|
Post by irishconfederate on Nov 5, 2017 18:54:56 GMT
Northern Catholic Leadership
A factor which must be taken into account in understanding Six-County politics is that the Protestants have more authentic political leadership than the Catholics. As a consequence, they have stronger leadership and constitute a political force which is not merely stronger, but disproportionately stronger, that that of the Catholics. If the Catholics, over the past two years, had possessed a political leadership as authentic as the Protestants, they would have constituted a much greater political force and would thereby have forced the political issue more rapidly to a real settlement. What do I mean by saying that the Protestants have “authentic” leadership? I mean that their leaders declare themselves as leaders of the Ulster Protestant people and as spokesmen of the mainstream Ulster Protestant tradition. They don’t pretend to be anything more – or anything less – than that. Profoundly conscious of Ulster Protestant history and identity, they are openly proud of both the words “Protestant”, “Ulster”, “British” – the words with which the vast majority of Protestants understand themselves and define their identity – these are proud and oft-repeated words in their leaders’ mouths. Consequently, the leadership which these leaders provide has a profound and inspiring resonance in their followers. It strikes home to them, especially to the poorest of them, with moral and emotional power. It touches all that that they are and feel themselves to be – all that is dear to them, even if not to us. But it is authentic leadership in another way, too. It has a clear overriding aim, namely, the maintenance of Ulster Protestant identity and self-determining power by one means or another, but especially by maintaining the link with Britain. A by-product of all this is the essential unity of the Protestant leadership despite its contending streams. The source of unity is the frank stance of all the leading elements in Ulster Protestant history, reality and sentiment. But they are also bound together by their broadly common purpose.
By contrast, the Catholic political leadership is shallow, inhibited and rootless. Elected by the Northern Catholics, the last things these leaders will do is declare themselves leaders of the Catholic people and spokesmen of the Catholic Irish tradition in Ulster. To listen to some of them, they might be spokesmen for the rights of some “minority” in Australia or New Zealand.
While the Orange leadership confesses to the Orange, the Green leadership shies away from the Green, shamefacedly or with open aversion. Elected by the Taigs, the Fenians, the Popish bastards, the dispossessed Irish and Catholics of Ulster, they turn their backs on this reality to speak for “non-Unionists”, “the minority”, “the working class” even for “the Protestant working class” which hates them. They describe themselves as “anti-Unionists”, as “socialists”, as spokesmen for humanity, democracy, civil rights or similar abstractions – never as leaders of the Taigs they spring from.
As a result, there is no resonance, no historical dimension, no profoundly human or emotional force in the Catholic leadership. Leaders of non-peoples whom they invent in place of their real, historic people, they end up calling on “non-Unionists” to engage in a non-violent campaign of non-payment of rents and rates. The “non” describes them.
The basic reason for this non-leadership is that the Catholic leaders have largely succumbed to the propaganda which tells them that “Catholics” are not respectable people, are non-people. Consequently, they feel, the Catholic people of the Six Counties have no right to a place of their own in politics.
The inauthentic nature of the Catholic leadership explains a great deal. It explains the relative weakness of the Catholics as a political force and the vast disunity of their leadership. A leadership without roots in history or reality means a leadership flying this way and that, distracted by every incident and fashion. It explains why, even today, the suffering Northern Catholics are without any clear political aim; their leaders have proposed none – or have proposed a dozen and made none of them paramount.
The inauthenticity of the Catholic political leadership explains the rise to power of the IRA, especially of the Provisionals. They supplied the strength, the genuine representation, the self-respect, the sense of history and Irishness, which the Catholics of the ghettoes were not getting from their elected leaders.
The Catholic people of the Six Counties are something greater than the “non-Unionist population” – to quote Mr Lynch’s choice description of them. They are not an anonymous mass characterised merely by not being Unionist, that is to say, in terms of their enemies. They are the historic Irish nation in Ulster. Only if they find leaders to lead them as such – on these terms- will they have an authentic leadership, achieve their full political strength and win the status and power due to them. Only then will they have leaders to match in strength Brian Faulkner, Desmond Baul, William Craig or Ian Paisley.
Desmond Fennell, 1973
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Nov 6, 2017 14:50:10 GMT
To some extent I think this is true, but I'm not sure it's all about "cultural cringe". I think that, to some extent, it's simply that a universalist and secular (and increasingly secularist) politics is more common amongst Irish nationalist. It's rooted in 1798 and French Revolutionary radicalism.
