What has happened this past year? Sixteen months ago we had a new leader, a new hope and an approval rating in the high seventies or even eighties. Which obviously means FGers, Labour, all sides wanted to give the new guy a chance.
Within FF there was excitement, we’d liked Bertie, loved his focus on the North and his unalloyed Republicanism, but the halo was losing some sheen each day with a thousand rain drops one by one dulling the sparkle and it all became too much in the end. We accepted whilst he had done great things, he was from a different time and at this stage it was best all round to now move on and make a clean break.
And so a new hero was born. Brian Cowen the straight talking Offally man stepped forth. A man who liked a pint in his local and who knew one side of a GAA pitch from the other (played intercounty himself at one point) we remembered his thundering performances at Ard Fheiseanna, his grá for the cupla focal, there was a past skirmish with Paisley and there was the way he grasped the nettle in the dying days of General Election 2007 seeming to singlehandedly recover the campaign and propel the party to an unexpected poll topping performance. His own name attracted 18,000 votes on the ballot paper in his own Offally, biggest vote of the election for any candidate. On a policy and cerebral level his articulation of reform, his targeting of public service efficiencies, his espousal of Europe, his disinterest in the politics of spin and the preference for direct honest engagement. Here was a dyed in the wool Fianna Fáil man, one who would restore our faltering fortunes, a focus on historic values and righting the wrongs of past administrations, our own and others. No brown envelopes, no baggage, just a straight shooter getting down to business. We were looking at a thousand year .. reign!
Alas it has not transpired that way. What exactly has he done wrong? Losing Lisbon was a bad start of course and the honeymoon was over. Clouds gathered on the markets at home and abroad over the next Summer until the fall of Lehmans in September 08 heralded a new era in the world economy. The housing market had been stalled from almost a year before when McDowell uttered his now infamous words on stamp duty which ultimately went on to define and dog the GE07 campaign, with FG and Labour egging on any concessions to the housing crescendo, amidst calls for raised spending and cuts in taxes, promises which seem as alien now as they were foolhardy then but which is all forgotten in the pasts of time.
Amidst a daily weakening market domestically and internationally the new government, still barely a Summer in office, brought forward the budget in an attempt to quell the tide and show some steel. A tough budget followed in October when the first cracks in the government’s style showed. Amidst funding cutbacks and unpopular tax levies, a measure to withdraw automatic entitlements was met with sheer unmitigated fury. Thousands marched on the Dáil in a form of public unrest not seen for decades. Pensioners wrath was a force to be reckoned with and the country seemed on the brink of crisis as each day grew more unruly than the next. In retrospect, whilst is did mark a policy shift (from automatic entitlement to means tested benefits) it would have been very foolish for a government to fall on the back of removing automatic entitlements from the more wealthy of our pensioners.
Anyway, weakened but still afloat the government lurched on. In February we had an emergency budget, in the context of national accounting it was very necessary and again the government targeted a sacred cow. Public service pensions, generous to a level long since obsolete in the private sector, with guaranteed payments and an index linked defined benefit (regardless of fund performance) were targeted for greater employee contributions. Call it a tax, an increased levy, there were technical reasons for how it was applied (primarily to safeguard the income of existing retirees whose benefits are linked), the measure was justified, necessary but provoked a populist backlash. Overnight the public sector walked out of Ballybrit and into Cirque de Soleil (ie they shifted from Fianna Fáil to Labour) and the next poll showed us on 20-something percent.
No worse there is none but indeed it was to come. A rough locals, a tumultuous Summer and back to business this past few weeks. A reasonable month or two for the government (or so I thought), no particular scandal (Our Ceann Comhairle’s excesses aside although this does not seem to have entered public consciousness to the extent that it should). The government had begun to show some mettle, the tough decisions were being taken (Budgets I & II, public sector levy, Lisbon guarantees, NAMA) the NAMA legislation had been aired with all in the spirit of consultation and improvement. Whilst modern day FG played politics with the legislation, not one but two elder statesmen of the Fine Gael party (Garrett Fitzgerald and Alan Dukes) came out in favour of the government approach. Opposition plans from the populist Labour to the ‘oppose for opposition sake’ FG plans aside, informed sentiment appeared to be reconciling to the idea. A few bad days at the office for Enda Kenny caught short on the detail and a few better days for An Taoiseach beginning at last to communicate with his people.
