|
Post by hibernicus on Aug 2, 2011 21:21:38 GMT
Louise - these CSP videos on the web certainly reinforce your point about optimism. As you say, the March for Life (and other Youth Defence events) at least put some thought into making a strong visual impression. These people don't even seem to have a sense that there is such a thing as presentation. www.youtube.com/user/Peopleofthiscountry#p/a/u/1/O8ees6afiJg Here we have a fake journalist doing an interview with Jane Murphy, the CSP candidate in Dublin South at the last general election. During the course of the interview she voices crank monetary theories (e.g that banks create money out of nothing - that is what Anglo-Irish tried to do and we see the result) she claims the American Government was behind 9/11, and she calls for the people to control the government in some form of direct democracy without explaining how this could be made to work. She's a more confident speaker than those in the other videos, but her views are just off the wall -and of course she doesn't seem to realise she's being spoofed. www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgmamxyUZ7I THis one is really painful. They have recorded Paul O'Loughlin's 2007 party political broadcast and are making fun of its amateurism (he comes across as a very poor speaker; the video seems to have been done in one take and without much rehearsal) www.youtube.com/watch?v=Irjkdr8DYbQ&feature=relatedwww.youtube.com/watch?v=i8umcleVeAM&NR=1 The CSP Easter commemoration. Unlike the other two, this was put out by the CSP themselves so the amateurism is all the more painful. The speaker is very hesitant and it doesn't seem to have occurred to them that they should have posed him so that the camera was facing towards the Garden of Remembrance; by facing it towards the traffic the viewer is distracted and the impression that no-one is paying any attention is reinforced. What's with the history lecture? There's no need to give a general account; just assume the audience knows the basics and get down to saying how the CSP relates to the legacy of 1916. BTW is this the "Political Soldier" blogger? Incidentally the hostile comments give an idea of the sort of attacks that will be made on any Catholic/Christian party and can be useful in preparing advance responses. I also notice that when he talks about Polish Catholic politics he identifies with the League of Polish families (which is widely accused of antisemitic tendencies and has been hammered in recent elections) rather than the Law and Justice Party (Kaczynski) which has been more electorally successful
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Aug 2, 2011 21:27:47 GMT
IN response to your second point - the more I see of the recent CSP material the more depressing I find it. They seem to have an infantile outlook, saying that everything that is wrong with the country is the result of conscious evil conspiracy and that if only they were given absolute power they would be able to put everything right just by wanting it. The paranoid mindset implies that reality is an illusion created by a malign conspiracy, so the paranoid need not bother to understand it; he can simply destroy it and replace it with something perfect - there's a sense of total powerlessness and megalomaniac power-fantasy simultaneously, the sense that we can do everything and we can do nothing. My argument is that this mindset keeps us from achieving anything - we can only build anything one brick at a time.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 3, 2011 12:39:24 GMT
I don't know if you've spotted this but in a way it screams of the zealous one-sidedness and bitterness too of our candidates. www.comharcriostai.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=13:richard-greene-calls-on-taoiseach-to-support-gay-mitchell&catid=2:articles&Itemid=4I dislike the words used "wetday liberal..shaft...70 screaming ladies.." There are ways of expressing yourself, this isn't it. I remember Paul's video, I felt sorry for him, God love him and I just do not understand how it managed to get on RTE. Isn't there nobody there who could have said, "Éist lads, have ye nothing else to offer?". In Greene's letter he mentions the networks of support. We need to harness the older vote, we also need to use the media/computer skills of the people who do the pro-life march. Those are the new generation of Catholic voters who are energised enough to take part in marches, why are they not being tapped? I suppose we need someone new. I'd love Dana to do something and she is trusted. If not her face, who, who is smart, trusted and known well enough to run a new party? Or could it be like a Tea Party movement influencing the consevative wings of parties and applying pressure at weak points on the election map? We are so behind in terms of apologetics and women's real rights in this country, people don't understand how nasty pushy liberalism and so-called women's rights can be, how it can turn a society on its head. Why can we not see it here, so backward and thick about it? Why is it not known? There's no new wave, no push against it. I hate our passivity.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Aug 3, 2011 20:13:57 GMT