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Nov 7, 2017 9:23:57 GMT
The late Seán Mac Stiofáin once made a similar point to me. But I think the explanation can be summarised as follows. Because of the diverse nature of Protestantism no layman has the least problem putting himself forward as a Protestant spokesman and no one can say otherwise. A Catholic layman can't do the same thing. There was little effective leadership shown by the clergy in the North through the troubles and it appears the bishops never got over the demise of the old Nationalist party, so nationalist political leadership became more and more secular. Right now, I think the U.S. Democrats/N.Y. Times are the greatest influence on Irish nationalist opinion on both sides of the border.
|
|
|
Post by assisi on Nov 8, 2017 22:10:47 GMT
The late Seán Mac Stiofáin once made a similar point to me. But I think the explanation can be summarised as follows. Because of the diverse nature of Protestantism no layman has the least problem putting himself forward as a Protestant spokesman and no one can say otherwise. A Catholic layman can't do the same thing. There was little effective leadership shown by the clergy in the North through the troubles and it appears the bishops never got over the demise of the old Nationalist party, so nationalist political leadership became more and more secular. Right now, I think the U.S. Democrats/N.Y. Times are the greatest influence on Irish nationalist opinion on both sides of the border. Regarding the last line of your post it is worth noting that Colum Eastwood, the SDLP leader was invited to the inaugural Obama Foundation summit in Chicago to discuss 'progressive' ideas. Protestant leaders in NI over the years may have been more influential than their Catholic counterparts but they were often wrong on many issues and share part of the blame for the troubles. John Hume and Cardinal O Fiaich would have been good examples of competent and learned Catholic leadership. But there was always a fissure between orthodox Catholic approach and the left leaning preference of Irish Republicanism. It is almost as if, for Republicans and some Nationalists, Catholicism is not inclusive enough for them, nor is Irish nationalism per se. They need to seek validation and reflected glory in internationalising their politics through association with the likes of Palestinians and any other minorities that they perceive to be oppressed or seeking 'liberty' or 'freedom'. Even now there will be overt support for Catalonian independence even though the Catalonians are far from oppressed. Being Irish and Catholic isn't worldly or secular enough for them. The Protestants and their leaders never really courted popularity outside N.Ireland. Very few foreign documentary teams showed any interest in their story, they were generally interested in the nationalist view which was a more glamorous narrative. There was often Trade Union efforts to argue that working class Protestants and Catholics had much in common, but any attempts to get workers to march together was generally resisted by the Protestants. Their idea of identity and religion was stronger than any class based argument. If you didn't like the Protestants, they didn't care. I often think that the virtue signalling of the left in Ireland is due to a need to be loved and validated, some sort of inferiority complex that says something like ' our people aren't really that attractive or worthwhile in the way that foreign peoples are. Far off fields are greener and there is some reflected glory to be earned there; we haven't really succeeded or found satisfaction in the nitty gritty daily politics of Ireland so lets feel good and look earnest by associating with causes that allow us to use high level gratifying terms like 'freedom', 'diversity' and 'equality' without getting our hands dirty'.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Nov 9, 2017 12:16:06 GMT
The late Seán Mac Stiofáin once made a similar point to me. But I think the explanation can be summarised as follows. Because of the diverse nature of Protestantism no layman has the least problem putting himself forward as a Protestant spokesman and no one can say otherwise. A Catholic layman can't do the same thing. There was little effective leadership shown by the clergy in the North through the troubles and it appears the bishops never got over the demise of the old Nationalist party, so nationalist political leadership became more and more secular. Right now, I think the U.S. Democrats/N.Y. Times are the greatest influence on Irish nationalist opinion on both sides of the border. Regarding the last line of your post it is worth noting that Colum Eastwood, the SDLP leader was invited to the inaugural Obama Foundation summit in Chicago to discuss 'progressive' ideas. Protestant leaders in NI over the years may have been more influential than their Catholic counterparts but they were often wrong on many issues and share part of the blame for the troubles. John Hume and Cardinal O Fiaich would have been good examples of competent and learned Catholic leadership. But there was always a fissure between orthodox Catholic approach and the left leaning preference of Irish Republicanism. It is almost as if, for Republicans and some Nationalists, Catholicism is not inclusive enough for them, nor is Irish nationalism per se. They need to seek validation and reflected glory in internationalising their politics through association with the likes of Palestinians and any other minorities that they perceive to be oppressed or seeking 'liberty' or 'freedom'. Even now there will be overt support for Catalonian independence even though the Catalonians are far from oppressed. Being Irish and Catholic isn't worldly or secular enough for them. The Protestants and their leaders never really courted popularity outside N.Ireland. Very few foreign documentary teams showed any interest in their story, they were generally interested in the nationalist view which was a more glamorous narrative. There was often Trade Union efforts to argue that working class Protestants and Catholics had much in common, but any attempts to get workers to march together was generally resisted by the Protestants. Their idea of identity and religion was stronger than any class based argument. If you didn't like the Protestants, they didn't care. I often think that the virtue signalling of the left in Ireland is due to a need to be loved and validated, some sort of inferiority complex that says something like ' our people aren't really that attractive or worthwhile in the way that foreign peoples are. Far off fields are greener and there is some reflected glory to be earned there; we haven't really succeeded or found satisfaction in the nitty gritty daily politics of Ireland so lets feel good and look earnest by associating with causes that allow us to use high level gratifying terms like 'freedom', 'diversity' and 'equality' without getting our hands dirty'. Great analysis Assisi. I agree with every word. I've always been baffled by the tension between internationalism and Irish nationalism in Irish republican ideology. I've never understood how Irish republicans have failed to see it. Or maybe they see it and don't care about it.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Nov 14, 2017 18:25:50 GMT
