The Lynching

A perfectly civil man, Ronald Reagan would say the most uncomfortable things with passion, with conviction, but never with spite. More often than not, he would use an unmatched sense of humor. For Reagan, the problem emerged not when in disagreement, but when voicing that in an unpleasant way. As he said: "Disagreeing is OK. But let’s disagree without being disagreeable."

I recalled his words while writing down some notes for a review of the book of Vladimir Tismaneanu, in which he recorded his interviews with President Ion Iliescu. A good number of my own perplexities I shared to Mr. Tismaneanu in person, during a couple of long conversations we had together. Still, I postponed to make a public review of the "The Great Shock" (TR. NOTE: which is the partial title of Tismaneanu’s book) when I noticed, bemused at first, but then increasingly worried, that too many of the recent writings targeting Mr. Tismaneanu look like concentrated fire.

It would be silly of me to cry a plot had been hatched. Lynching rarely is the result of a conscious collective decision. What it takes for lynching is to have the critical mass of discontent and the spark-gesture of the first one to raise and cast the stone. The other stones will follow in the blink of an eye.

We all may turn controversial figures at one time or another. We all may make blunders. We all may be alienated from our own beliefs and principles, or to give the false impression to be so. Why we are not all subjected to lapidating? How come that this critical mass of discontent and disillusionment was built up against Mr. Tismaneanu?

I will not go now over all the details on my mind. Suffice it to say that I do understand those taken aback to hear Mr. Tismaneanu state that Mr. Becali (TR. NOTE: a soccer players’ manager) was a true politician and a Christian-Democrat. Yes, I did sigh when hearing Mr. Tismaneanu mention the visit to Pipera (TR. NOTE: an industrial compound) as an excuse for another visit he paid, but we are free to see whom we choose. And yes, I do believe that the British professor Tom Gallagher puts forth in his constant flow of discontent some topics that are worth debating.

But I found it unacceptable to see the renowned political scientist kicked out of the Consultative Council of a publication for which he had done a great deal, derided at by the self-proclaimed commissioner for Romania in charge with the idiotic political correctness issues, reprimanded by the collector of grants from all leagues fighting the ultra nationalist Romanian glow worms, or scorned at by the man of all nationalities who does not discern between people anymore.

One of the reasons I answered to an earlier invitation to write columns for this newspaper was to state my solidarity not with all of Vladimir Tismaneanu’s writings, not with all the conclusions he arrived at in his analyses, not with the relationships he cultivated, but with the democratic values he served so brilliantly in the past two decades. I state my solidarity with his right to be wrong and not beheaded for unproved betrayals, imaginary plots or hypothetic drifting away from professional and ethical standards.

If we accept today that lynching one of us is ok, than in effect we accept the legitimacy of lynching is applicable to all of us.
When we are more likely to spit than hug, when we are extremely concerned of how others wronged us, but we sleep a sound sleep on the pillow made of our own guilt towards others, than something is wrong with us.