By Ljubomir Kostovski

“It is good to have an enemy,” says George Birnbaum, one of the godfathers of modern populism.

“Because you will very rarely find someone who is loved by everyone.”

These are the words of a man who worked as a political consultant for 30 years. He first helped Benjamin Netanyahu win power in Israel with a surprise victory in 1996, and later repeated that success with Viktor Orbán in Hungary in 2010.

His clients span many countries, and today he moves between New York, Dubai, and Harare. He is considered the successor to the late Arthur Finkelstein, who died in 2017—a brilliant mathematician who redefined the art of political campaigning in the United States, helping Richard Nixon return to power in 1972, as well as many other Republican leaders.

A Politician Who Is Exhausting His Narrative

When it comes to Netanyahu’s choice of enemies, there is little left to say—he is well on his way to being disliked by much of the world, including parts of his own nation. Orbán, too, has long relied on this strategy, although he now appears to be exhausting a narrative that once worked flawlessly; like a worn-out rerun, it is becoming a gift slipping from his hands.

Birnbaum, one of “Arthur’s children” under the mentorship of his late business partner, has at times candidly advised clients—and those willing to pay for his services—that they should:

“…try to polarize elections around the issue that works best in your favor—whether it is drugs, crime, or some racial issue within the state. If you fail to do so, your opponent will seize the initiative in polarization, and then you are in trouble.”

The duo achieved a dramatic breakthrough with Netanyahu’s first electoral victory in Israel, which came only months after the assassination of his predecessor, Prime Minister Shimon Peres.

Netanyahu treated his predecessor ruthlessly, while voters were captivated by slogans such as:

“Peres will divide Jerusalem in peace negotiations with the Palestinians.”

Later, when asked by a BBC journalist whether there was any truth in that campaign slogan, the consultant admitted that there was none. (This becomes particularly relevant when comparing such strategies with certain “anti-” policies of our current government in a different context.)

What Hungarians Are Afraid Of

In 2008, Finkelstein and Birnbaum began working with Hungarian politician Viktor Orbán, whose right-wing party Fidesz achieved a landslide victory in 2010. Orbán, too, needed an enemy—someone Hungarians could be told to fear.

After numerous public opinion polls, the consultants decided that Orbán should target George Soros, then an 85-year-old American billionaire of Hungarian origin, as the perfect figure.

“George Soros was a good target. Because enough people in Hungary disliked the idea of this billionaire behind the curtain—almost like… the Wizard of Oz—controlling politics,” Birnbaum said in an interview with the BBC.

Orbán’s attacks on Soros later evolved, redirecting hostility toward a new target. Soros had advocated for a more humane EU approach to refugees from the Middle East—particularly from Syria—while Orbán sharpened his rhetoric against Muslims in the European Union, and specifically against Muslim refugees during the migration wave.

Within that framework, Orbán called on Brussels to confront Soros, claiming that he—himself Jewish (!)—was using “his billions” to soften attitudes toward people fleeing war. Orbán labeled refugee integration efforts as “the Soros plan,” appealing to right-wing audiences far beyond Hungary.

“As incredible as it may seem, the Jewish philanthropist was accused of conspiring to destroy Christian Europe with Muslim immigrants—an idea that was already gaining traction on the far-right margins of European politics as the ‘Great Replacement’ theory. Migrants became the frightening ‘other’ in the worldview of many Hungarians, replacing Jews or Roma. And the demonization of George Soros radiated from Hungary across the world,” wrote BBC journalist Nick Thorpe.

During a visit to the United States, Orbán even delivered a speech against Soros to Republicans at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Texas in 2022.

“I know George Soros very well. He is my opponent. He does not believe in anything we are doing,” the Hungarian leader told his American hosts.

After Muslims Come… Ukrainians

To summarize: Orbán secured his 2010–2014 mandate by positioning the philanthropist George Soros as a national “bogeyman,” promoting the narrative that it was dangerous for him to exert—even behind the scenes—any influence over key political actors. It is worth recalling that the headquarters of his Open Society Foundations was in Budapest, and that even in our own country, the party VMRO-DPMNE helped generate hostility toward this figure.

Orbán’s next mandate was built on presenting himself as a hard barrier against the influx of refugees from the Middle East—and even Central Asia—who, via Turkey, Greece, North Macedonia, and Serbia, were expected to pass through what was seen as Europe’s “soft underbelly”: Hungary. Yet, for many, that route toward their “countries of dreams” proved futile.

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán repeatedly emphasized that Hungary does not want migrants, adding that Soros had funded 60 NGOs supporting migration into Europe.

“A large number of Muslim immigrants will lead to the emergence of parallel societies. Muslim and Christian societies will never integrate. We (Hungary) do not want this, and we do not want anyone to force it upon us,” Orbán stated at the time.

He went even further, saying he did not view those seeking entry into the EU as refugees, but as an “invasive Muslim force.”

At the same time, he rebuked both European neighbors and major powers, arguing they were incapable of stopping the process. The EU, he insisted, must respect its sovereignty—as must each member state—and must have the capacity to protect its borders.

He implemented these policies brutally: by tolerating violence against migrants by his own citizens and by constructing an entire belt of barbed wire along Hungary’s border with the former Yugoslavia. He was also explicit about expulsion policies—returning migrants to the countries from which they entered—which placed a heavy burden on Serbia, where many refugees remained stranded for long periods.

Notably, this did little to damage relations between Belgrade and Budapest.

One cannot forget the incident in which a camerawoman from a Hungarian television station deliberately tripped a refugee running along the fence—and then laughed at the victim—only to later be treated by some as a national heroine, as if she were Joan of Arc.

Orbán’s logic was, for many across the continent, disturbingly clear—and it helps explain the growing appeal of the political right, particularly its more extreme variants. He argued that Muslims could not be integrated, citing what he described as deep differences—even contradictions—between European and Muslim values, mentality, education, and culture.

“We cannot be in solidarity with people whose goal is to change European culture and enter into our identity,” Orbán declared in a speech delivered in neighboring Romania.

Coming next:
Orbán finds Putin as his future ally

All rights reserved

Ljubomir Kostovski is a veteran journalist and analyst, member of CIVIL’s editorial board, and editor-in-chief of Globus magazine.

This article was translated from Macedonian into English with the assistance of AI (ChatGPT), with editorial review.

Help us defend democracy – support CIVIL