It's important not to overstate the unity and self-confidence of Ulster Unionists/Protestants. Since the 1960s (and probably even earlier) the traditional unionist leadership has vanished or opted out of politics (a combination of the disappearance/marginalisation of the old aristocratic and business dynasties, the spread of metropolitan attitudes to the Protestant middle and professional classes and the fact that so many of them are dependent on the British state - it is often said that the Alliance are the quango party and the SDLP/UUP activists are mainly professionals and state employees, whereas the DUP and SF are more likely to be self-employed). One of the favourite themes of Unionist discussions is that their leaders are mostly a pack of provincial numpties, and one of the commonplaces among journalists who covered the Troubles was that nationalists were much better at getting their case across to outsiders than unionists,who tended to assume all outsiders were enemies so there was no point in trying to persuade them.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Nov 15, 2017 6:07:58 GMT
A couple of other points: (1) It depends what you mean by "Catholic". SF are Catholic only in the ethnic sense (I don't mean they are all atheists - though quite a few of them are - but that they see Catholicism as a tribal category unrelated to religious belief) but they present themselves as, and are seen by their core supporters, as highly effective tribal leaders. Irishconfederate's criticism is exactly the criticism SF have been making of the SDLP and Alliance since the 1970s. Indeed, Goldvulture of the PHOENIX, which no-one will mistake for a Catholic magazine, regularly asserts that the Unionists are simply a bunch or irreconcilable bigots, that the only way forward is for the Irish government to form an unconditional tribal alliance with SF as the main nationalist party, and that anyone who argues for a cross-community position involving recognition that both sides have legitimate concerns which must be addressed is on a par with a small child who believes that unicorns are real because they want it to be so. (2) The old Nationalist Party, whom Alasdair mentions, were much more explicitly Catholic-Nationalist, and they are also generally agreed to have been largely ineffective. This was partly because of sheer provincial incompetence (one example I've seen quoted quite often is a TV debate in the mid-1960s when Brian Faulkner was debating with a Nationalist MP - when the Nationalist complained of anti-Catholic discrimination Faulkner denied such a thing existed and demanded specific evidence, which the Nationalist was unable to give because he took his case for granted, so that the nationalist came across as a clown and a liar, even though what he said was true and at some level most people knew it was true. Those who have seen pro-life, pro-Catholic and pro-family speakers on discussion programmes shredded by the media will recognise the style) and partly because those who subscribed to the opposite tribal narrative could dismiss what they said because of the source it came from. Most of the evidence about anti-Catholic discrimination in NI used by the civil rights movement was used - and widely disseminated - by the nationalists during the late 40s-early 50s anti-partition campaign, but it was much more easily dismissed out of hand by the British and the unionists when it came from tribal nationalists and was published in the media of that subculture than when it was presented in the form of a demand for "British rights for British citizens". (3) Irishconfederate underrates the emotional appeal of an ahistoric identity based simply on the desire to revolt without seeking a historical pedigree - what one might call death metal politics, or "non serviam" - and of the civil rights narrative both British and American. The American civil rights movement is the founding narrative of modern liberalism for a reason (and indeed it is the founding narrative for many US prolifers, some of whom were involved in the civil rights movement and see prolife activism as an extension of that) precisely because it presents a drama of Good versus Evil in which it is impossible for any reasonable person to deny that one side, whatever its flaws (some of which have had harmful long-term consequences) was on the side of righteousness while the other was fundamentally evil. This is why the marriage abolishers and pro-choicers devote so much effort to presenting themselves in terms of that civil rights movement and painting pro-lifers and marriage defenders as present-day segregationists. (4) There are real moral and social costs to tribal politics of the "Christians are right and pagans are wrong" variety, such as denying or defending real evil when perpetrated by those on "our" side. I'm glad I was brought up to see communism for what it is, but I'm not proud of some of the views I had in specific cases deriving from anticommunism in the early 80s; more recently, it took me years to come to terms with the reality of clerical child abuse - I understand perfectly how a lot of people went into denial over it and a lot of people lost their faith because of it. Both of those derive from a "circle the wagons" mentality and a feeling that because "the other side" are evidently upholding evil in some respects it is impossible for any cause they take up to be righteous. BTW this is why a lot of respectable unionists were unwilling to face up to such matters as the existence of anti-Catholic discrimination, the criminality of loyalist paramilitaries, and the existence of collusion between state forces and loyalists. Rod Dreher's column linked below on how the siege mentality of Southern US evangelicals can lead them to support the indefensible reminds me very strongly of unionists, and not just of unionists: www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/slouching-towards-birmingham-roy-moore/
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Nov 15, 2017 17:10:27 GMT
The quoted Dr ever piece addresses many pertinent issues but I'll stick with the thread.