And yet we turn a corner, turn a page to find 17%. At this stage it seems many want change for changes sake. The policies are no longer important, the principles are no longer important, the people want change and that’s about the long and the short of it. I hope we get through these nextfew months. Get Lisbon under our belts and allow us proceed with Europe. Get NAMA up and running with amendments as necessary from Green party and other parties interested in improving the legislation. Get the December budget out of the way with whatever necessary pain that may entail. Into the new year, lets start afresh in January. A reshuffle at that stage, some new faces in cabinet, more talent from the backbenches and perhaps a rapprochement for others (John McGuinness for example). Survive the winter league, get new blood out training in the Spring, put our best team on the pitch and look to the Summer with hope.
James,
The decisions taken have been the right ones. But were taken too slowly. The media turned against the party partly because the partys press machine tried to be secretive. Cowen fatally decided he was going to be a different style of Taoiseach at the wrong time in history for that style. Not enough righteous indignation shown about the failures of Corporate Governance, the waste in Fas, the excess by John OD etc. Not enough effort made to appease the public appetite for scapegoats and the appearance of targeting high earners as well as the middle.
Lenihan is a brilliant Finance minister NOW, but he had a rocky six months- not helped by the fact that he seems to allow the attorney general dictate too much for my liking; I would have taken on the judges over their not taking the levy and chanced hand cuffing a few hapless bankers even while seany teed off in Capetown- for political theatre and window dressing a bit of drama like that would have done wonders.
We will all get on with it. History will probably vindicate cowen,
Lenihan, Aherne ( not Bertie), MMartin, for their actions in 09. I agree with every policy decision taken.
The electorate are more educated and make their own minds up about economics and politics these days- or they THINK they make their own minds up. The trick is to realise that they are so desensitised by repetitive media comment that people need to be engaged neurolinguistically and audiovisually before a message impacts.
No Toby Zieglers or CJ Creggs showed up for work at our Govt building this year.
@Des
Agreed, like your last line, I said as much at our CDC last night, where is our Alastair Campbell, does he exist?!
1st October 2004. That’s when it all started to go wrong.
Charlie McCreevy was sent to Europe and FF and Ireland lost a man who had a strong grasp of modern fiscal needs – similar to the likes of Lemass and McSharry.
Bertie Ahern, through Cowen, manouvered fiscal policy away from controlling the macro economics to controlling election results.
By that stage, FF has already won 2 elections in a row. Going for a 3rd was just too much.
Cowen is now between a rock and a hard place. If he admits his failures as Minister for Finance, he must step down. This means an election that would be disastrous for FF and ultimately Ireland.
Cowen must stick to his guns until he gets the necessary jobs done.
1. fix the banks – they are insolvent, they need fixing
2. plug the gap in the public finances
3. increase competitiveness
When he gets the ball rolling on these, he will have certainly redeemed himself, but sadly probably not in the eyes of the voters.
As for FF as a party, the only road to salvation is recognising the mistakes made and learning from them. FF must see that they have made mistakes. If they cannot do this, then they cannot recover.
But on the positive side, after the dust settles and if FF rebuild themselves on new people, the only way is up.
Because after all, if it weren’t for FF, would you say you were proud to be Irish?
I have been wondering for some days whether to leave a comment here. I noted your encouragement of comments a couple of posts back, but feel distinctly out of my depth commenting on the blog of a political activist on a topic such as the above.
