Making a meal of it… December 12, 2016Posted by WorldbyStorm in Uncategorized.
Reading Stephen Collins piece in the IT on Michael D. Higgins words on the death of Fidel Castro I do have to wonder is this not all a bit exaggerated? I’m far from Higgin’s biggest fan. Indeed I’m not sure I’m a fan at all. Nor would I be the person to deliver an uncritical appraisal of Castro. But there’s an odd sort of dislocation between the supposed problem and its actuality. It is almost Pharisaic, this demand that Higgins must articulate position x or y or otherwise be discredited. Moreover it’s almost a demand for perfection, which in a world of Trump and Farage and so on seems odd, to put it mildly.
And then there’s his assessments of other Presidents, not least this:
When Mary McAleese ran for the presidency in 1997, there were again fears that if elected she would pursue a narrow agenda focused on her concerns as a Northern nationalist which had clearly motivated her political career.
Good to know that that was a ‘narrow’ agenda. By the way, is he correct in the following about her ‘most spectacular public success’?
Her most spectacular public success was the role she played in paving the way for the historic visit of Queen Elizabeth to Ireland, but she also worked behind the scenes to promote peace in Northern Ireland and to bring people from the two communities together.
And then there’s this in relation to Higgins.
Like his predecessors President Higgins is popular with voters. He has carried out his public duties with a bit of style and his natural likability has won people over.
However, if the Castro episode is repeated he will have to be called to account for the way he is using his office regardless of the damaging political fallout.
What fallout is that precisely? Who is damaged? What is damaged? Have I missed something?