I heard it said the Church was more comfortable with the Nationalist party. It struck me that this was because the party was as ineffective as Hibernicus paints it and I could see someone like Cardinal Conway mourning the passing of such an arrangement. The SDLP was very much a party of individuals but I can see how the southern political establishment warmed to this party. There are a great many problems with Sinn Féin outside the current ideology and background in the Troubles. It is an alliance led by Gerry Adams and may not last very long on his retirement. Where I wonder how someone like Peadar Tóibín can last there, I would equally ask if a left wing ideologue like Eoin Ó Broin has a future there, especially after the party inevitably enters government here with either Fianna Fáil or Fine Gael. Don't sound surprised about the latter. FG have already been in government with Clann na Poblachta and Democratic Left. I think FF would have less problem doing so
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Nov 15, 2017 18:41:23 GMT
The quoted Dr ever piece addresses many pertinent issues but I'll stick with the thread. I heard it said the Church was more comfortable with the Nationalist party. It struck me that this was because the party was as ineffective as Hibernicus paints it and I could see someone like Cardinal Conway mourning the passing of such an arrangement. The SDLP was very much a party of individuals but I can see how the southern political establishment warmed to this party. There are a great many problems with Sinn Féin outside the current ideology and background in the Troubles. It is an alliance led by Gerry Adams and may not last very long on his retirement. Where I wonder how someone like Peadar Tóibín can last there, I would equally ask if a left wing ideologue like Eoin Ó Broin has a future there, especially after the party inevitably enters government here with either Fianna Fáil or Fine Gael. Don't sound surprised about the latter. FG have already been in government with Clann na Poblachta and Democratic Left. I think FF would have less problem doing so Interesting, Alaisdir. Do you think that there might be another split in SF down the line?
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Nov 15, 2017 23:08:20 GMT
Yesterday's IRISH INDEPENDENT reported a rumour that Peadar Toibin might defect to FF because of the pressure he is facing within SF over the abortion issue. SF has steadily shed activists and councillors in the Republic, though this is offset by new recruits. I heard today that one of their pet historians has defected and self-published a memoir of how SF treated him (which I haven't seen). In the Republic SF tends to attract protest politicians, often far left, who fall out with the iron grip the northerners maintain on the party apparatus and their desire to be in government to influence public policy. (You don't need to be a far leftist to quarrel with them, just to have a mind of your own.) Mind you, early FF shed quite a few activists who failed to adjust to such gymnastics as the FF party paper declaring the day before De Valera took the oath and entered the Dail that FF would never take the oath because it would be perjury whatever it was called. Such naive innocence about de Valera's capacity for self-deception didn't keep FF from becoming the political phenomenon with which we are all familiar: www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-zEtAuKuUY The suspicion that the church hierarchy didn't like a strong nationalist movement because it interfered with their own ability to cut deals with the government goes back quite a long way - O'Connell had problems with it in the 1840s; it's a perennial accusation against Cardinal Cullen; quite a few bishops initially opposed Parnell and the Land League for this reason, and during the Parnell Split many Parnellites made the same accusation against the clergy; I've heard of IPP members who applied it to clerical support for SF; Joe Devlin, the most prominent northern nationalist leader of the early C20, spent much of his early career tussling with the Bishop of Down and Connor and his middle-class allies. (The same was true elsewhere; the Vatican had a recurring tendency to stab the German Catholic Centre Party in the back, as when Leo XIII did a deal with Bismarck to end the Kulturkampf.) The SDLP generallly tended to distance itself from the church authorities and appeal to a (relatively) more secular-minded middle class (of the founders Paddy Devlin was an atheist and Ivan Cooper a Protestant - John Hume identified as a self-consciously "liberal" Catholic back when the full difficulty of that balancing act was less apparent than it is now). As the SDLP grew and the Nationalist Party declined the SDLP tended to attract more traditionalist elements (Eddie McGrady, whose family had bossed Downpatrick as Nationalist Party since the 1920s and whom I once met at a men's prayer group in Belfast, was a prime example) and to take on some of the organisational weaknesses of the old NP - which was compounded by Hume's personality cult and lack of interest in creating effective party structures which might constrain his solo initiatives.
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Nov 16, 2017 8:53:06 GMT
I'm not predicting a SF split after Adams, but it will be a challenge for his successor to keep the party together, especially south of the border.
|
|