I would start from the position that, since Ireland emerged from the doom and gloom of the ‘eighties, there have been political fireworks, scandals and crises. But these have not necessarily impacted on the lives and well-being of the population at large in the way that the present crisis has.impacted on the finances and the futures of so many. The present crisis seems to me qualitatively different from anything that has happened in Ireland in the past couple of decades. It may have been triggered by the global financial crisis following the collapse of Lehman Brothers. But the problems facing this country are apparently not the direct result of irresponsible speculation in collateralized debt obligations, and similar fancy financial derivatives. Rather the lack of liquidity punctured a property bubble that, with the benefit of hindsight, everybody can now see was getting seriously overblown. Thus it would seem that, had Lehman Brothers collapsed a year or two earlier, we here would have been in a significantly better position. And responsibility for the Ireland’s current crises rests with overstretched property developers, irresponsible bankers, and central bankers and financial regulators who, for whatever reason, failed to regulate. And with the government of the day, who failed to note and act upon whatever warning signs there were that should have alerted them to the instability inherent in the property bubble. One expects the government of the day to be aware of whether or not the ‘fundamentals’ of the economy are ‘sound’ or not.
If Iarnród Éireann only become aware that a viaduct is in a dangerous condition when it collapses and falls into the sea, then there must be serious failings in their inspection and maintenance regime. Failings that cannot be explained away.
If FF have a future, then I suggest that it will be determined, not by anything Brian Cowen says or does in the coming months, but by how Brian Lenihan handles the financial crisis and NAMA. If he gets things seriously wrong then I suggest that FF would be finished. In some parallel universe, there might be some consensus as to the way forward amongst those who regard themselves as qualified economists. But clearly that parallel universe is not the one we live in. So the Minister of Finance needs to make the correct decision as to whose advice to follow. And he needs to appoint to key positions people with appropriate international experience and reputations, who are not beholden to any Irish political party, and who can command respect. And he has to hope that he made the right decisions. The three largest political parties have three distinct programmes for dealing with the current banking crisis. I would suggest that people will only be able to judge whether or not the NAMA strategy was the appropriate one some years down the road. In the short term, I suggest that, even were Brian Lenihan to be getting daily advice from the Archangel Gabriel, and acting upon it, it would not improve the political standing of the government in the short term.
If things go right, then maybe FF can build a future around those who are perceived to have played key roles in managing the current crisis, especially if they had no majot role in the economic management of the economy in the preceding years. Someone like Brian Lenihan perhaps, if he succeeds in getting the economy back on track? But, until the necessary legislation is passed and put into effect, and the track record of NAMA is established, I suggest that FF will not be in a position to effectively refute those who claim that NAMA is simply a mechanism to bail out bankers and developers.
@DavidW Thanks for the comment. Don’t worry about how politically connected you are or aren’t in commenting, you’ve as much insight as the rest of us and more than most going by above. Yes I think I agree re Brian Lenihan. He has the advantage that he was not around for the boom years so can’t be blamed and has been pretty adept at making decisions in his short tenure since. He was a prolific Justice minister as well in his short stint there.
@Des drove past your place today! Saw the big sign ‘KildareVet.ie’ !
his unalloyed Republicanism
Does it go well with with his ‘unalloyed Socialism’, I wonder?
(yes, I’m being harsh. But being of an older generation than you, I can remember how Haughey was venerated at one time).
And McGuinness needs to be taught some manners. He’s too well in with the kind of college politics stunts that you should really leave behind after your early twenties – no wonder he picked up an ex-Freedom Instituter (and ex-Libertas) head for an advisor.
FF’s problems were summed up to me (A non-FFer) when I was discussing the ridiculous amount of (unneeded) junior ministers with some FF people. I said that 20 (At the time) was too many, and showed that FF didn’t think that they should suffer as much as the public.
The response was interesting: I was told that “That may be true, but the parliamentary party won’t wear it.”
Keep worrying about what suits the PP, and the electorate will sort that problem out for you.
Well done James, by the way, on the blog. Good to see an FFer putting the case for the party.
”his [Bertie’s] unalloyed republicanism”
That’s astonishing, it really is. Ahern was a lot of things, no doubt some good, some bad, but a republican was definitely not one of them except in the highly restricted and limited sense where republican means supporting a wooly headed form of democracy that excludes monarchy. In a specifically Irish context he was the antithesis of republicanism (and no I’m not referring to support of paramilitary organisations).
