I didn’t vote for a second term for Michael D, not because I feel that he is not qualified for the job but that he is too qualified when measured by the old time political metrics. Don’t misunderstand me, at the first election he was the only one who understood the constitutional role and limitations of the Presidency. I had hoped that his promise for a one term Presidency meant that perhaps this was the final fling of the political consensus that sent an old politician to the Aras for a nice retirement, leaving the major centrist parties free to ignore an inconvenient and expensive election. But leopards don’t change their spots, especially old ones. Once Michael D had his feet under the Presidential Desk at the Aras for seven years the prospect of unemployment seemed less inviting. Had either of the two Mary’s made this about face there would have been outrage but because it was Michael D, no one was really surprised. No one was surprised about delaying his decision to run so that opponents had to scramble to seek adoption by councils that were on holiday. No surprise either that they would have no time to build a campaign or, that he was suddenly so busy that he could only debate on his terms. This was old style and typical of the smoke filled rooms that gerrymandered politics of the past.
I had hoped that with the election of Presidents Robinson and McAleese that we had broken with the past and signalled a new approach but the only change was that the smoke filled rooms are now non smoking.
Does it really matter? Michael D is a safe pair of hands and will not disgrace Ireland by choosing the wrong fork at the Heads of State dinners. He occasionally shows his Old Labour affiliation as with the panegyric to his old Soviet comrade, Castro but does anyone really care? After all he ‘creamed’ the vote even with a low turnout and Leo has agreed to shorten the term to five years and look at the cost of the Presidency. The problem was the Casey vote. I have argued in the past (Sinn Fein ) that we are sleepwalking into a situation where support for the centre dissolves and dissipates to the Left and Right extremes.
John Lahart said “The Casey vote has to be heeded and acknowledged or it will escalate into something larger and we will have our own Nigel Farrage style politician in the making” (Sunday Times)
The only thing that I would dispute with the above is that because the right is noisier and they feature in the Press more, that we ignore the extremists on the Left. Be that as it may there is a feeling of frustration in the Country that Lahart has identified. This is not because Casey is particularly popular or has anything worthwhile saying,
as Fintan O’Toole said,” Casey didn’t create an audience – it found him”. (Irish Times 27/10/18)
The Editorial in the Sunday Times (Sunday Times 28/10/18) described the current political status as a,” suffocating consensus that was slowly killing robust political debate.” Indeed the subtext to Michael D’s acceptance speech was that words hurt and difficult and possibly painful issues are best not aired in public and best left in the safe hands of the centrist liberal elite. I have argued elsewhere that this arrogant attitude, together with the breakdown of trust with the political class, has increasingly frustrated the middle ground voters.
The matters raised by Casey were not the main issue but,” … by actually speaking his mind he managed to breach the stultifying political correctness that sanitises most statements made by our career Politian’s,” (Sunday Times 28/10/18)
We always believe that we are different, what happens to others will never happen to us. We should take the lessons from the Presidential election of centrist indifference and frustration of the middle ground and ensure that we do not make the same mistakes as others.
references: The Irish Times, 27/10/18, Finton O’Toole The Sunday Times, 28/10/18, Stephen O’Brien/Justine McCarthy, Higgins Keeps Crown. The Sunday Times, 28/10/18, Editorial, Election shows we need a Party to Break our Consencus.