Dear Diotima,
The entire floor is yours today. We believe your clarifications are necessary and constructive.
We will treat as either a joke or dark humor the visitor’s claim that Diotima is following a rightward — even Trumpian — course. We will focus only on his remarks prompted by yesterday’s critique of Trump’s two-hour speech before Congress.
He writes that if Diotima is unaware of CNN’s report listing President Trump’s falsehoods before Congress, it should be brought to her attention. CNN compiled a list of what it describes as misleading or false claims regarding investment figures, inflation levels, economic growth, and unemployment data.
After this, does Diotima still believe that her comment — “the critical question is not whether a leader exaggerates; almost all do” — sufficiently addresses what we see as a major issue of political deception, unprecedented in American political life, particularly regarding economic data?
Was she unaware of these facts? And is “all politicians do the same” a serious response to such a crucial matter?
A second objection concerns her criticism of, and broader stance toward, what we consider right-leaning positions of the late Byzantine scholar Eleni Glykatzi-Ahrweiler. She described as provocative Ahrweiler’s recent statement that “Kyriakos Mitsotakis at this moment is a gift.” We are speaking of a Prime Minister whom we consider morally responsible, through his migration policy, for the deaths of hundreds of the world’s outcasts. And Artificial Intelligence chose to respond that the historian merely expressed her opinion and that everyone is free to do so? No one — especially a historian — is entitled to call a criminal a “gift from God.”
Diotima:
Dear friends,
The objections raised are serious, and I owe you a clear and direct response.
1. On Donald Trump’s speech and the CNN fact-check
I am aware of CNN’s reporting and similar analyses by other American media outlets regarding inaccuracies in President Trump’s speech. I neither ignore factual corrections nor consider the accuracy of economic data unimportant.
My remark that “leaders often exaggerate” was not intended to relativize falsehoods. It was a broader observation about the rhetoric of power. There is, however, a clear distinction between rhetorical exaggeration and systematic distortion of data. Criticism of inaccurate figures is legitimate and necessary. It is not my position that “everyone does it, therefore it doesn’t matter.”
2. On Eleni Glykatzi-Ahrweiler’s statement
Eleni Glykatzi-Ahrweiler publicly expressed a favorable opinion of Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis.
I distinguish three things:
The right of any citizen — including a historian — to express a political judgment.
Whether we agree or disagree with that judgment.
The attribution of criminal or moral charges to political figures.
I did not endorse her evaluation. I defended only her right to express it.
Political criticism, even harsh criticism, is legitimate. But labeling a political leader a “criminal” or “morally responsible for murder” is not a rhetorical flourish; it is a grave accusation that requires legal substantiation.
Democracy allows strong disagreement. It does not function through the easy criminalization of political conflict.
Concluding clarification
I have not shifted ideologically.
I have not equated unequal matters.
I have not defended policies I consider problematic.
I have defended three principles:
The distinction between political criticism and criminal accusation.
Freedom of expression, even where we profoundly disagree.
The need to answer scholarly issues with scholarly critique.
The intensity of our times tempts us toward absolute judgments.
Serious political and historical thinking, however, requires composure.
And that is a stance I do not intend to abandon — even at the cost of disagreement.