I think I mentioned Greene's pro-Mitchell rant in an earlier post on this thread, but you're quite right. There is just so much wrong with this statement (1) First, as Louise says, there's the hysterical tone. Greene seems to think that screaming will make the person he's addressing pay attention to him. (2) Second, he claims to speak on behalf of the whole pro-life movement, not just of the CSP. (He may be speaking on behalf of Coir, but if so why is this on the CSP website and issued as Chairman of the CSP?) He cites the March for Life as showing the support he can command; does he really think everyone who attended the March votes for the CSP or has even heard of it? And doesn't it occur to him that it's odd for the leader of one party to make this sort of intervention in another party's choice of candidate? (3) Following on from that, he doesn't just say that pro-lifers will oppose Cox; he says they will actively support Mitchell. Mitchell does seem to be one of the better candidates in the field (as seen from the fact that various liberal types are now claiming that because he sponsored Dr Alveda King's visit to Leinster House and because he issued an appeal against the execution of someone who murdered an abortionist - presumably out of opposition to capital punishment rather than endorsement for the murderer's views - he must be a pro-life "extremist" himself) but that's not saying much. What happens if a better candidate comes forward, or if Mitchell says or does something problematic? There is a piece in the current CATHOLIC VOICE criticising Greene's statement on the grounds that Mitchell has done nothing to distance himself from Inda Kenny's pope-bashing speech. (4) Similarly, Greene appears to say that Cox is the worst possible candidate but he doesn't explain why. Has Cox taken any particular position on pro-life/pro-family issues that makes him worse than Mitchell? If he has, Greene doesn't say so. His principal objection seems to be that Cox is so closely associated with the EU, but virtually all our mainstream politicians are pro-EU, and Mitchell is a MEP. IF Greene opposes Cox because of his Euro-policy he should make this clear, instead of ranting that Cox is the enemy of all things pro-life. Again, he seems to say Cox should never be supported under any circumstances - but what if he had been the only alternative to something worse (if for example the election had become a two-horse race between Cox and Norris)? (5) Lastly, there are just so many claims that are demonstrably wrong. It is NOT the case that the CSP was responsible for Bacik's defeat - Bacik had more than ten times as many first preferences as the CSP candidate, it is unlikely that many CSP voters would otherwise have supported Bacik, and the candidate who defeated her is almost as bad on the pro-life issue. Bacik lost because she was the second Labour candidate in a constituency where Labour normally only gets one seat and where she had to face another strong leftist candidate, because she comes across as snobby and condescending, and because she has been hopping between constituencies like a performing flea (she contested Dublin Central in 2009 and in 2011 she originally sought nomination in Dublin South-East). Claiming the CSP defeated Bacik is just a flight from reality, claiming to be strong so as to avoid doing anything to make yourself strong.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Aug 3, 2011 20:42:43 GMT
The trouble with the Tea Party comparison is that (a) The American political system, with its open primaries, makes it much more difficult for party leaders to shut a group out of the party completely. Our parties are increasingly run in presidential style, in which the membership is shut out of policy debate and reduced to backdrop for the leaders (b) "Conservatism" in the Irish context is much harder to define. The main parties don't self-define as right-wing; they switch from right to left as opportunism dictates. There aren't permanent "conservative" "liberal" or "leftist" factions - just individual leaders and their followings, which are defined more by region than by ideology. I think the failure to develop a movement around Dana was the great lost opportunity. (And while I think she made the wrong call on the 2002 referendum, I think it was foolish of some pro-lifers who had advocated a Yes vote to refuse to back her in subsequent elections.) A credible leader would be a great asset. Kathy Sinnott seems to be more of an individual show, and Declan Ganley was and still is Mr Enigmatic.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 3, 2011 21:57:30 GMT
I'm up at 5am so will reply more tomorrow if I can. Just a quick note, Dana is in now, Norris out. Will Dana split the vote among those who would have voted for Mitchell since he seems to be endorsed by a more conservative faction? I like Declan Ganley but many find him "a bit much", I've heard that countless times. I think he rocks though.
