|
Post by Maolsheachlann on May 2, 2017 12:44:48 GMT
I will start the ball rolling by nominating Ronan Mullen, for his courageous support for the unborn child and traditional marriage. I was surprised he succeeded so well in the most recent Seanad elections.
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on May 13, 2017 13:48:56 GMT
The silence is deafening!
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on May 13, 2017 13:57:45 GMT
If this thread includes historical politicians, how about Liam Cosgrave? He voted against his own government on a contraception bill.
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on May 13, 2017 14:07:25 GMT
Good suggestion. In terms of historical politicians, I'm not sure who I would nominate. I suppose De Valera is the figure in Irish politics with whose vision I identify the most. I feel deep reservations about his role in the Irish Civil War, though.
|
|
|
Post by cato on May 19, 2017 22:20:25 GMT
Dev is hated by modern liberals which must mean he was a great leader but he did silly things like visiting the German embassy on the occasion of Hitler's death and his civil war behaviour was small minded and shameful.
Daniel o connell deserves admiration for his non violent anti revolutionary (the french variety) approach to politics but he is generally seen as being a liberal or a precursor to 20th century christian democracy. I sometimes wonder would he have been one of those "i am personally opposed to abortion but i can't impose my views" politicians, so common nowadays if he was still around.
I think w t cosgrave was the best conservative leader overall in independent ireland . He ruthlessly put down the attempted republican (leftist?)coup in 1923 , preserved democracy, stabilised the new state and attempted to promote the irish free state as culturally seperate and self respecting .He was fiscally prudent, a believer in limited government ,uncharismatic and boring. In short a perfect prime minister. .
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on May 19, 2017 22:48:32 GMT
Ha, ha. You remind me of the Gilbert and Sullivan lines:
The House of Peers, throughout the war, Did nothing in particular And did it very well.
Indeed, Roger Scruton named his conservative magazine the Salisbury Review after Lord Salisbury because he admired how boring a statesman he was!
I don't really hold the visit to the German ambassador against De Valera-- it was simply a formality of diplomacy, and a demonstration of neutrality.
I get the impression O'Connell was sincerely pious so I imagine he would be prolife in the fullest sense. It's extraordinary how low his star has fallen.
|
|
|
Post by cato on May 20, 2017 11:23:44 GMT
One of Devs vices was a mathematical pedantry when it came to certain topics. Allied to this he could be very stubborn. He was personally friendly with the German ambassador by all accounts but this should not have influenced his decision.He used the good manners argument in justifying his action later. It was not in our national interest to express regret on Hitler's death . It was widely condemned internationally and risked creating the impression we were sneaking admirers of the nazi plague. We were isolated internationally after the war and this visit was often quoted against us. Also morally it was a repugnant thing to do. Words cannot express the depravity and wickedness unleashed on humanity by Hitler and his minions. I have a soft spot for old Dev but this was not his finest hour.
Interestingly there was little comment when we flew flags at half mast a few years ago on the death of the saudi monarch. It may not be on the scale of the third reich but the saudis are exporters of islamic fanaticism and human rights are regularly abused in the desert kingdom.
|
|
|
Post by rogerbuck on May 22, 2017 10:28:22 GMT
DEV. And this thread makes me wish my knowledge of ancient languages was better. For I want to coin a new antonym of "hagiography". "Demonography" will have to do. In recent times, Dev has been a victim of relentless demonography and the only way I see to balance that is to to go back to earlier biographies that may err to much on the side of hagiography. To that end, I'm pulling out some quotes from the MacManus bio which is also online here: archive.org/stream/eamondevalera007589mbp/eamondevalera007589mbp_djvu.txtThese quotes say a lot not only about Dev but of the early Fianna Fail of which he was the driving force. They also say much about how Ireland used to be and how the Irish could be inspired of living in "frugal comfort"! I'm putting some stuff in bold which I DO NOT NECESSARILY AGREE WITH ... But ... I find it fascinating in terms of how the Irish used to think. After all, FF was the dominant party of power after 1932 and its appeal can only be explained by the fact that people believed these things - things that would be very, very politically incorrect today. COMMENT: Again, my bold does not necessarily mean agreement - but I AM fascinated ... COMMENT: Chesterton and Belloc watching this from England saw Distributism in action ... COMMENT: So much more to say - especially about that 1937 constitution! I may say more of Dev's enormous courage and piety, visiting the Eucharist 5 times a day in the presidential home and going to Mass daily. Also his last days in severe financial anxiety because he hadn't put away hoards of money like virtually any other politician and couldn't support his wife's medical and care needs...
|
|
|
Post by cato on May 22, 2017 17:35:41 GMT
There have been some recent sympathetic books on Dev . The prolific biographer Anthony Jordan wrote an account focusing on his catholic faith. He has brief account of an alleged vision of Christ that Dev had in Blackrock college.
