Let the new President speak… October 29, 2011
Posted by WorldbyStorm in Economy, Irish Politics, The Left.trackback
…And an interview in the Mail by Jason O’Toole does precisely that. Apparently it took place earlier in the year, so it provides a reasonably recent insight into him when he was still a civilian, albeit with an eye on the Presidency. It covers a range of topics,
Same Sex Marriage and Abortion …
I have no problem whatever either with same sex-marriage. That’s my personal opinion. I also feel — you’ll find it in my poems very much — the price that was paid for this terrible intolerance in Ireland is very high. There are, for example, people for whom all of it has come too late. I go every year to England to meet people who had to leave Ireland to express their sexuality. So, that was an incredible travesty of these people’s right. I also think that if people want to live together in a marriage relationship, I say, ‘Why not?’ In relation to the life of the mother, I think the State has to face up to its responsibilities and legislate for the life of the mother, however complex it is. [Asked if he agreed with the right to abortion] I think it depends on the termination time. It depends on the case. I think the woman has the right to protect her health. I’m in favour of legislation that will not put any risk on the mother’s health.’
Religion:
‘I’m a spiritual person. I attend Catholic ceremonies. I don’t think that anyone who is serious could say that they weren’t a spiritual person. I don’t think the world we live in can be reduced into a simple material for expression. If you like, the rational world can only bring us so far; there is a transcendent aspect to our existence — things that move you and so forth. I have great respect for the humanist tradition, But I’m not simply a humanist myself. I feel there is an inheritance that comes through the culture of belief systems. So, when you say to me, “Are you a practising (Catholic)?” I wouldn’t know what it was. I don’t believe in heaven and hell. What I think about it is that they don’t enter into my thinking very much. Does life end in the moment of physical death? We’ll continue to speculate on it, but I think that there is a spiritual dimension to our existence that is not turned into physically. That’s as far as I would go.’
His career to [then] date:
‘I have 25 years (as a TD). I stood for the first time in 1969. I was in the Seanad from ’73 to ’77 and from ’82 to ‘87. I was 25 years in the Dáil and nine years in the Seanad. I’ve been a frontbench spokesperson for all of my time. And I’ve also been a minister, as you know, from 1993 to 1997. I’m lodging all my papers in the National Library. They’ve already started. I think over the years I must have about 20 chapters in other people’s books, so then I would have some of the stuff from Hot Press and then I have my own books as well, and I’ve a lot of published poems. And all that stuff is going to the National Library.’
Attacks on him for abolishing Section 31 and establishing TG4- by the way kudos to him for that and interesting who led the charge against him:
… I think that I was treated unfairly about two things — the first is the abolition of the order of Section 31 (of the Broadcasting Act) [forbidding the broadcasting of Sinn Féin members’ voices]. The other thing, which is something I’ve never regretted, is my decision to establish Teilifís na Gaeilge, which is now TG4. There was one edi t ion of the Sunday Independent that had five articles attacking me on one or other of those topics. Some of the stuff was highly personalised.’
A long time wish to be President:
‘My main concern in 2004 — and I think I’ve been proved right — was the discourse that we should be having. I was aware that Ireland had changed and that we were at a very vulnerable stage. In the period between 1997 and 2004, a whole series of things were beginning to shift and you had a kind of radical individualism in the country that was beginning to change everything. So, in 2004 I wanted a campaign in which you would have a debate about what kind of Ireland you wanted. And I feel that we missed an opportunity there. Yes, it did upset me.’
And what he hopes to do in the post:
‘I think I can bring a very positive energy to it. I have very definite views about it. Remember, by training I’m a political scientist, so I know the limitations and the possibilities of the office. In addition, I’ve also been in nearly ever elected office you have. Remember I’ve been on the county council, I was a senator and a Dáil deputy and a minister. I was President of the European Council of Culture Ministers in 1996. I know the institutional grounds — the space, if you like. The President can’t be an organised force of opposition against the government of the day. The oath you take which says that you dedicate yourself to the welfare of the Irish people.
