DID THE NEW YORK TIMES ED BOARD JUST SAY DEMOCRATS SHOULD RUN ON BERNIENOMICS?

The editorial board of The New York Times responds to the victory of Peter Magyar's Tisza Party in Hungary by telling us that Democrats should take notes:

Hungary is obviously a very different country from the United States. But Mr. Orban’s rise and his use of power were long models for Mr. Trump. Now, Mr. Orban’s demise can be a model for the Democratic Party and any other party that is trying to defeat an authoritarian right-wing threat.

How exactly?

First, [Magyar] focused on the bread-and-butter issues that often guide the decisions of swing voters, and not just in Hungary.

And what did he propose?

The campaign platform of the party Mr. Magyar leads, Tisza, was titled “Foundations of a Functional and Humane Hungary.” It criticized the inefficiency of government services. Its agenda included tax cuts for working-class families, expanded health care, increased pensions, larger child benefits and a pay increase for support staff members at schools. It said it would help pay for these programs through both a wealth tax on the very rich and the recovery of European Union transfer payments reduced because of Mr. Orban’s anti-democratic policies.

Yes, you read that correctly: An overseas politician endorsed a wealth tax on billionaires and the ed board of The New York Times said "Bravo!"

What else?

Crucially, Mr. Magyar made corruption a core campaign issue....

On the campaign trail, he linked Mr. Orban’s corruption to Hungarians’ frustration with their stagnant living standards. In his victory speech on Sunday night, Mr. Magyar promised a country where citizens could rely on their government to help provide good medical care, a decent family life and a dignified retirement. What should matter, he said, was not political connections but the kind of person somebody was.

So you're saying that Magyar denounced oligarchy? You mean, like these guys?

Obviously, this can't be mainstream political commentary without a swipe at the left. It's a familiar one:

The second lesson may be harder for Democrats — and center-left parties in Europe — to absorb. Mr. Magyar, who identifies as center right, won partly by avoiding the social progressivism that dominates elite left-leaning circles and alienates many voters. He ran as an economic progressive and a cultural moderate if not conservative.

And what are some of the things he said and did that the dogmatic lefties in America's Democratic Party won't do?

He used patriotic symbols like the flag....

Have you seen the invocations of the flag, the Statue of Liberty, and the Constitution at No Kings rallies?

He campaigned in rural areas that Mr. Orban’s previous challengers had overlooked.

Many Democratic politicians don't do this, but do any Democrats object to it? Hell, even Chuck Schumer visits every county in New York State annually, even the red ones.

He declined to attend a Pride march in Budapest, making it harder for Mr. Orban to paint him as captive to L.G.B.T.Q. activists.

Okay, now we're talking: The Times ed board wants us to understand that Magyar's party won in part by throwing LGBTQ people under the bus. But some 2028 Democratic aspirants are already throwing trans people under the bus, and it's not helping them break from the pack. Note that J.D. Vance beat Gavin Newsom in a recent UMass-Lowell/YouGov poll.

On immigration, which has shaped recent elections around the world, Mr. Magyar called for even tighter restrictions than the Orban had government imposed. He said he would keep a border fence, repeal a guest-worker program and allow no guest workers from outside the European Union.

This is a tougher one. Polls show that Americans don't like the heavy-handed and brutal way Trump is handling immigration, but they're in favor of at least some deportations. I think Democrats could start reframing the issue by saying that Americans want immigrant criminals prioritized for deportation, and the Trump administration has prioritized the most law-abiding immigrants, because it's easier and less dangerous to round them up. Democrats can also talk about an immigration system that prioritizes the rule of law rather than warfare in the streets.

The implication of this editorial is that Democrats lost in 2024 because they didn't campaign this way. But to a large extent they did. Kamala Harris didn't campaign on social issues. Democrats had supported an immigration reform bill that accepted many of the GOP's ideas. And it didn't help.

But in the area of economics, Democrats campaigned on incremental change. Would a platform of serious economic populism have changed the outcome?

The Times ed board seems to be implying as much. Okay, fine -- let's try that.