BTW William – I am not a Lady Gaga fan but have you seen the astonishing amateur choreography produced by the teenagers of Bonduel High School, Madison, Wisconsin ?

The April 1989 Political Report (on the TNR web page of newsletters) described skinheads as “ridiculous” and criticized David Duke for espousing the “violent philosophy” of the KKK.

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=659242570471

Gay did talk about Christian democracy when he sought the nomination from the party, and in the few weeks after securing it. Then he stopped. He was called up on this by Sean O’Rourke towards the end of the campaign, who seemed to guess, rightly I’d imagine, that he’d been told to drop that. It may not have been the biggest thing to have hurt him in the campaign, but I’d be fairly certain it had some impact. Among people I know (and I’ll throw my hands up and suggest that they might not be entirely representative of the wider public), his views on marriage put him in the lower half of their preferences. This included people who were gay or straight, atheists or practising Catholics, and those who would otherwise be Fine Gael voters, even some who had voted for him in 2009, but felt these sorts of values matter because of how the president represents the nation. For most people, Christian democracy does not mean simply that someone is mindful of their religious values while in office, it invokes the closer relations between government and bishops most people are glad has diminished, as seen in the reaction to Enda Kenny’s speech in July. It may only account for a few percent of what the party might otherwise have got, but it was something. And of course it’s the kind of thing I would notice. We all have our biases.

This obviously does not explain the scale of the defeat but I’m convinced that any Fine Gael candidate would have faced a tougher struggle than normal.

Given that recent electoral history has shown that being the junior party in a coalition is the touch of death and seeing some of their recent approval ratings, perhaps the biggest surprise of the two elections is the success of Labour.

I’m really not convinced that Fine Gael’s electoral success in the general election had much at all to do with what the party proposed or offered. I think it had far more to do with the fact that most Irish people are non-ideological centrists. Older ones are a little bit conservative and younger ones are a little bit liberal, but on balance they’re centrists.

Fianna Fail had shown itself to be exhausted and corrupt, and was specifically guilty of something that had effectively sunk the country. Where else were the people who’d voted for it most likely to go?

In terms of the election result, I think it comes down to candidates rather than ideology, in the main. Most candidates were — or seemed to be — bad ones. I was once a YFG member, and I’ve almost always voted FG and even I’ve always thought Mitchell came across as a wally and someone I’d not want as president.

Higgins, on the other hand, has long seemed someone of gravitas; irrespective of his actual views, he’s an established political figure who has long come across as a serious person, and with his views not having come under a media microscope*, he seemed a traditional senior political figure and the only candidate who looked like a credible head of state.

* And I’m not saying they’re objectionable, just that they weren’t looked at.

The keyword however, of the piece, is traditional. Ireland has been a Catholic nation, since even before Statehood. No matter what the Constitution says or laws the Dail enact, Catholicism remains, as it has ever been, separate and superior to the Republic. 

This has only been questioned in the very recent past and I fear this Catholic country, this yet to be fully realised Republic, is not ready or prepared to take on the special dispensations it affords clerics in the practice of their rites. I fear this Catholic people would prefer to allow men to keep the secrets of child abusers than create a single Republic with a single obligation to the laws of that Republic. 

There’s a Anatole France quote which I always enjoyed: “The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich and the poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.”

Those details aside, David Norris would still have been the first openly gay head of state. Any first, however it can be spun, makes a headline.

Isn’t it of concern though that the prevailing political and cultural trends are such that people like David Norris, whose intellectual and emotional lives are rich enough to sometimes yield situations where poor judgment is controversial, but whose capacity for understanding is great, are at such a significant political disadvantage to people with relatively impoverished intellectual and emotional lives who don’t so much evidence good judgement as they do a lack of capacity to understand nuance, and thereby avoid circumstances where they need to exercise judgement, wether poorly or well.

The odds are stacked against those with expansive minds.

It would be okay if in eliminating someone like David Norris, someone else with his capacity, but with better judgement, made it through.

But what we’ll likely get is the elimination of David Norris, and the election of someone whose good judgements are of lesser quality that Mr Norris’s bad ones.

I’ve not followed the Norris campaign closely, but I had quietly hoped to see him elected to the Presidency. I had noticed that Norris’s campaign had been quite lacklustre, however, and in light of the most recent revelations, I agree with you that Norris is now best off withdrawing from the campaign.

Norris’s mercy plea to Israeli judges is wrong on many levels, not least in defending intergenerational sex with someone underage, with the letter coming to light at a time when Ireland is reeling and still in pain from ongoing clerical child abuse scandals. Norris’s abuse of his position as a public representative is also enough reason alone to deny him a nomination to stand as President of Ireland. Norris should go quietly and use his energy on campaigning to advance equality, perhaps best outside the Oireachtas.

I don’t know enough about town and borough councils to judge, but the first argument is only an argument for updating what downs get what. Town area committees seem like a good idea. However they lose something nice by having things like their own mayor and internal political dynamics. You’re probably right but I’d need to know more and would be interested to see what most people living in towns think. Am less sure about Boroughs though.

If we could do it without massive costs and guaranteeing limiting it to the presidency I think I would be fine with it. They may miss out on a lot of the debate but if they’re going to go to the trouble of voting then they’ll probably try to learn a little about whats going on over here, which could be good. It becomes a problem

As to town and borough councils, the arguments were two-fold. One is that the distribution of which towns have this double representation is based in historic population figures and that there are towns that on today’s figures should or shouldn’t have them. The second was to tie in with the idea of expecting more of our county councils, who could look after a town through an area committee rather than a specific council.