Also the politics of superficial spin as, perhaps, personified by the likes of Alaistair Cambell is the *very* last thing the country needs whatever about FF as a party. Indeed you could argue that’s the only kind of politics we’ve had in the last decade or more and with disastrous consequences.
I have to confess that I was never a fan of Bertie. I disliked the ppp’s inevitable wage rewards every year- easy to negotiate with trade unions when they get what they want every year! I was happy to see Cowen’s coronation as i too felt he had little baggage and a history of straight conviction… Irelands mistakes predate Cowen’s leadership obviously but somehow his previous job at Finance compromised his decisiveness from the Lehman collapse onwards.
It is not all his fault though- I have just finished an MBA in the IMI; our economics prof ( Trinity) was convinced last dec that Ireland wouldnt have the same probs as US because we didnt have the same subprime issues. – He and others failed to understand the extent of bank exposure to commercial lending and neg equity. Also the banks lied to Lenihan and co to get the guarantee rubberstamped- they shouldnt have been let away with govt and shareholder deception to the extent that became obvious later. So Cowen found himself over taken by “events”- which require change and action.
So the real issue threatening now the FF party is a failure of change management..
Kotter’s little book about the 8 steps of Change Management;
Our iceberg is melting- worth a read, only about 100 pages,
communicate
transmit urgency
communicate
share the vision
communicate
align key stakeholders
communicate
create new behaviours into a new culture
communicate
cement the new culture into permancy
Thats not the full 8- but our iceberg doesnt need to fully melt providing we dont overestimate how good ” the fundamentals ” are;
Economists are also all good at being right afterwards- so a bit of Offaly fightin’talk would still go a long way!
regards,
@EWI and @John O’Leary
I want to address the points raised about Bertie.
I will take the socialist first and the republican question after.
Firstly I accept the remark is largely tongue in cheek and it is fair to say a ‘real’ socialist would be unlikely to count Bertie amongst their number. I am never quite sure whether he meant to say it himself or whether he considered the term in any way before using it. There was quite an amusing interview on the Late Late shortly after when an academic friend of his (may have been the then state pathologist) actually felt the Taoiseach had confused his words saying he was a ‘sociable’ person and had to be reassured he had in fact said ‘socialist’ which he seemed to grant a bemused chuckle at.
In any event, whilst he more closely straddles the middle ground, and perhaps epitomised for a while a pragmatist leader of a populist party, the fact is that he did concern himself greatly with social spending, social partnership and the welfare budget. It is rumoured he left McCreevy to his own devices once he was assured every year there was money for the old folks and money for the welfare and all the ‘spend’ departments were up. In retrospect of course this philosophy is often attributed with insufficient forward planning and seen as contributing partly to our present woes. He also consistently showed concern for his trade union friends and flirted with the movement even prior to entering electoral politics (when he was a form of shop steward working in accounts at the Mater hospital). Ironically he refuted union advances to get more seriously involved at the time telling them his politics were ‘Republican and not into that socialist stuff’ which leads on nicely to the next point.
———————–
In terms of the title ‘Republican’ again those further to the left (or the right or the greener side of the house whichever side that it) of the spectrum than him would probably not consider him sufficiently so for their regard. However as mainstream definitions go he was one, in the sense of a strong Irish nationalist who revered the patriot leaders of previous generations and dedicated a huge proportion of his premiership to addressing the ‘Northern’ question, usually to very little direct electoral reward as it happens. Again there is no doubt that he saw himself in this way, it was his single defining ideology and how he always described himself without fail. It is common knowledge that his office wall bore a portrait of Pearse and his continued interest in Northern matters was evidenced by his strong push for a thirty-two county expansion of the party, just before his days at the helm were brought to a more abrupt end than he may have planned. His parents were both old school IRA stock and he was raised in a staunchly Republican household. Indeed his father Con Ahern was the last Republican prisoner to be released by the free state at the end of the civil war. He first publicly expressed his desire for a United Ireland in a speech at the Liam Lynch commemoration in Cork in 1983 and bookended his career with it, repeating this wish in a Sunday view interview on his last day of office. He did clarify that he felt political means were the appropriate methodology saying that while he wished to create “a free, new, united Ireland sovereign and separate from Britain”, he qualified that “it is the political weakness of Northern Ireland, not the military strength of its defenders that must be challenged”. At the same time Martin McGuinness was saying the only thing that would resolve the conflict was the “cutting edge of IRA violence” while Paisley was busy eulogising Enoch Powell’s rivers of blood. In the long term it appears Bertie’s way of thinking won out on the matter.
