A fair conversation with a fellow citizen who is not a Fidesz supporter! We knock on every door and talk to everyone, whether they are pro-Fidesz or left-wing — because we know that our arguments are stronger and we have answers to every question.
Because this is what democracy is about: this is the only way we can ensure that everyone can make their decision to the best of their knowledge on April 12. Our offer is clear: if the national government remains, family support will remain, the 13th and 14th month pensions will remain, and low utility costs will also remain.
Of course, no one can be perfect, but we can confidently say that even in times of danger we have protected Hungary’s peace and security — which is why Fidesz is the safe choice.
They say things are going very well. What do you mean? We don’t know where the money is. Well, it’s in the developments — you can see that in many places across the country. Where is the money that was supposedly misused? Well, there is an investigation underway, sir. But in a rule-of-law state, this is how it works: we don’t hang people without knowing what happened, and we don’t put them in prison without an investigation. And we have bought back a large part of MVM. The fact is, there is a lot of money there — in the form of utility cost reductions and family support.
All we ask is this: maybe you have already firmly decided who you will support, but please take a moment to think about what one option or the other might mean in your personal life. It is certain that every government deserves criticism — we certainly didn’t do everything perfectly either. But in the most important matters, Hungary is still a place where you can safely walk the streets, and there are no migrants here.
I just want to leave you with that one thought, and we don’t want to disturb you any further. Thank you very much for the conversation — I truly appreciate when discussions can be this normal and civilized, even with differing opinions. Honestly, we don’t always encounter this.
It would make sense to hear other perspectives as well. Of course, some people think differently, but I’m glad this conversation was like this.
So I just want to say this: things like reduced utility costs or the 13th month pension did not exist before 2010, and it’s not certain they will exist after 2026 if Fidesz is no longer in government.
I’m not trying to pressure you — decide responsibly, for the sake of your children. The reduced utility costs are truly worth considering.
This is Hungarian freedom.
It was a pleasure — all the best, goodbye.
It doesn’t feel like a spontaneous conversation, but rather a pre-produced campaign situation where the goal is not debate, but persuading the viewer through a performed everyday interaction.
Main impression
The “non-Fidesz compatriot” does not function as a real debate partner here, but rather as a prop:
- you need an “average person”
- you need a bit of staged conflict about money and corruption
- then comes the rehearsed, calm, “rational,” “cultured” response
- and in the end, it circles back to the key messages:
utility price cuts, family support, pensions, security, migrants, peace
In other words, the “lady’s” role is not to challenge the narrative, but to cue the next block of campaign messaging.
Artistic performance – how it works
1. “A fair conversation” – pre-written credibility
Technique:
Right at the beginning, they define how the scene should be interpreted:
“A fair conversation,” “with a non-Fidesz compatriot.”
Goal:
Before we hear anything, the viewer is told that this is:
- open
- democratic
- civilian
- authentic
Effect:
The viewer pays less attention to how natural the situation actually is, because they are pre-labeled with the idea that this is a fair, peaceful, democratic dialogue.
2. The extra as an “opposition alibi”
Technique:
A mildly critical figure appears, asking something about money, corruption, or developments.
Goal:
The campaign video can pretend that:
- look, we are not afraid of criticism
- we even answer opposition questions
- we have answers to everything
Effect:
Criticism is no longer a threat, but decoration that reinforces the speaker’s “preparedness.”
3. Rehearsed spontaneity
Technique:
The speech often feels like something disguised as improvisation:
- slightly messy
- slightly everyday
- slightly “live”
- but always returns to the same talking points
Goal:
To avoid sounding like propaganda and instead feel like “street reality.”
Effect:
The viewer feels this is not a studio or political ad, but real life confirming the campaign message.
4. The answer is not an answer, but a transition to talking points
Technique:
Critical questions are not met with precise, evidence-based answers, but quickly shift into lines like:
- “an investigation is ongoing”
- “this is how it works in a rule-of-law state”
- “we don’t hang people without due process”
- “utility price cuts”
- “family support”
Goal:
Replace specifics with moral superiority and topic shifting.
Effect:
The viewer doesn’t take away actual answers, but the impression that
the speaker is calm, humane, reasonable, and responsible.
5. Role distribution: one questions, the other is “statesmanlike”
Technique:
The dramaturgy is clear:
- the civilian: somewhat skeptical, somewhat uncertain
- Alexa: patient, smiling, composed, calmly superior
Goal:
To embody order, composure, and maturity in the campaign figure.
Effect:
It’s not the strength of arguments that grows, but the status of the speaker:
she appears to be the smarter, calmer, more responsible one.
6. “I’m not campaigning” – while constantly campaigning
Technique:
At the end comes classic false modesty:
- “I’m not trying to persuade you”
- “decide responsibly”
- “for the sake of your children”
Goal:
To reduce the feeling of political pressure while actually increasing it.
Effect:
The persuasion appears not as political agitation, but as well-meaning life advice.
This is one of the strongest manipulative elements in the whole piece.
7. “For the sake of your children” – soft emotional coercion
Technique:
The decision is framed as a personal moral responsibility:
- family
- children
- utilities
- pensions
- security
Goal:
To shift political decision-making from programs to fear and responsibility.
Effect:
Not choosing Fidesz is framed not as a different opinion, but as risking your family’s well-being.
8. Overemphasizing “civilized conversation”
Technique:
Repeated references to how normal and cultured the conversation was.
Goal:
To suggest two things at once:
- “we” are open and civilized
- the opposing side is generally not
Effect:
The specific scene becomes a broader character judgment:
we are reasonable, they are hysterical.
9. Emotional keywords instead of performance
Technique:
The same trigger words keep returning:
- utility cuts
- pensions
- family support
- security
- migrants
- peace
Goal:
To trigger reflexes instead of thought.
Effect:
The viewer receives not detailed arguments, but a sequence of emotional cues.
10. “Hungarian freedom” as a closing line – frame hijacking
Technique:
The conversation is closed with a morally positive concept:
“This is Hungarian freedom.”
Goal:
To merge party interest with a national value.
Effect:
The campaign message sounds like freedom itself, not a political offer.
Why it feels staged
Because the logic of the scene is not real debate, but campaign dramaturgy:
- you need a skeptical or “opposition” civilian
- they raise typical criticisms
- the main character responds calmly and confidently
- shifts the topic to utilities, security, family
- ends with a polite closure
- the viewer feels: “see, even against an opponent, they handled it well”
This is not strong as a conversation — it is constructed as a scene.
The essence of the “artistic performance” in one sentence
This is a campaign theater piece disguised as a spontaneous street interaction, where the “non-Fidesz” participant exists mainly to allow the main speaker to deliver a carefully crafted message package in a relatable setting.
Short, blunt summary
Not a debate.
Not a dialogue.
But:
- a theater of credibility
- a civilian prop
- repetition of talking points
- soft emotional coercion
- propaganda dressed up as a “civilized conversation”