Part of me thinks we're so media submissive (like sunflowers bending to the sun wherever it goes as I read once) that it'll take someone young, goodlooking with at least the appearance of a brain a la Obama to shock people into taking notice of a new movement/party. Obviously the opposite of Obama mind you. ;-)
I'm still not convinced that a Tea Party style movement pushing where needed wouldn't work, guerilla style activism almost. I know you're smart Hibernicus but your explanation didn't really convince me this time, for our politicians are generally so whimpy that I'm sure they'd turn if necessary to save a seat. If you could elaborate a little more on why that wouldn't work I'd appreciate it.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Aug 3, 2011 23:37:42 GMT
First- I hope Dana gets nominated and runs but I suspect she won't given the number of Independents already in the field. I suspect she would take votes from Mitchell (and perhaps from the smoking ruins of FF). One point to bear in mind is that pro-life/pro-family candidates seem to do better in big contests (Presidency and Euro Mp) than small ones. There is a network of supporters who came together for Dana's MEP elections and which backed Ganley in the last Euro election but I don't know how strong it is or how it works as I don't really have contacts in Connacht-Ulster. I remember there was some talk that Dana might create a party after her Presidential campaign in 97 and her election too the Euro Parliament, but this fizzled out after her defeat when she ran for the Dail in Galway East (she might have done better to stand in Donegal and to announce earlier; the Donegal constituencies are smaller but she has stronger links there). Whether she could launch such an organisation now I don't know. Ganley is much harder to pin down - I don't really know what his agenda is though he seems bright and I would have backed him. The best road would probably be to have a leader who makes a respectable showing in a big election and then uses the prestige to build an organisation. (This is what happened with the Pro-Life amendment in 1983; the PLC leadership were able to get control of events by launching the campaign and using the impetus to marginalise the cranks. Unfortunately they were sideswiped - and to a considerable extent discredited - by the shock of the X Case and have been pushed aside by people who are more volatile.) One of the plagues of the whole project so far has been people who set up a micro-party and then assume that this automatically makes them the heaven-sent leader whom everyone must follow even though they have achieved nothing.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Aug 3, 2011 23:48:00 GMT
The reason why our politicians are so unresponsive is that they have decided there is no mileage in cultivating the pro-life pro-family vote in the way FF did in the early 80s. Here are some reasons why they think this: (1) We now have a much larger secular/anti-clerical constituency than we had in the 80s so there is more to be lost by taking such a stance. (2) The most traditionalist voters are older, poorer, more rural - the hardest to organise and the ones most likely to be automatic party loyalists. The most liberal/secular are younger, better-off, more urban, more likely to be floating voters - parties pay more attention to these people just as advertisers and hence newspapers devote more attention to ABC1 readers. (3) The RTE-IRISH TIMES axis is much more successful in setting the political agenda and the consumer-hedonist media with its secularist assumptions is far more widely influential now than in the 80s (when British tabloids were only beginning to penetrate the Irish market, TV channels other than RTE could only be got in the north and east, etc) Hence it costs much more to oppose them. (4) The pro-life/pro-family movement has shown itself to be so shambolic and divided that there is a sense that even if concessions are made we couldn't deliver - cf the 2002 referendum.