And points to the interesting decade ahead:
You are also able to look at themes that are not arising as problems now. For example, the next President will deal with some very significant dates — 1912, the founding of the Labour Party; 1913, the Lockout; 1914, the Great War; 1916 and so on. If you were to take where we are now in this recession, which has turned into a depression — and I think it is a depression — and if you were trying to say to people: “Look, i t’ s the people who really object to impunity but, that having been said, we move on from recrimination on to envisaging what you’re going to do about the future.” There is scope there and the difference between different versions of the presidency is how you use your discretion. And the discretion is where you make speeches, what topics you pick.
And a troubling political background from his early days which it is astounding didn’t come out during the campaign. OSF? PSF? Why no…:
‘I was a member of the Fianna Fáil Kevin Barry Cumann for about six months in 1966. It was before I went to America. We invited ministers down to tell us about their policies. I remember Seán Flanagan. But they didn’t feel that they were treated with sufficient respect and they reported the cumann. So, I think we would’ve been dumped. I think I was on the way out anyway if I hadn’t gone to America.’
I don’t think that anyone who is serious could say that they weren’t a spiritual person.
*splutter*
LikeLike
🙂
LikeLike
The usual arrogance of the religious. They will generally go on to say, with an entirely straight face mind, that atheists are often arrogant towards the religious!
LikeLike
Well, in fairness he doesn’t seem to be exactly religious. No heaven, no hell and no religious observance. Though I take your point that it’s odd he can’t see that some people simply don’t have any interest in such matters.
Mind you some atheists are arrogant towards the religious.
LikeLike
‘Hear now this, O foolish people, and without understanding; which have eyes, and see not; which have ears, and hear not (Jer. 5.21)
In the excerpt above, MDH acknowledges that he is an atheist (‘I don’t believe in heaven and hell. What I think about it is that they don’t enter into my thinking very much. Does life end in the moment of physical death? We’ll continue to speculate on it …’). Yet he is accused of by a contributor here of displaying ‘the usual arrogance of the religious.’ Another of your contributors persists in calling MDH ‘a pompous windbag’ or somesuch every time he mentions him. Two questions arise: (1) why is neilcaff unable to correctly interpret what MDH is telling him? (2) why does MDH persist in dressing up his atheism by talking about spirituality, and thus muddying things somewhat? I’ll try to answer the second.
MDH has been a campaigner for some version of socialism since the late 1960s. Over the years, he has been a public advocate of secularism (in education and elsewhere), of divorce and reproductive rights. In seeking support for these positions, he has had to win votes in Connemara and Kilbeacanty, as well as in urban areas. He has had several of his campaigns disrupted by people whose only wish to ‘knock him out’ as it were – and they succeeded on a couple of occasions. An example was a self-styled rosary crusade which followed his canvasses around in one campaign, asking people just canvassed by his team not to vote for ‘that atheist and abortionist.’ At any public meeting, MDH had to be prepared to field questions about his religious beliefs. Rightly or wrongly, but understandably, he resorted to evasiveness (windbaggery?) about ‘spirituality’ in such circumstances – and would have been able to justify this to himself and those who knew him well in that he wasn’t that interested in material things, that he felt compassionate towards people in adversity, that he liked music, art, poems and going for country walks. The plea that everyone ‘who is serious’ is spiritual should be understood in that context. (We may not go to mass, but we like to commune with nature). Rather than being regarded an expression of ‘the arrogance of the religious’ it should seen as a plea for the right of the non-Catholic/non-believer to play a part in politics. It’s probably old hat and unnecessary at this stage (though Dana did have a go at him in at least one of the debates for his secularist abortionism), but the formulation enabled him to survive in the bear-pit of Galway West politics in the 1970s and 1980s.
