale frustration from people whom I’ve never seen critique Trump. In other words, people who have been with him, who have always had the most rationalizing, justifying explanation. And this was a bridge too far. And the way they’ve cast it is, “Well, I can disagree with him on some things,” or “He just made a mistake.” Very similar to — remember when he put out the video that had the monkey image? There was some consternation and then it was, “Oh, he made a mistake.” And here you’re seeing more consternation, but less willingness to say, “Oh, he just made a mistake.”
Cottle: Man, I’m a lapsed evangelical. And even I was like, “Damn, brother, I don’t believe I’d have done that.”
French: Well, I could tell you’re a lapsed evangelical, Michelle, when your response was: “Damn, brother.”
Cottle: I’m just saying. OK, so I feel that this was a pretty magical move on his part. And I would like us to leave it there. Just with that image of Trump as Jesus, looming over all of us. It seems like a pretty good spot to leave this and pivot to something more uplifting, dare I say?
I want to wrap this thing up as we always do, with recommendations. What are y’all watching or reading, or otherwise enjoying this week? Michelle, you go first. Guest goes first.
Goldberg: So I’m going to recommend a novel. It actually came out a couple of months ago. But I don’t think it’s gotten as much attention as it deserves. It’s a novel called “Good People” by Patmeena Sabit. Have either of you heard of it?
French: No.
Goldberg: OK, so good. So, that shows me that it has not indeed gotten the attention that it deserves.
Cottle: Teach us!
Goldberg: It’s this really wonderful and riveting novel about a very assimilated Afghan family, where the daughter dies and there’s a question of whether or not she was the victim of an honor killing. It has the pace and momentum of a murder mystery, but it’s one of these novels written with many different voices, and it has this polyphonic quality. It is such a fascinating book about both assimilation and the limits of assimilation. This fear of losing face is not one that I typically can sympathize with, but it makes you feel the weight of that. And it also is constantly making you revise what you think is happening.
Like, at one moment you’ll think, “Oh, this really is this abusive, medieval family.” And then you’ll think, “Wait, how different is this really from strict parents grounding their daughter?” It’s so moving, but also just really riveting. It was one of those books that ruins your next day because you’re up late reading it.
Cottle: OK, David?
French: So, I’m cheating a little bit here because I know what you’re going to say, Michelle. And I’m counter-programming you just right off the bat. So, whatever Michelle is about to tell you, don’t listen to her. Watch this instead. Season 2 of “Your Friends & Neighbors” just came out. This is the Jon Hamm show, with Olivia Munn and Amanda Peet, and now this season, with James Marsden, who’s just tremendous. And it’s about a rich guy who steals nice things from rich people, is a good way of putting it.
He falls on hard times, loses his hedge fund job, and decides to make ends meet by stealing all the extra stuff that his neighbors, in this extremely exclusive suburban, New York neighborhood, have. And it’s funny, it’s lighthearted, it’s got elements of mystery to it, and it is just a nice palate cleanser after the trauma of Michelle’s recommendation.
Cottle: I feel targeted and yet I’m going to plow forward anyway and recommend “DTF St. Louis.” It’s on, I believe, HBO, right?
Goldberg: It’s HBO, yeah.
Cottle: It’s got Jason Bateman, David Harbour and Linda Cardellini, with — in other, smaller roles — people like Richard Jenkins. It basically starts out with, you have a dead body. Somebody’s dead, and then you’re going to go back through what happened. And it’s sort of a love triangle about three bored, lonely, middle-aged people. But, pretty quickly, it just gets weird. And then it gets weird again. And it’s a limited series, it’s not going to have a second season, praise the Lord. Because I hate it when they do that.
Goldberg: Well, maybe it’ll be one of those anthology ones, where they do “DTF Baltimore” or something.
Cottle: Oh! There we go. David did not like the ending. Michelle has not seen it.
Goldberg: Right. I’ve seen three episodes, and so far I thought it was riveting.
French: It’ll suck you in. It’ll pull you in.
Cottle: The performances are unbelievable. I am just riveted. I can’t look away. So, fine, David: The ending is not to your liking. I get it, but the show — and it’s not a huge commitment, it doesn’t have that many episodes. Do it. Do yourself a favor.
French: And then, as part of your therapy, you can turn to “Your Friends & Neighbors.”
Cottle: OK, with that we’re going to land this plane. Michelle, David — thank you so much for coming to solve the world’s problems. We will do it again soon.
Goldberg: Thank you.
French: Thank you, Michelle.
Thoughts? Email us at [email protected].
This episode of “The Opinions” was produced by Derek Arthur and Jillian Weinberger. It was edited by Alison Bruzek and Kaari Pitkin. Mixing by Daniel Ramirez. Video editing by Julian Hackney. The postproduction manager is Mike Puretz. Original music by Pat McCusker and Sonia Herrero. Fact-checking by Mary Marge Locker and Kate Sinclair. Audience strategy by Shannon Busta and Kristina Samulewski. The director of Opinion Video is Jonah M. Kessel. The deputy director of Opinion Shows is Alison Bruzek. The director of Opinion Shows is Annie-Rose Strasser.
The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: [email protected].
Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Bluesky, WhatsApp and Threads.
The post From Hungary to the Pope, the Right’s Very Bad Week appeared first on New York Times.