I think we need to follow some sort of network or educational strategy and build a movement from the ground up; that's why media like this site are important as the nucleus of a counterculture. I'll post more on this later.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Aug 18, 2011 18:46:33 GMT
More on Louise's post on the CSP's shambolic presentation: (1) Part of it is, I think, the following self-image "I am an ordinary person, I speak for the ordinary people, and the truth of what I am saying is self-evident. Therefore I need not bother with presentation, rehearsal, or working out the details of my argument to make it as clear as possible. My strength is the truth, and to fancy it up will just distort it". St Thomas More in one of his apologetic works compares (probably unfairly) Catholic and Protestant apologists at the start of the reformation to honest and dishonest litigants in a lawsuit. The dishonest litigants, knowing the shaky ground on which they stand, take care to hire the best lawyers they can find, to dig out every legal precedent that can be used in their favour, to produce and coach their witnesses. The honest litigant, Tom Truth, knowing himself to be in the right, makes no effort at all to marshal the case in his favour, appears in court by himself and without making any preparations, assuming everyone will take his truthful testimony at face value, and gets crushed in court. This is exactly the sort of impression made by the CSP videos and statements linked above. Our Lord said to be as wise as serpents as well as being as simple as doves, and the situation described by St Thomas More (no mean lawyer, lest we forget) exemplifies what He meant. (2) Richard Greene and probably others in his area of the pro-life movement seem to have adopted a mentality which is also to be found among loyalists in Northern Ireland, in many Israeli spokesmen, and I suspect by other groups. These people operate on the assumption that the media are biased against them so there is no point in trying to cultivate them since they will be hostile anyway - so they just ignore the media, insult them or go into rant mode. This approach then become self-fulfilling prophecy since the media treat it as confirming their view that you are cranks/lunatics and use these responses to reinforce that image.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 25, 2011 20:05:42 GMT
Thanks for those explanations Hibernicus. I can see what you mean about the older vote being more difficult to harness. Something struck me as ridiculous a few months ago when I attended a meeting in Marino about the IEC next year. Fr. Kevin Doran who is organising it came across as a kind, smart man on top of his agenda and communicated it effectively. However when he was asked about how to register for volunteering he told us that we would have to go online, digital cameras, register and do a whole lot of stuff online. "This is where you get the grandkids involved!" I was sitting next to a man who was at the IEC in Ireland the last time around and had no children! People were crestfallen, most well over 60, anxious to get involved but clearly surprised. I know for security reasons (more and more talk of The Holy Father coming to Croke Park) they need photo ID but stop making it difficult for people to join in!
In the States I remember watching on tv how they were calling voters pre-election and offering to bus them to the polling station. We just expect people to have the same agenda as us and as you stated, turn up and do the right thing. We have to make it easier for people to become involved and teach them why their loyalty to Christ is correct so they have the guts to respond to aggressive secularism. And bus 'em in!
Many people associate certain viewpoints with the Church alone, which is all about the paedophilia and nothing else so therefore my point is moot. Very frustrating. When I point out that your child is, statistically, more at risk of sexual abuse by a non-clerical male member of your family/circle of friends/Prod churches/online they are stumped. Discussing paedophilia -vs - pederasty is a minefield for the doubtful so I don't go there. The lack of reasonable thought is astounding, people do not think. Celibacy is not the problem, if it was, why are children still being abused when the vast majority of women will sleep with men who are not their husbands? It's not about celibacy but people think that raving Papists don't think. We have to show them we do. That's just one example but it all goes back to the Church having no right to tell anyone what to do. If we associate with it we're blind. Aye, loyalty is important but didn't St. Paul tell us to give reasons for our faith?
If we go back to the idea of individual personalities not idealogy per se I want to bring up a programme I spotted the other day on some little Dublin channel. It was a Gay Dublin programme or something and who was on it but Lucinda Creighton. It was fascinating to see the deference shown to this pretty, smart and female politician by the man presenting (I assume he was gay himself). I don't think he'd have been as gentle were it a middleaged ruddy faced priest who was anti gay marriage. Anyway he was gently prodding her about her beliefs on marriage and did she feel differently after the furore. He clearly thought bullying is a good way to make people think as you do. Liberal mon oeil.
