The Ireland which we have dreamed of

Schuhart

DeValera wrote:

The Ireland which we have dreamed of would be the home of a people who valued material wealth only as the basis of a right living, of a people who were satisfied with frugal comfort and devoted their leisure to the things of the spirit; a land whose countryside would be bright with cozy homesteads, whose fields and villages would be joyous with the sounds of industry, with the romping of sturdy children, the contests of athletic youths, the laughter of comely maidens; whose firesides would be forums for the wisdom of old age. It would, in a word, be the home of a people living the life that God desires men should live.

Originally delivered in a Saint Patrick’s Day address to America, it was hardly intended for a domestic audience. But Dev’s ‘comely maidens’ speech has come to mean different things to different people. What Ireland do we dream of, and can something be salvaged from this vision?

Valuing material wealth only as the basis of a right living strikes the right cord with me. I would see right living including expending a lot of material wealth on an efficient, advanced health service and a well resourced educational sector. Devotion of leisure to the things of the spirit I’d see more as things of the intellect. Putting it briefly, Dev’s vision of frugal comfort needs to have an added element of the country being intellectually mature, technically advanced and focussed on things that matter.

The idea of a countryside filled with cozy homesteads has been achieved rather too well with the emergence of the Singular Rural Commuting Residence. That looks like a line best dropped, unless we really get a kick out of drinking each others urine.

Filling fields and villages with the sounds of industry never amounted to a coherent development strategy. The whole rural thing is a bit of a disaster, really. Filling cities with the sounds of industry is a healthier and happier alternative.

I’m all for sturdy children romping, athletic youths contesting and comely maidens laughing. There is, admittedly, a need to provide for athletic maidens contesting and even comely youths trying on their sisters’ laughter.

I don’t see much wisdom in old age. I look at previous generations in despair for, above all things, their fear of confronting reality. They can sit by the fireside, but I’m not listening.

As a poetic flourish, I don't mind the reference to God. I’d take it as a statement of the objective being to achieve the kind of decent, humane life that many religions have also aspired to.

On the face of it, a re-engineered 'comely maidens' vision would look to me to be an entirely good thing. Any views on giving this elderly relic a makeover?

Sleepy

Let's rewrite the constitution first tbh. It'd be a more productive use of our time.

Jackie laughlin

Equality is absent.

Let's celebrate the Democratic Programme sneakily apopted by the 1st Dail in Dev's absence. It was a sop to the Labour Party and the Shinners were never serious but it remains Ireland's most inspiring historical political document.

Schuhart

Sleepy wrote:

Let's rewrite the constitution first tbh. It'd be a more productive use of our time.

All the Constitution does, or should do, is define the rights and responsibilities of citizens and the State. That's a different task to establishing a vision.

Jackie laughlin

Schuhart,
There are two approaches to wring a constitution. One is to write the bare bones for the mechanism of government. The second is to add to the first some ambitions, values, human rights, even restrictions on what others would regard as a human right. Ours takes the second approach. Talking about the rights of a citizen IS about having a vision.

Schuhart

Yes, the Irish constitution includes some aspirational items like the desire to establish as many families as possible on the land and to ensure that women out of economic necessity should not have to work outside the family home. It also qualifies just about every individual right you have with a reference to the public good. It could well benefit from a redraft, along more functional lines.

But a constitutional really only has meaning when you need to call on law. Law reflects values, and not the other way around.

So before revisiting the constitutional, I'd suggest we'd need some idea about what we see the country as being about, and what we feel is important. Dev's speech struck me as a possible jump off point - I came across a reference to it recently, and it struck me as potentially interesting. Perhaps the Democratic Programme would be a better starting point.

But I can't a point to reviewing the Constitution without some idea of what we believe in.

Jackie laughlin

Schuhart,
I agree but the area of consensus will be relatively small.

As a socialist my values are not widely popular right now. I imagine if a constitution were drafted now, it would reflect neo-liberal values which I find not just offensive but ridiculous.

Many people SAY that the public good has primacy but they are not serious. The obvious example is ownership of land, which has never been subject to the public good. The Democratic Programme is quite explicit on this issue.

Sleepy

My main problems with our current constitution are it's references to religion, it's mysoginistic attitude towards women and generally out-dated belief system.

Schuhart

Jackie laughlin wrote:

I agree but the area of consensus will be relatively small.

It might be a useless or impossible question - but to an extent I suppose what I was trying to see is if there is an area of consensus and, if so, what that would be. Again, I don't necessarily see this as focussed on the Constitution, but even taking it just to have some material focus, I'd probably drop the stuff about establishing families on the land as that vision of Ireland has no relevance.

I suppose partly, as well, my question just grows from that feeling that we haven't a clue what to do next. Dev knew he wanted a Gaelic-speaking, Catholic, rural-dwelling nation and material prosperity was just not a priority. There is no equivalent view now, just a default position of rowing in behind whatever direction Europe takes - which is similarly a bit directionless.

Jackie laughlin

I disagree. The core of the EU - what Bush likes to call "old Europe" - has a basically social democratic consensus. This is what Mary Harney refers to when she wants us to choose Boston rather than Berlin. I'm with socialism/social democracy and Berlin.

Schuhart

Jackie laughlin wrote:

The core of the EU - what Bush likes to call "old Europe" - has a basically social democratic consensus.

I'm not sure that consensus is the right word, as it looks more to be stuck in a rut with institutional rigidities that prevent movement. Look on this way, the Lisbon Agenda was meant to be Europe's vision for becoming the most dynamic economy on the planet. It simply hasn't achieved that, or anything like it.

I think the EU is a bit like China at the time of the Opium War. Their hope is if we built a big enough wall around Europe, we'll never have to notice that the rest of the world has passed us by.

Jackie laughlin

Schuhart,
Yes, "consensus" might be pushing it too far. However, Europe with all its faults still looks the best model around. Sure, socialism/social democracy needs to develop and change, root out corruption and be more flexible. However, let's not abandon our ambitions for equality and a decent life for all just because what we have is not working in some respects. Moreover, let's export our values insofar as we can.

Boston or China are not alternatives that any sane person on a modest income or indeed poor would wish for.

Schuhart

Jackie laughlin wrote:

However, let's not abandon our ambitions for equality and a decent life for all just because what we have is not working in some respects.

I'd still see that as the objective. I just think that the key feature of Europe is inertia rather than dynamism. We know it is possible to have dynamic societies that afford high levels of social protection. But that's not the same as allowing vested interest to go unchallenged (to be clear - I'm not suggesting you are making that confusion.)