I don’t think that really supports Bertie as a republican and in fact proves my own contention that Bertie’s republicanism is limited to not being a monarchy and also was based on superficial Alaister Cambell style spin.
You know it’s easy to put up pictures of Pearse or to refuse to enter rooms with Cromwell portraits. This is just gesture politics, superficial noncommittal posturing. It’s much harder to defend the existence of Articles two and three which Bertie didn’t and in fact negotiated away for very little. But this was Bertie’s modus operandi, say one thing do another. It’s very easy to say you will organise in the North, it’s much harder to actually do it. As Bertie’s failure shows.
As I said if you examine Berties supposed republicanism it was really just say your doing one thing while actually doing the opposite, wrap the green flag around you and hope no one notices. Bertie declared himself to be against the revisionists while launching a book by a noted revisionist (in fairness it was a good book but still…), he also put one of the more virulent revisionists into the senate, someone who openly boasts in the national press about being a revisionist. These are not the actions of a republican unless you limit the definition of republicanism to simply not having a monarchy. Certainly not the actions of people of ‘old school IRA stock’, indeed Bertie’s BBF Eoghan Harris was also boasting recently about how he repudiated his families ‘old school IRA’ republicanism.
Which brings us to yours and Bertie’s use of his family lineage: what does this really mean for us or republicanism today? Garret Fitzgerald also uses his family lineage to bolster his own nationalist/republican credentials from time to time. It’s nonsense and ironically it’s a very aristocratic way of viewing things, you know you get your legitimacy from your family lineage and not your actual actions. Bullshit. But if we take ‘old school republicanism’, regardless of whether it’s a good or bad thing, then in the present the closest persons to it would undoubtedly include people like Martin Ferris or Martin Maguinnes. Bertie and Martin Ferris or Martin Maguinness are very far apart in terms of republicanism as you yourself noted.
As for Bertie’s way of thinking on the north: the political weakness of northern Ireland, i.e. sectarianism and British Imperialism was not challenged. Instead, and Bertie was fundamental to this, the focus on what needed to be challenged was changed to challenging paramilitary (mainly IRA violence mirroring British arguments) and the need for ‘peace’. Now ‘peace’ has been achieved the political weakness of Northern Ireland (which still exists) can be ignored by the so-called republican parties in the 26 counties and the rest of the establishment (who never cared about it as long as they could continue to ‘fumble in their greasy tills’.)
However, if we grant your contention that ‘Bertie’s way of thinking won out’ (I don’t for one minute accept that a)Bertie had a coherent way of thinking on the North or b) that the current situation can be simplistically reduced to such) then the irony is that it is in fact Martin Maguinness who is currently carrying it out. The question is (if we accept your premise of Bertie’s way of thinking winning out) has Bertie and the southern establishment abandoned challenging the political weakness of the north and have they hamstrung republicans who still wish to do so. I’d say on both counts yes but then, as I said, I don’t accept that Bertie’s ‘way of thinking won out’ anyway. I just think Bertie was never a republican but a superficial posturer who did what was necessary to achieve and maintain power, in other words the gombeen man par excellence.
John, thanks for the comments but am not sure where you are coming from. Not questioning your opinion I’m just unclear on your perspective. It would help if you gave your own definition of what “Republican” means to you.
Were you in the RSF/dissident camp I think I would understand your criticisms (although without agreeing) however as you identify with Martin McGuinness and Martin Ferris I am taking you to be a mainstream shinner?
If that is the case I am not clear what, in terms of specific outlook on the North, separates SF and FF/Bertie policy, particularly in relation to the events discussed and the GFA etc. Both parties negotiated and supported the agreement and it was adopted in an exercise of all Ireland determination with a massive majority across the island.