She laughed and said no, she felt the same, civil partnership grand, gay marriage no. She was asked if she could see it coming in the future, she discussed the constitution and the fact that she wouldn't support such a move. Again, it was very gentle, he then asked her again why she didn't support it and she said that she felt that it was something to be protected. He asked her was it because of procreation and she didn't squirm at all but she did stop and try to think and said no, it's because it's something special, different. He didn't know what to say and thanked her, interview ended. It was very interesting because she didn't go into a theological reason but pointed more to reason itself but I don't think the presenter quite got that, he was stumped by her calm, measured responses (take note Mr. Greene). She didn't make it personal (hysterical gay agenda like Greene would) nor did she take it from a religious viewpoint, which let's face it can be taken out in one shot for nobody takes it seriously. I wonder if this is not something to think on, take the raving Papist bit out of it and meet them on secular terms.
I understand what you mean about using sites like this to garner support. I don't understand why it's not busier. Maybe admin could do a poll asking how people found the site and try to get it mentioned in parish newsletters etc. I think I googled Irish Catholic discussion boards. How are people getting here and why? And why on earth are there 250 members and less than a dozen of us posting?
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Aug 25, 2011 22:41:07 GMT
Part of the problem is resources pure and simple - American organisations are bigger and better run than ours, and the CSP is just a few scattered individuals. The trouble is that better organisation is necessary to harness potential resources, but they don't seem to know how to organise and reach out to people. Effective agitators need to discover people's concerns and show how these are related to our own agendas, not to go off on solo runs about 9/11 Truth and the gold standard. The view that the Church is about power and nothing but is itself a conspiracy theory, but it has impact because (a) it does have a certain truth; there have been too many clerics who assumed their office meant whatever they wanted God wanted (b) The media and certain other agencies, including certain clerics, have been repeating it for years until it comes to seem like common sense and those who criticise it are dismissed as cranks en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_hegemony(c) Like all conspiracy theories, it makes the person who adopts it feel clever and superior without having done much thinking. More on this later
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2011 20:28:22 GMT
To be honest for me, the CSP is a dead duck, though I vote for O' Loughlin and give the others descending preference in order of how bad their awfulness is.
Do you think it is not more reasonable at this stage to shed the Church thing full stop and appeal to people's reason without appealing to God per se? I don't know if that's possible since God is reason but for example The Iona Institute has hosted events on working women, links between the recession and lack of moral backbone and will be doing another on the new anti-Catholicism at the end of this month. It does promote marriage, family and religious freedom. I do know a lot of people who would support all three, but don't necessarily want rosary beads shoved at them. What I mean is, people do seem to have an innate understanding that happily families are good, no matter what the media says. Can the innate reason of people not be harnessed through organisations like his. I just don't think a party is a goer Hibernicus, for it'll be hijacked by the likes of the ones already discussed.
Put it like this, Bacik is one very unique lady.. But show me any other woman who screams prochoice, anticlerical, secular liberal rubbish and I'd bet you a thousand euro that, in a vulnerable moment, she would still want the man she loves to love her back, always, and rear a family together. Love begets love, nesting and creation. If she wants to cohabitate it's because of fear, fear he'll leave if pushed to marriage, fear of the risk of divorce. That's all down to fear, but deep down they want what God wants for them, they just don't know it. What people want in their hearts is reasonable, what their passions and fears push them to is different altogether. I think if people were shown more the normalcy and rightness of the kind of society the Church wants without people screaming Vatican ll masonic conspiracy at them they may listen. God talk is just not going to work.
Personally I think it's all about the money now, Rerum Novarum would be more effective as a starting point for a party than prolife, people are so stressed and anxious about their homes, jobs, children emigrating and the unfairness of the situation. I'm sure that's why Declan Ganley, who was so different, got people talking. It's always the same old same old with politicians and people I know are just rundown and impotent with money worries. Show them something fair and workable and they may listen. 'Tis all about the money these days...
