Sever Voinescu, Dilema: Little Rubio and our truth

In our last week's issue, we published a vitriolic article by New York professor Stephen Holmes directed at American Secretary of State Marco Rubio, following the speech he delivered at the Munich Security Conference. If you can abstract from the intensity of the author's aversion towards the Trump administration – difficult to do, I admit, given the vigor of the attack – you can deduce two major criticisms of Holmes towards Rubio.

The first is of character. The same Rubio who called Trump a "con man" (escroc) nine or ten years ago now serves him, acting like a faithful poodle, and contributes wholeheartedly to the elevation of the cult of personality of the current president. Conviction, I said? The truth is that only God knows what is in the soul of a politician who wants to rise high, higher, all the way to the top. I am reminded of an aphorism by Lucian Blaga: "The philosophy of the ivy: only by bending can you rise." And I also remember that Marco Rubio said he could not leave Reagan's party in the hands of a con man like Trump and that he would fight tooth and nail to prevent such a disaster from happening. And I remember Rubio mocking Trump by saying he was making a mess in his pants out of fear. And I remember the brave Rubio who accused Trump of using illegal immigrants as workers on his construction sites and called for public support to stop Trump's rise, which he called "lunacy." I also recall the way Trump humiliated him, almost crushed him. He mocked him, never letting him forget "little Marco" (Rubio is about 1.75 m tall, while Trump is about 1.90 m) and belittled him as he saw fit. To Rubio's disappointment, the people were with Trump. In that confrontation from 2015-2016, Trump crushed Rubio in the primaries. Four months before the party convention, "little Marco" withdrew from the race for the Republican nomination after losing the election even in his own state, Florida. Trump won the election in Florida with 46%, and Rubio was second with 27%. In fact, during that campaign, Trump established himself as the leader of the Republican Party, a position he has not left since. Rubio understood who he was dealing with. When the opponent is too strong to be defeated, the ambitious politician thinks about succeeding him. To succeed him, he must get in line. Rubio understood who the alpha male is, understood that politics is done in packs and not alone, so he placed himself, obediently, in the second row, in the wake of the muscular leader, listens docilely, executes the Trumpist program, and waits patiently for his turn. In the meantime, he does everything necessary to remain in the second row, because even there it is not easy to maintain your position. The crowd around "Daddy" (as the NATO Secretary General calls Trump) is quite large, and the competition of flattery and obedience is quite competitive.

But Stephen Holmes reproaches Marco Rubio for something else, this time related to what he said in Munich. When Rubio stated that the relationship between the United States of America and Europe is a civilizational and historical one, Holmes replied: that is not true; what has bound the transatlantic relationship is a communion of values (democracy, rule of law, open society, freedom of all kinds, etc.) enshrined in institutions and treaties. Therefore, we have institutions in common, not an identity. Here, I believe, Holmes is mistaken. Moreover, because institutions, in general, and those that have strengthened the transatlantic relationship in particular, only function if they are based on the same civilizational options. America and Europe not only understood each other well – for that, it would have been enough for the treaties to be respected in good faith by both parties, and good faith, it is true, is a universal value. America and Europe have built together, proposed to the world a kind of social and economic life, a common vision of humanity, and a model of society. Such a common construction can only be realized if it is based on a common civilization, on a common history. The fear of some contemporary thinkers to speak about civilization and history, about legacies and identity comes from the fact that such a vision would exclude others (the circle of a certain civilization is, after all, quite clearly outlined), would generate discriminations and, further, exclusions that can be brutal. I am not saying it is not so, but I am saying it is not necessarily so. The rhetoric of civilization under siege would be, all the more, dangerous.

However, I do not believe we should immediately refer to hypothetical consequences. I believe we should see if such rhetoric tells the truth or not. Yet, no one seems to be objective enough to clearly argue whether European civilization, along with its American extension, is or is not under siege, is or is not in danger of dilution, perhaps even disappearance. But I go even further: is an objective eye needed, whatever that might mean? I believe it is natural for us to be subjective when we talk about civilizations. Essentially, we are talking about our parents – why are we asked to be objective? We can love or hate them, of course. Perhaps some do not like a good part of what they have inherited, while others adore what they have inherited. But that is again secondary. The 100% true fact is that we all carry a legacy without which we would not be who we are, we would be different, we would be others. We cannot talk about what and how we are except by being what we are – Europeans, in our case, Europeans and in the case of America, says Rubio. Therefore, if we affirm what we are, we are stating a truth about ourselves. That is why I believe that before saying whether Rubio is good or bad, whether Trump is doing what he should or pushing us towards disaster, we must admit that the American Secretary of State has stated a truth. And he tried to build a vision or, more precisely, a call, on this truth. This is where the real discussion begins. I will continue it.

https://www.dilema.ro/tilc-show/micul-rubio-si-adevarul-nostru