LikeLike
Good points well made. But the whole, ‘I’m not religious but I’m spiritual,’ formulation is one of the great cliches of our time. Boiled down, what it often means is that the person in question really, really likes Leonard Cohen. And the Steve Earle albums after he gave up the drink and drugs. It’s also a kind of default position in Irish poetry, Heaney and Longley kind of go in for this vague pantheism. Whatever gets you through the night. The whole S but not R thing can also be seen as a reaction to losing religious faith but not taking the next rather frightening logical step. Who wouldn’t want to believe that there’s a destiny out there which shapes our ends rough hew them though we may. In fairness to Ireland, Michael D got elected president without having to make the kind of religious declarations which are compulsory for US presidential candidates. Not to knock another man’s racket but does anyone really believe in Obama’s religious conviction?
LikeLike
“No religion? Are we stones, on Anarres?”
LikeLike
Good points well made. But the whole, ‘I’m not religious but I’m spiritual,’ formulation is one of the great cliches of our time. Boiled down, what it often means is that the person in question really, really likes Leonard Cohen
Brilliant.
Religion is quite hard and demands a fair bit in terms of faith, commitment, self- denial and discipline – it’s quite a struggle to believe in the absurd (in the Kierkegaardian sense – not an insult), and the genuinely religious will always, I suspect, be tormented by doubt.
Being ‘a deeply spiritual person’ on the other hand, is entirely self- indulgent: it bears the same relation to real faith as being a bit Green does to proper politics.
LikeLike
And BTW Eamonn, what have to say for yerselves down there in CSW?
LikeLike
Reminds me of a cherished quote from that great thinker, Sharon Stone, who introduced the Dalai Lama as ‘the hardest working man in spirituality.’
LikeLike
Somebody translated `I’m not religious but I am spiritual’ as `I’m scared of dying but I can’t be arsed going to mass.’
LikeLike
Michael D may or may not think he is an atheist but if you believe in ‘spirituality’ then you are not an atheist, self serving flim-flam notwithstanding.
What I was objecting to was this: “I don’t think that anyone who is serious could say that they weren’t a spiritual person.” (Emphasis my own)
It’s perfectly possible to hold the liberal positions Michael D holds and still be religious, it’s even possible to be non observant in your particular faith and still consider yourself religious or ‘spiritual’ as Michael D puts it.
Now all of that’s fair enough since I don’t particularly care what Michael D’s wooly theological views are. What is annoying though is his dismissal of people who take a non ‘spiritual’ view of life and yes it is consistent with the sort of twaddle you hear from religious people when they find out you are an atheist.
LikeLike
Spiritual people believe in magic. Religious people also believe in magic but their magic has a great deal more intellectual coherence. Spiritualism is handy though, in terms of allowing a comforting belief in magic without any actual work or thought.
Also, am I the only one here who hasn’t quite forgiven Mao for his failure to kill the Dalai Lama?
LikeLike
I think I dislike the “vague pantheism” more than the adherent of a mainstream religion, even than Catholicism (which I dislike a lot!). I have had numerous frustrating discussions withe friends who subscribe to “vague pantheism”, maybe teh western world’s fastest growing, maybe even biggest, belief system – sor of. Vague pantheism is so woolly and pathetic. It is so pointless as it explains nothing and, from what I can make out, is not even a guide to action. So waht purpose does it serve? At least the Bishop of Rome provides that for those deluded enough to follow him.
Rant over!
LikeLike
I see that “with the usual arrogance of the religious,” Michael D. is insisting that there be “a humanist element to the [Friday’s inauguration] ceremony in addition to the traditional prayers.” That’s according to today’s Irish Times. According to the same report, he will also “pause and reflect in the room where James Connolly was held before execution.” Some will encouraged by this; others, I expect, will see it as terrible hypocrisy.
LikeLike
I myself will demonstrate how little I care about Michael D. Higgin’s inauguration by emitting a little fart. Not a big one mind, just a little one, though I think my flatmate has noticed it but is too polite to complain.