My own view is that we have made a lot of progress (from the unionist dominated days of discrimination, a protestant parliament for a protestant people) but we still have a lot to do. I would feel the civil rights issues have largely been addressed but the soveregnity question remains. Whilst it is important to you and I perhaps, for the majority at present it is not an urgent matter and I think you will grant there are many pressing problems facing the government today. I think it is to their credit that moves continue on party development (e.g. recent Down FF summit, full voting Northern position created on Ógra executive, recruitment campaign in Ulster colleges) in the midst of so much national and political turmoil. As has already been observed there is little percentage in it from a purely electoral perspective. Which highlights the sincerity of intent to pursue it now.
James,
Coming from a distinctly non Fianna Fáil background I have to say that i cannot reconcile your well written article with the facts. People have turned against Brian Cowen and FF because they associate them with them worst recession in the developed world (according to the financial times). They look at the culture of closing the ranks and protecting your own within the Government. Why should we overpay for bank assets? Any reasonable observer would agree that the property market has a lot further to fall. Nationalisation is the least worst option because at least the state is in a far better position to pay the correct price and to recoup any potential profits for the state first, not the banks balance sheet.
Why did FF not make a bailout conditional on the removal of all those responsible? Why do they protect Roddy Molloy and Mary Coughlan when she is clearly out of her depth? It is the refusal to do what is right for all the people of the country, not just those who are well connected that has FF and Brian Cowen where they are.
Im a Labour supporter so obviously i take umbrage at your calling us populist when it was the decade of pandering to every vested interest by Bertie that had a substantial impact on the economic crisis we are in.
A sign of the anger at the Government is when so many people say that they are voting no to Lisbon purely to get FF out and not even looking at Lisbon Treaty
Hi Barry, thanks for stopping by and thanks for leaving a comment.
You have touched on a couple of themes and I will attempt to address each in turn.
Taking perhaps the most straightforward one first, on the question of why any overpayment on the bank’s assets, the simple answer is because it is, and is patently designed to be ‘a support scheme’. However the indivdual assets will each be assessed one by one and the exact and current market value will be determined before any transfer takes place and the surplus beqeathed to the banks will be a precise figure allocated by government rather than any kind of free for all mass transfer. As regards a clear out at the management level, a recent Sunday Tribune article (http://www.tribune.ie/business/article/2009/sep/27/the-winners-and-losers-of-the-bank-guarantee-schem/) highlighted how from the assorted Chairs, MDs, CEOs across the top tier in banking this time last year, only one figure now remains in situ, and he on borrowed time.
On the topic of the Labour party and populism, it is perhaps ironic that I picked up your comment (on my blackberry) over lunchbreak where I was concluding another volume on the UK Labour party, and the celebrated Brown / Blair rivalry in particular. An avowed fan, I have frequently spoken of the UK Labour party on this blog, and I am fairly certain were I to ever reside in the UK, I would get involved in a local branch.
I have huge time for Gordon Brown, in particular I admire his sincerity, his patriotism and his untrammelled depths. I also marvel at John Prescott’s very epitomisation of the politics of class struggle through his life story. Blair I was most luke warm on of the bunch, yet across the project, I admire the politics they have hewn from ideology, the ‘third way’ in which they have demonstrated that progressive social policy and an enrichment of the wider society can be achieved on the back of honest enterprise, innovation and entrepeunerialship unfettered by over regulation or a disproportionate tax burden. That a rising tide can lift all boats even if the eddies need a little encouragement at times. Ironically it was only by emulating and continuing Conservative fiscal policy that Brown was enabled to deliver on his social justice goals in the lifetime of his first administration, a fact he understood better than most in his party and were it not for his ‘iron will’ may never have been delivered.