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Aug 30, 2011 19:51:56 GMT
I agree the CSP is probably a dead duck. I think something like it is probably necessary (because the only way to influence the major parties is to make them feel there is an electoral downside to their actions) but the CSP is not doing it very well. Prolife is still an important issue, though it has to be integrated into a wider agenda. A political party has to have a range of policies; single-issue pro-life campaigning is essential though if abortion is not to be quietly rammed through by "consensus" between the parties - though that is what is happening anyway. To be fair to the CSP they are actually trying to do this, but instead of going out and about and finding people's local problems and trying to address them and build their policies from there, they go in for conspiracy theories and think there are simple magic solutions ("direct democracy" "burn the bondholders" etc). There is no necessary contradiction between appealing to reason and appealing to God - there is a long tradition of religious THOUGHT and social action - but so many campaigners are either fideists (see faith as a substitute for religion) or assume that because they are for God every other competence will be magically given to them. Frank Duff said if we do out utmost God will make it possible for us to achieve more than we ever expected - but he didn't mean by this that if we neglect to acquire the natural skills required to accomplish our task that God will make up for our wilful incompetence.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Sept 1, 2011 22:43:40 GMT
The new CATHOLIC VOICE (4 September) states the CSP AGM will be held in Ely House, Ely Place, Dublin 2 on 15 October Sorry I forgot to give the AGM date in original post -HIB. Members meet at 2 pm; people interested in th party who are not members are welcome to attend 3-5 pm. Richard Greene has a letter in the new issue of the IRISH CATHOLIC commenting on David Quinn's reply to Justine McCarthy's article denouncing a possible Irish Tea Party. Apparently Greene was a major target of McCarthy's article (something Quinn failed to mention) and Greene complains that Quinn and Breda O'Brien take their compromises with the liberals too far.
|
|
|
Post by electionlit on Sept 2, 2011 21:59:25 GMT
I've been observing this thread with interest for a while, so I thought I'd finally take the plunge. It has always surprised me that a major Catholic/Christian party didn't emerge prior to the 1992 General Election and the Referenda that were held on the same day. There were Pro Life Independents or CCP candidates in almost every constituency. A bit of organisation on a national level may well have pushed one or two over the line. By 1997 the chance was gone. There were 28 candidates with 'Christian' views (CSP, National Party and pro life Independents) of which 27 lost their deposits. Leaflet irishelectionliterature.wordpress.com/2009/09/21/1997-general-election-vote-christian/The Christian Principles Party fielded candidates in the 1991 Local Elections. Sean Clerkin came quite close to a seat in Cabra winning over 10% of the vote. Sean Dublin Bay Loftus stood in 1973 (I think... will have to check) for the Christian Democrat party. The Electoral success of Catholic/Christian candidates have generally come in elections which have less impact on the individual, European and Seanad Elections. The voter is less likely to vote on the economy, health, crime etc in these elections than they would in General or Local Elections. As for the CSP? Some of the material produced by certain candidates is to say the least bizarre (for instance in 2009 Conor O'Donohue produced a sizeable booklet which is one the strangest piece of election literature that I have.. and I've lots ) The idea too of standing the same candidate in multiple constituencies as happened in the Local Elections doesn't leave the impression of a serious party. banaltras comment "Tis all about the money these days... " rings very true. For any chance of success a Catholic/Christian party needs to be about an awful lot more issues than Civil Partnership and the Pro-Life agenda (btw I'd be pro life myself). One The most successful pro life politicians of recent decades was Sean Dublin Bay Loftus. Yes he was Pro Life but he was about so much more too. If the CSP wants to grow it has to get involved with issues outside those that they are currently associated. Simple stuff like protests against education cuts, bus cuts and so on. The Social justice issues and inequality that we all see daily.
|
|