Patapievici: "The ease with which we continue to mistake charlatans and buffoons to real patriots should have us thinking."
Once Kosovo’s independence was announced, all the televisions started to bring out statements. Corneliu Vadim Tudor had his share; his statements have been broadcasted over and over, something that we would usually see in the case of pack journalism, when the statemens are goofy or scandalous. However, this time, Tudor was taken for granted.
Nobody castigated his din, nor questioned his warnings, nor debated his threats. Miraculously, all the TV show hosts thought that Hungarian organizations can be labeled as “terrorist” and “illegal” - a thing that never happened before the “Kosovo crisis”.
Politeness and decency have suddenly disappeared in order to show a brutal confrontation. Miraculously, Corneliu Vadim Tudor’s statements, a pacient, a hooligan, were not a laughing matter anymore, although his behaviour was as usual, at the limit between pre-logic, incoherence and pathologic. Even Gheorghe Funar, also a member of the Great Romania Party and a rare apparition on TV, was invited to various talk-shows. Offcourse, he blathered along with the rest. This time though, he was paid the attention worthy of a doctor who brings the diagnosis to a pacient.
How did they gain this unexpected authority? It’s because of the common belief that C.V. Tudor and other primitive nationalists, might actually poses a special quality, out of the reach of ordinary citizens, the aptness in patriotism.
It’s like the normal citizen are only capable of a normal patriotism, required in normal times, whereas only the crazies could actually bring out the type of patriotism needed in a time of crisis. It’s a clear case of intellectual fraud for me when nationalists claim the part of a professional patriot, when it comes to the country’s interest.
It’s scandalous how TV show hosts conveyed that the professional patriots are the ones to turn to during a crisis.
Therefore, although our public space became significantly more civilized by avoiding to give credit to extreme nationalists, deep down our common identity lives the equation: “complete patriotism ≠ nationalism”. And that because of the assumption that the nationalist is a true master of patriotism, whilst the rest, normal non-nationalists and reasonable patriots, are nothing but amateurs when it comes to loving your country.
Otherwise, what could such a professionalism of patriotism be? The expression itself portrays something either common, false or aberrant in nature. If we are referring to a master of the scope of patriotism, the expression itself has meaning and is common. If we are referring to a sole citizen who professionally compiles the collective emotion known as patriotism, then we have a triple denial.
First of all, because only actors are emotional professionals, and nobody would accept to be taught about emotions by a person who mimics them or creates a semblance of emotions thru intentional manipulation. Its patriotism is either honest or non-existent.
Second of all, because citizenship is not a profession, but a given unshakeable stance towards the share of the common good. In this case, the idea that there might exist such a thing as patriotism professionals stands or is demolished together with the idea that citizenship is capable of specialization, which is non-sense. Furthermore, if such thing as patriotism professionalism would be true, then patriotism would be a solely verbal experience, without any ties to what offers it it’s unmistakeable ethical dimension: like, (a) physical valour in the face of danger and (b) political judgement towards decisions which are truly aimed towards the benefit of the country and nation.
Now, regarding the general understanding that nationalists would have a say in matters of a national crisis (which is not the case at hand) reveals a perspective of the distorted vision thru which patriotism continues to be viewed in our public sphere.
It’s enough for someone to declare like a mad man that he loves his country and to threaten everybody that only he does it best and without a hidden agenda, for people to agree, and in time to consider him, in times of crisis, an example to follow towards common conduct. The ease with which, in matters of patriotism, we continue to confuse crooks and buffoons with true patriots should concern us.
If we look back on the people who, in the past, contributed thru their actions, to the progress of our country, we will see that they were brought up from a totally different social blend then the hyper-active whacko’s that teach us these days about patriotism.
As a safe rule to follow, nationalists not only must they not be consulted, they don’t even deserve to be listened to, true patriots, identifiable thru the fact that they belong to the cast of reasonable people, with tempered instincts, and achievable aspirations, inclined towards cooperation and benefit, not only must they be listened to, but, carefully, followed.