Yet I do not see those characteristics in the Irish equivalent. Rather I have been consistently disappointed by its populism. I have spoken of it before (https://jameslawless.ie/2009/02/15/can-the-centre-hold/) and regretted its practice by Eamonn Gilmore in particular of whom I had previously held in some regard. I had dejá vú last night watching RTE’s excellent new FrontLine when members of the audience engaged in collective amnesia / denial with their entreaties to “tax the rich” and “levy the developers” etc etc. Colm McCarthy was impressively collected, albeit a little coldly calculating for political tastes, when he relegated such simplistic yet fantastical solutions to the fools’ paradise where they belong. However such an approach was commonplace from the Labour leader particulalry last Spring in the run up to the local elections when at times I considered how such an educated erudite man could countenance such naievete yet of course the answer is that it was politically succesful to do so and may continue to be. Statements like “Tax the rich” (What rich where?) and an “Its not our fault” mentality are simplistic and unconstructive although evidently they pay political dividends. I could almost write Joan Burton’s speeches myself at this stage, her “hard working families” routine was invented by Adrian Langan for Pat Rabbitte three years ago and Joan is still cranking it out. Regardless what the measure is, or the rights and wrongs of same, Joan will pitch it to appear on six one news and be seeing feeling the familes pain, readying to reap the electoral harvest in due course. Amazingly enough, I am in one of those ‘hard working families’ myself as a PAYE working, mortgage paying, parent of young children living in commuter ville yet I don’t see Labour positing any constructive solutions for me at this time.
As for voting against the Lisbon treaty to ‘get at’ the government, well on the list of good ideas that’s right up there with the public sector going out on full scale strike action to restore the national fortunes. (I realise you’re not advocating either of these but I think people really have to look beyond the nose on their face in these times).
James
My perspective has nothing to do with it. Either republicanism means something or it doesn’t. You, by your rather poor defence of Bertie’s supposed republicanism, seem to think it doesn’t mean anything bar in a handy ‘wrap the green flag around me way’.
In fact it implicitly grants that opponents of FF are right when they say FF are simply gombeens who stand for nothing but the retention of power.
John,
In the time I’ve been involved in politics I’ve been consistently amazed by the propensity of many to antagonise those potentially sympathetic to their positions, to seek to repel rather than to attract. Your role in this exchange has been a series of critical / negative swipes now concluding with the sweeping broadside that “FF are simply gombeens” etc. We know much of what you are against but little if any of what you are for. You began by acknowledging the many definitions of the term Republican in Irish politics, yet you have yet to identify which one matches your own. You say it “either means something or it doesn’t” but have yet to state what it means to you. Perhaps it only means something if it means what you want it to mean? (although we are still guessing as to what that might be). Why do you so petulantly swipe aside any query on your own perspective? If you wish to initiate and to continue a dialogue then yes I think it does matter. (It would also help if you supplied a valid email address).
The fact is that Bertie Ahern identified himself, in public and private discourse as a ‘Republican’. I really don’t think appointing the likes of Eoghan Harris is a significant or substantive grounds for repudiating that. As you said yourself symbolism is insufficient argument. An idiosyncratic gesture surely and one which caused some unease not least within the FF party but hardly the apex of his political activity. Does Martin McGuinness’s strong and cordial rapport with Ian Paisley and other unionist leaders diminish his Republican credentials?
As an individual, and as a political activist, I too have always considered myself a ‘Republican’. It would be a prevalent theme in the ranks of FF activists and party members although there would be varying shades. Your contention appears to be that it may be adopted for political advantage. Tell that to the octogenarian activist whose views, while profound, will never grace any podium. Neither is it a position I hold for political expedience which is just as well given that in the six months or more I spent canvassing during the local elections I could count on half of one hand the number of times the question was raised. Indeed there is almost a liberal post-nationalist outlook in the wider media where it at times appears politically incorrect to describe oneself in this way. Bertie obviously operated at the upper end of the spectrum yet again I am not convinced of any significant electoral dividend received for his efforts in this regard. As Clinton posited, “It’s the economy, stupid” and it indeed appeared thus. In any case, in the context of Bertie Ahern, it is an academic historical discussion rather than any tactical current political consideration.
James
I haven’t antagonised you except in the sense I refuse to accept your argument. I can’t really do anything about that.