LikeLike
I’m sure your flamate won’t mind the smell, Budapestkik, if you spare him your verbal flatulence
LikeLike
You Clive, are a man who implicitly suggested that Michael D. Higgins (who voted for the most right-wing programme for government since the 1920s) pausing to ‘reflect’ about James Connolly would be a source of encouragement. Given that Michael D. Higgins voted for the most right-wing programme for government in the history of the state I imagine he will reflect on such important matters as:
‘My God, what a hypocrite I am’
‘Will anyone give a toss about this meaningless gesture?’
‘I wonder if Clive will be encouraged by my look of deep concentration’
‘I hope Joan gives the unemployed a good kicking. I’m glad I didn’t make an arse of myself by voting against that vicious programme of austerity’
‘I hope adding a humanist element to the ceremony goes down well. I like humanism. Some of my best friends are humans’
‘It’s astonishing some people think I’m secretly left-wing despite the fact my actual actions indicate otherwise’
‘Did someone fart?’
LikeLike
You’re right of course, Budapestkick. How was I ever taken in by that charlatan?
LikeLike
Michael D Higgins’s last substantive speech in the Dáil:
LikeLike
“There is not one jot of evidence since the crash in the 1920s in the United States, as both Professor Samuels senior and junior have stated, that the markets are rational”-MDH, above.
Who are these 2 Professors Samuels does anyone know?
LikeLike
I wonder if he was talking about the Galbraiths senior and junior
LikeLike
-I wonder if he was talking about the Galbraiths senior and junior-Tomboktu, above. Could be.
In any case MDH agrees that the markets are irrational. Which puts him in a peculiar position; he is president of the Labour party which is implementing an economic policy whose purpose is to placate the irrational markets by depressing working class living standards.
LikeLike
And how long was it before he spouted this endless turgid bollocks that he voted for NAMA?
LikeLike
That would have been a very telling point, Mark P, if he had voted for NAMA. As I recall, he didn’t.
With regard to the ‘turgid bollocks’ and the ‘pompous windbag’ of your earlier post, it’s relative, I suppose. By comparison with your own elegant turn of phrase, most of us would rate as turgid and pompous. But why the virulent hatred?
LikeLike
Video of the speech is here as you don’t get the sense of the when the arms where swinging from the transcript . http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJJ5q1_5jX8
I remember watching the speech on the day. He managed to get in a nod to Habermas and Zizek then Michael Moynihan got up after and started going on about something he read in Tubridy’s book. If there was ever a sign of the end of era.
He was Níl to Nama along with the rest of the opposition
LikeLike
Frequently, people such as Slavoj Zizek have said to me that if things are as I describe them then what is needed is a form of terror that would sweep everything away and to start all over again.
What’s good and annoying about him in one sentence, really: it would have been so much less irritating if it had been phrase ‘as SZ says’. 🙂
LikeLike
Are you saying that he broke the Labour Party whip, Clive? I’d be interested in seeing some evidence of him finding one tiny bit of backbone, but I’m sceptical. He was after all a Minister in the government that privatised TEAM Aer Lingus and part privatised Telecom Eireann. He didn’t resign. He voted for the tax amnesty too, didn’t he?
Michael D Higgins is a neoliberal politician. I have broadly the same hostility to him that I have towards any Fine Gael or Fianna Fail politicician, with an added side order of the contempt so richly earned by ex-radicals who make their peace with the system and become stalwarts of that system. He just comes up more often in conversation on left sites than most of them because some fools insist on thinking of him as still somehow on the left.
As for him being a pompous windbag, that’s quite independent of his politics. He was a pompous windbag when he was on our side too.
LikeLike
Hang on, now that I think back on it, Labour voted against NAMA and promised to “review” the whole thing when they came into government. They have not of course “reviewed” anything. So Higgins obeyed the party whip and voted against.
Everything else I said about him was accurate.
LikeLike
Translated from MarkP-ese into the turgid bollocks employed by the rest of us. you’re saying: ‘the facts on which I based on my opinions are wrong; my opinions however remain correct’
LikeLike
No Clive. I was wrong about the Labour Party’s support for NAMA. They haven’t done anything about it when in office, contrary to their promises at the time, but they didn’t vote for it.
