There is a growing view that a truly high quality of life is not found in big cities, but rather outside them.
We love Budapest, as it offers a wide range of cultural opportunities and has well-developed infrastructure. However, if the city is to become truly family-friendly, much more needs to be done—especially to increase green spaces and improve air quality.
One thing is certain: we at Budapest Fidesz will do everything we can to make our capital more livable.
What concrete steps could be taken to make Budapest more livable for families? I was born in Budapest and have lived here my whole life. Yet I often think about whether, given the direction urban life has taken in recent years, it will still be considered desirable in the long term. There is an interesting parallel here with the dominance of the digital world and the idea of returning to a more analog way of life.
It seems to me that this is not only a Hungarian phenomenon but a broader trend across Western societies: while for decades big-city life represented quality, more and more people are now beginning to question this. Increasingly, a different perspective is emerging—one that suggests a truly high quality of life may not be found in the big-city environment at all.
This raises an important question. I don’t want to go too deeply into it here, but it’s something I reflect on often: it’s not certain that in 10–20 years most people will still see urban life—with its density, air pollution, and pressures—as the ideal. Yes, cities offer immense cultural diversity and choice, but is that truly what defines quality of life? Or could that instead be found in smaller towns or rural environments?
It is very difficult to make large cities truly family-friendly, because families often start at a disadvantage for the reasons mentioned. There are fewer green areas than outside cities, air quality is worse, and infrastructure is often not optimized for family life. And when we talk about a family-friendly city, we should not think only of families with children, but also of the elderly.
🔍 Main narrative
👉 “Urban life (Budapest) is declining and not ideal for families”
👉 “Real quality of life is rather found in rural areas”
👉 “We (Fidesz) are working to make it more livable”
👉 “The problem is real, but manageable – with us”
👉 “The question is open → we involve the audience”
🧩 Hidden formula
subtle dissatisfaction + sense of trend + problem framing + identity (rural vs urban) + promise of solution + engagement
➡️ This is no longer harsh propaganda, but “soft framing + guided thinking”
🧠 Influence techniques (in detail)
1️⃣ “Innocent” trend framing (soft agenda setting)
Excerpt:
“this view is becoming more widespread…”
Technique:
➡️ no concrete data
➡️ yet it sounds like a social fact
➡️ creates a “everyone thinks this” feeling
Goal:
➡️ normalize a political narrative
Effect:
➡️ the audience doesn’t question it → “yes, I feel this too”
2️⃣ Subtle anti-urban framing
Excerpt:
“crowding, air pollution, families are at a disadvantage”
Technique:
➡️ highlights real problems
➡️ pushes positives into the background
➡️ implicit contrast: city = worse
Goal:
➡️ frame Budapest’s current state as problematic
➡️ (implicitly criticize the opposition-led city leadership)
Effect:
➡️ increases dissatisfaction, but not aggressively
3️⃣ “I’m thinking about it” – credibility trick
Excerpt:
“I’ve been thinking about this a lot…”
Technique:
➡️ imitates personal reflection
➡️ not stating → “just thinking”
Goal:
➡️ increase authenticity
➡️ disguise propaganda as opinion
Effect:
➡️ feels less like a political message
4️⃣ False dilemma (city vs countryside)
Excerpt:
“it’s not certain that urban life represents quality…”
Technique:
➡️ sets two models against each other
➡️ suggests a forced choice
Goal:
➡️ steer value shift (urban → rural)
Effect:
➡️ creates doubt about the benefits of city life
5️⃣ Problem framing → ownership of solution
Excerpt:
“we at Budapest Fidesz are doing everything…”
Technique:
➡️ first dramatizes the problem
➡️ then presents itself as the solution
Goal:
➡️ build a sense of competence
Effect:
➡️ “they are working on it → we should trust them”
6️⃣ Engaging question (pseudo-dialogue)
Excerpt:
“What concrete steps could be taken?”
Technique:
➡️ question directed at the audience
➡️ appearance of involvement
In reality:
➡️ guided thinking
Goal:
➡️ create a sense of participation → increase acceptance
Effect:
➡️ the audience “joins” the narrative
7️⃣ Use of universal values
Keywords:
➡️ family
➡️ elderly
➡️ air quality
➡️ green spaces
➡️ quality of life
Technique:
➡️ uses unquestionable positive concepts
Goal:
➡️ minimize resistance
Effect:
➡️ hard to oppose → easy to accept
⚠️ What’s the trick in this message?
👉 It does not rely on outright lies
👉 It relies on selected truths + framing
This is the most effective type because:
- it cannot be easily attacked directly
- it appears as “common sense”
- it slowly shapes opinions
🧠 Summary
This text is:
➡️ not classic propaganda
➡️ but subtle narrative tuning (narrative-building)
Core logic:
- urban life → problematic
- rural life → gaining value
- Fidesz → working on the solution
➡️ It does not push aggressively, but guides thinking step by step