I also never suggested that ”FF are simply gombeens”. That is deliberately dishonest on your part. What I said is the paucity of your argument implicitly grants the premise ‘that FF are simply gombeens who stand for nothing but the retention of power’ made by opponents of FF.
On Eoghan Harris: I don’t think he matters much in the grand scheme of things. However, in the context of Ahern’s supposed republicanism it is important. Especially as you yourself were using Ahern’s ‘old school republican’ family connections as evidence of Ahern’s republican credentials. Harris completely repudiates this, in fact, openly boasts about it in the national media, calls anyone who says they are following in this tradition a ”green fascist”, in fact Harris seems to see it as his ultimate enemy. There is a fundamental contradiction between there.
As for the unease Harris’s appointment generated I didn’t see it personally. Now, I can’t say I’m in any way close to the party to judge but there was no public unease displayed whether by TDs, councillors, or grassroots members in the media, on blogs or message boards that I saw. I thought at the time that was very telling. I think if there was private unease at the time then it was rather useless and pointless to keep it private. Any republicans in FF should have opposed Harris’s appointment. It’s as simple as that.
As for your comments on the economy: you seem to suggest that republicanism has nothing to say on the economy. I strongly disagree with this. I think liberty, equality and fraternity should be the bedrock principles of any economy. What Ahern gave us economically was a shallow populism built on orthodox neoliberal foundations. This was in every way anti-republican, I’m afraid and we are left today with the legacy of this anti-republican economy meaning Ahern’s republicanism or lack thereof is not a historical discussion. Anyway, history does not operate in a vacuum, it is a process and it impinges on the present.
Finally on my perspective: it is not really important to this discussion. I am a republican like Wolfe Tone, like my namesake John O’Leary, like Pearse, like de Valera etc. That I don’t believe Ahern is in that tradition is my argument. That is all that matters.
If you want to dismiss me on the basis of preconceived cliches and stereotypes then you can associate me with whichever of the other groups you have already named in this thread.
John,
There may be misunderstanding on both sides. It appears we are in debate as to whether or not Bertie Ahern was a Republican. It hinders the debate somewhat that we have not reached a definition of what that term means. I do find it a stretch too far to extrapolate from this difference that the party stands for nothing but gombeenism and the pursuit of power (even in a roundabout third hand way).
The discussion began when I highlighted a facet of his political persona that I (and by extension the grassroots party) admired. There were pros and cons to his premiership. The cons were an over reliance on the construction industry and a laissez faire style of governance where money was often not managed, being too plentiful perhaps. The pros for me included a huge focus on the North and delivery of an agreed solution there. Other pros included his familiarity with the trade union movement and the strong relationship and whilst in retrospect that may have cut both ways given our current position, at the time partnership worked or appeared to work and well.
I also think Eoghan Harris matters little in the grand scheme of things. It is an appoinment I would have probably forgotten had it not come up in this discussion. It was raised in grass roots circles at the time and it was certainly discussed (by party members) on sites like politics.ie at time too. However it was not an issue over which the party would or should get overly exercised, and ultimately came to be seen as an indulgence, even a bemusement. There is always a wild card in the gallery. Personally I felt the appointment of Senator Ellis was a far worse decision.
On the economic side of things, you misinterpret me in saying that ‘Republicanism’ has no import on such matters. The point carried over from a similar conversation on another blog recently, in response to accusations that the slow pace of organisation in the North was evidence of a lack of interest to which I responded that twenty six county survival was enough of a challenge in the very immediate future. Nonetheless progress continues as mentioned earlier above.
To deviate momentarily, it could be argued that whilst Republican advocates often are to the left economically, they need not be. One could argue that a true Republic is one in which any citizen can achieve their potential in an ultimate free market American dream type scenario. Am sure American conservatives (neo liberals even?) would make a good argument for how the American republic enables all to succeed. Again it comes back to how one defines the term and the many different meanings it can have.
I am not sure how any of the historical figures mentioned would have performed over the period of Bertie’s premiership. Apart from side issues such as the Harris appointment, what do you feel he should have done differently that would have allowed him to match your definition?
James