I was not wrong about Michael D Higgins. He was a radical once upon a time. Then he abandoned his left wing views around the time he was offered minor Ministerial office. From that point on, he voted for coalition with FF and FG, voted for Reynolds and Bruton as Taoisigh, vote for the Tax Amnesty and was a Minister in a right wing government which carried out major privatisations. He was not one of the band of 50 Labour members who opposed the most right wing programme for government in the history of the state. He has not uttered a peep of criticism of the slash and burn policies of the present government.
You insist on viewing him in the rosy light of his distant past in a way that you presumably don’t do for Stagg, Rabbitte, Gilmore and the other ex-radicals in the Labour Party. As far as I can gather from your earlier post this may be because you have some personal fondness for him. It’s fair enough if you like him personally or prefer to wallow in nostalgia for when he used to fight the good fight, but don’t try to paint him as something he hasn’t been in nearly 20 years. It makes you look a fool.
There is nothing leftist about the man. He stood as a centre ground candidate for a capitalist party. Beyond that he’s remarkable only for the degree to which he loves to spout pious waffle. Fuck him. And fuck the self-congratulatory liberals who are all over twitter and facebook patting themselves on the back too, the nauseating pricks.
LikeLike
Who did you vote for Mark P
LikeLike
I don’t know about Mark but I myself simply scribbled a warning about Gay Mitchell’s pyrophilia.
LikeLike
I spoiled my vote, Hal, by writing something rude on it.
LikeLike
Mark P sees no difference between Gallagher and Mick D being president – foolish thinking that, if such terms themselves weren’t also wrong, sums up the problem with ultra-leftist as opposed to hard left thinking.
LikeLike
I would say it’s ultra left to think there is any substantive difference between Michael D and Gallagher.
Gallagher isn’t a fascist after all, hell he isn’t even as right wing as Dana!
The only difference in substance between Gallagher and Higgins is Gallagher tended to begin every sentence with ‘I’m an entrepreneur’ whereas Higgins at least had the decency to clothe his pro establishment, consensus driven campaign in warm and fuzzy rhetoric.
In other words Michael D annoys you less than Sean Gallagher and hey that’s ok, he annoys me less as well. But please don’t use Marxist phraseology to try and dress up your personal prejudices as some sort of profound political difference between the two.
LikeLike
Thinking that Michael D. is somehow a left-wing candidate after voting in favour of the most right-wing programme for government since the 1920s is one of the many problems with ultra-deluded thinking rather than simply hard deluded thinking.
LikeLike
In fairness to to the SP, I gather that they generally voted 1 Norris, 2 McG, 3 MDH in Dublin W. It’s likely that MarkP followed that line, and didn’t simply write a pointless graffito on his ballot. An SWP member told me she’d voted 1 Norris, 2 MDH
LikeLike
Actually Clive, most of us in the SP, to my knowledge, spoiled our votes (generally with something political like ‘Abolish the Presidency’) and then voted yes to capping judge’s pay and no to the inquiries referendum. There was no official party line in relation to the presidential vote though few of us would have voted for Michael D. Higgins on the basis that he voted in favour of the most right-wing programme for government since the 1920s, a fact that seems lost on some people.
There was a certain sympathy among comrades for Norris, primarily on the basis on his strong record on LGBT rights, though he couldn’t plausibly be described as a left-wing candidate. I would imagine comrades who didn’t spoil their votes would be more inclined to vote for him above the other candidates.
I myself took the opportunity of the presidential ballot to warn the public of Gay Mitchell’s stated intent to burn the Áras (a building of some historical significance) to the ground in a fit of unrestrained lust. If you consider that to be a ‘pointless graffito’ then it’s quite clear to me that you have little respect for either our heritage or the preservation of historically significant landmarks.
In fairness to Michael D., I have no fear that he will ever burn down the Áras in order to reach sexual climax.
LikeLike
I think it’s unfair to presume Michael D will not burn down the Aras in order to reach sexual climax. Would it not be wiser to wait till he settles into the office before making such judgements?
LikeLike