On expats, tho the idea of a link is nice, and the presidency might feel a harmless office to give them a vote, I don’t think they can really get the feel of a debate and the candidates in the way of those in the state.

I don’t care terribly about town and borough councils, though I do think the locals in small towns appreciate having councilors who represent their interest, and particularly with boroughs like Sligo they really aren’t very much smaller then some cities. Apart from saving money what was the argument here.

Your right both about whips and about TDs making representations to local councils, if we did both of those things our political system would be significantly stronger.

The idea of all citizens voting for president is an interesting one, I think its a symbollic role that it would be nice to have represent all Irish people, though given how I’m quite against letting expats vote in general elections I think we’d risk starting a precedent.

I agree with you on the voting age.

Independents or small parties, who might not have councillors in the relevant area, would thus be further crippled than they already are, and not have access to local material.

Furthermore, while I’m not a fan of locally-fixated national legislators, TDs do and should have information about the happenings of local government, to enable them to discuss and deal with such problems (where they are general and not unique to their area) on a national level.

Another good video from Cato on this is an event they had recently with the co-chairs of the American Foundation for Equal Rights, and the two principal lawyers in the case to overturn Prop 8, outlining their arguments and the progress of the case to date http://www.cato.org/event.php?eventid=8015

However, he is due much credit for the erudtion, sincerity and sheer clarity he demonstrates in his proposition, above. It is truly heartening to see a young man marshall strong arguments in defence of a (frequently unpopular) minority and in favour of meaningful equality for ALL Irish citizens.

It is easy to take a strong stand on issues once one knows that public and political opinion concurs (witnesss the sudden, ‘spontaneous’ backlash against News International in the UK following near-universal revulsion in relation to the hacking of crime victims and their families). It is another thing, altogether, to have the courage and bloody-mindedness to take a strong stand on issues where public opinion is divided and where there is no immediate, visible dividend.

I still won’t be likely voting for Fine Gael, but I am proud to know that there is a young and upcoming cohort of Fine-Gaelers who are prepared to stick their necks out for justice and fairness – this is something which should transcend party-political lines, so credit where it is due and thank you, William, for having the courage to speak out and lead in this regard.

PS. For those who would like to see an interesting argument made for gay equality from a moderate right-wing perspective; the relatively recent debate, hosted by the Cato Institute, in the U.S., featuring Nick Herbert, Andrew Sullivan and Maggie Gallagher, is fascinating viewing.

Please see:

http://www.cato.org/multimedia/events/is-there-place-gay-people-conservatism-conservative-politics

Regards.

It is a disappointing election for the SDLP and the UUP. The best that can be said is that they are treading water. They were always in for a difficult election. Their paltry share of ministries gives them little to run on, they are too small even together to be an effective opposition if they left the executive, and they would get no favours from their more powerful rivals even if they were cooperative. All this said, the UUP and SDLP could at least be competent and professional. Neither Richie or Elliott get even a passing grade on that account. Elliot in particular is a goner. It doesn’t matter whether what he said was true, false or justifiable or unjustifiable in context, it was amateure politics. Both parties are in dangerous waters. Treading water isn’t a viable long term. If they do not work out their internal party problems it is only a matter of time before the other three parties work out how to kill them.

If such research does exist, the defence in Perry had a very poor legal team. I shouldn’t base it all on one case, bit the stakes there were high.

I acknowledged that it could seem counter-intuitive that a child’s two parents don’t need to be a man and a woman for it to fare well, I did not claim it was because of any latent homophobia. But in a public policy discussion, we have to deal with facts, not instincts and general perception. Which is why I do welcome what research you might have on how a child adopted by a married man and woman would fare better than one adopted by two married women.

In claiming that it seems like your case was made by reverse, I simply mean that you made a decision to determine what could be wrong with making a change, a conservative approach I wouldn’t take, but which I can see why one might do, as a check against undue haste in policy decisions.

As to blogging etiquette, that is perhaps the one thing above that would have been better had I mentioned it directly to you (perhaps I’m guilty on etiquette here myself now). It just seem strange that you had plain-text URLs, rather than hyperlinks, the latter allowing for greater interaction and conversation. For example, I’m not sure where you did see the link to my follow-up, but I was sure you would see it because of linked back to you. But if, as you say, your site is more of a collection if articles than a blog, fair enough.

I find the implication that the case I outline is somehow arrived at by working backwards to a definition of marriage that excludes gay people bizarre, as if belief in the special value of both a mother and a father is prompted by ideology rather than common sense.

Incidentally, proponents of gay marriage should be aware that their insistence that there is no special benefit to both motherhood and fatherhood in the raising of a child is something that the public at large finds much harder than they do to accept, for very good reasons I believe. Public reluctance concerning gay marriage, as distinguished from civil partnerships, is not latent homophobia but justifiable nervousness about the cavalier way in which that specific claim is made. (I am not talking solely or even particularly about the Irish situation but rather what is generally so where this debate has been had.)

Not quite sure what the ‘blogging etiquette’ pointer about linking to things is in aid of. My website is billed not as a blog but a repository of articles mostly published elsewhere but in any case I linked back to all responses discussed where they were publicly available online, including your own.