Diarmuid Ferriter and the late Ronan Fanning have produced two broadly positive accounts of his career. The point about Dev dying in penury is one that deserves to be better known. I think representations were made to the government after he retired as he was reluctant to demand a bigger pension for himself. His grave in Glasnevin is remarkably and I think appropriately simple and austere. The founding fathers of the state were not perfect but they were men who saw politics in terms of patriotic service and duty. No gold plated pensions back then.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on May 22, 2017 20:10:01 GMT
The real problem with analysing the career of Dev (and indeed many other Irish political figures) is that such commentary will necessarily be shaded by the political views of the author. The problem with switching to tillage was that except for the south east, the land simply isn't good enough for the sort of intensive farming that tillage requires. Not to mention the increased emigration that his economic policies resulted in. Dev was certainly a pious man, especially in later life and an excellent mathematician, but I'm afraid that when it came to economics, his policies caused more harm than good.
|
|
|
Post by rogerbuck on May 23, 2017 10:01:17 GMT
There have been some recent sympathetic books on Dev . The prolific biographer Anthony Jordan wrote an account focusing on his catholic faith. He has brief account of an alleged vision of Christ that Dev had in Blackrock college. Diarmuid Ferriter and the late Ronan Fanning have produced two broadly positive accounts of his career. The point about Dev dying in penury is one that deserves to be better known. I think representations were made to the government after he retired as he was reluctant to demand a bigger pension for himself. His grave in Glasnevin is remarkably and I think appropriately simple and austere. The founding fathers of the state were not perfect but they were men who saw politics in terms of patriotic service and duty. No gold plated pensions back then. I was a little excessive in speaking as I did. I agree the Ferriter and Jordan books are different and the first especially is an ORIGINAL attempt to search for the truth. Jordan I liked, but it was not quite as original or as probing. As for the Fanning book, I felt it really lacked imagination. It's been a year or two since I read it, but AS I RECALL, the author had little sympathy for so very much that Dev stood for. I recall him being positively antipathetic to the Irish Press and the MacManus bio. And if you are clearly hostile to those things which so exude the early Fianna Fail ethos, how can you really engage with Dev? To get at Dev, you need a sympathetic imagination. That Ferriter has. But without that same sympathetic imagination, Fanning tends to see an egocentric "will to power" in Dev and not much else. I will say something very blunt, probably very excessive and very personal. When I read books like Fanning's and others, I sometimes felt I was almost reading something autistic - incapable of really LISTENING to Dev and, again, sympathetically imagining his ideals. Maybe a bit like many liberal Catholics trying to underttand traditionalists ... Again, I probably need to return to Fanning. This is just me being blunt about a very personal reaction.
|
|
|
Post by rogerbuck on May 23, 2017 10:09:07 GMT
The problem with switching to tillage was that except for the south east, the land simply isn't good enough for the sort of intensive farming that tillage requires. Not to mention the increased emigration that his economic policies resulted in. Dev was certainly a pious man, especially in later life and an excellent mathematician, but I'm afraid that when it came to economics, his policies caused more harm than good. I think there is truth to what you say Young Ireland, but I don't know that it's the whole truth. What I note is that your line reflects the standard orthodoxy of today - what we are now told. What I quoted from 1946 reflects the standard orthodoxy back then - what we were then told. But I wonder if neither orthodoxy is really that true and that the latter too much reflects the lack of imagination I just referred to. PS. I will note that I know nothing of farming. But it seems incredibly weird to me if the reason for the failure of tillage is THAT simple. Meaning that untold thousands of people spent all those years on an incredibly stupid impossible idea ... Instead, I am suspicious that we are being fed perhaps too simplistic lines. But ... I am ignorant regarding agriculture.
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on May 23, 2017 10:09:46 GMT
I'm sure liberal Catholics would answer that traditionalists show a lack of sympathetic imagination in understanding them!
It's an interesting point. Do you have to be able to see from someone's point of view to engage with them?
|
|
|
Post by rogerbuck on May 23, 2017 10:32:00 GMT
I'm sure liberal Catholics would answer that traditionalists show a lack of sympathetic imagination in understanding them! It's an interesting point. Do you have to be able to see from someone's point of view to engage with them? Yes, plenty of sin to go around on all sides, alas. I don't think Fanning would have to see from Dev's point of view, but he seemed so clearly hostile to so much that Dev stood for that I really did find him unimaginative. Imagination is the key I think and I'm not sure such imagination can exist amidst hostility. But maybe I am failing to sufficiently imagine Fanning!
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on May 23, 2017 12:26:47 GMT
It really is an interesting question. There are some ideologies with which I disagree but with which I can sympathise, such as libertarianism or socialism. Or even feminism! There are others such as cosmopolitanism with which I don't feel the slightest degree of sympathy, even imaginative sympathy. I don't understand how anyone can want to live in a post-national world.
|
|