So...Ok then...How do we talk about it? (Irish Presidential Election Result)

Tell me how

Looking at Twitter this morning (and areas of Boards as well) I think current views on the presidential election could be surmised as follows.

Peter Casey Fans: "We showed them PC, liberal elites"
Michael D Higgins Fans: "The right man won. Simples"
Anyone but Peter Casey Fans: "So many people are racists it is dangerous"

I am being a bit facetious but on all sides there is acknowledgment that we need to have a debate or we need to talk about this.
So my question is, How do we talk about it? Do we continue to listen to the rabble coming from both sides which are mostly single soundbite statements?

To lay my cards on the table, here is a post I made on Thursday.

Tell me how wrote: »

I would like to see Peter Casey debate his position with someone from Pavee point with Pat Kenny chairing it after this election.

I believe travellers (in the core identification of the group) are unique and part of our cultural history and this should be recognized, and supported.

I also think that a lot of people have been affected by some form of criminal activity which has been carried out by members of the travelling community (I include littering at temporary sites in this).

And I believe travellers should hold greater responsibility for their participation in education amongst other areas of their lives.

I don't know if both sides think it is so obvious that they are right that we don't see them discuss and defend them simultaneously. There's little value in each side offering their soundbites to media individually.

I do think travellers taking part in criminal behavior are not just mistreating the direct victims but also their own culture as it leads to animosity towards them and is unfair on those that are law abiding (as with any society).

Finally, I think this topic should not have been part of the election for the office of the president.
I'm inclined to believe that Peter Casey was dog whistling in introducing it and persisting with it.

I am largely a believer that we as a society get what we deserve. In terms of politics, media and social commentators. We have frequent and open elections and anyone can start on a path which will lead them to the top table should they wish to do so and they gain the support of the electorate along the way. Those accused of being liberally focused in the media do indeed have a voice, but how have they gained that voice? Is it not because they have become popular because a large proportion of the audience agree with their view.

I saw one post on Twitter from someone saying that they never before got involved in political debate but voted for Peter Casey because he said something they agree with. When I read this, I'm thinking, well, maybe if you engaged politically, you could have either influenced the society in relation to these matters, or you would understand how we ended up this way.
On the other side, someone calling Peter Casey an a*sehole because Peter is ok with people not being PC is also missing the point.

So how do we avoid just becoming more entrenched. This "public debate" that we need to have, what does it look like? Who is involved?
Who do you think would best represent views from both sides? (or the rather large middle)?
Or do we wait for next round of national elections where we will likely hear candidates adopt an approach similar to Casey and just appeal to voters who agree with the statements without them actually being explored in a meaningful way?

What do you think? What now?

Hurrache

The narrative do far this morning across the radio to explain Casey's vote is that it was a right wing populist reactionary vote (apart from Ian Doherty), it's Trumpism.

Rather than someone there asking why did people vote for him, they're simply writing it off. All it should take is someone prominent in the media or a politician from one of the mainstream parties to start that conversation.

Harry Palmr

Depends what you think needs debating - everyone is fixated on travellers as criminals and yet there are plenty of fixed abode ordinary Dub skangers with guns doing far greater damage through the drugs trade. Obsessing about one aspect of criminality is not helping.

johnnyskeleton

Peter Caseys claims seem to be on a couple of points:

1) suggesting that Travellers should not be classed as an ethnic minority.

Perhaps this is due to a misunderstanding of what ethnic means, but it doesnt necessarily mean racial differences. It can also be based on cultural differences. While on an absurd reading anything could be a cultural group e.g. drinking culture, musical tastes etc, I dont think its realistic to suggest that Travellers dont have a different cultural heritage to settled people.

In any event, it doesnt really make much of a difference to recognise their cultural heritage.

2) saying we should all be treated equally

I agree. But equal doesnt mean treated identically.

Also, his specific example i.e. the Tipperary stables incident doesnt reflect a broader trend of giving Travellers more favourable treatment, its just an instance where we see how generous the welfare state can be, and presumably there were local or historical reasons for it to have made sense to the county council.

Whatever the rights and wrongs of that specific case, any dissatisfaction at public spending should be focussed on the government and on those schemes, not on the recipients of same.

3) living next door to Travellers

This question is an interesting question that hits upon the heart of inclusiveness etc. It is often remarked that diversity is the unwanted present bestowed by the middle class upon the working class. The candidates confirm that they would be happy to live beside Travellers but they all live in wealthy areas where there are no Travellers (bar Michael Ds comment that he lives close to a halting site). I think a lot of people think that the other candidates are basically lying when they say this as well.

Perhaps a more truthful politican would examine their own feelings and say that although they wouldnt want to live beside a halting site, they recognise the need to change that mentality to be more inclusive.

So basically I think this part had nothing really to do with Travellers per se, but rather with the perception that politicians other than Peter Casey will lie in order to be politically correct. This illustrates the problem with what in America is called the call out culture - if you censure people for saying what they honestly believe, then they will just not say it. It wont stop them believeing it or voicing those views in private.

What this ultimately means is that people start to feel lied to by career politicians, everything is spoken about indirectly and crucially, the people who make such an issue about combatting prejudiced views dont engage with those views or combat the prejudices, they just end up having those views not being discussed openly.

In my view this is a mistake and in extreme scenarios leads to loss of trust in politicians as we have seen in other countries.

I didnt vote for Peter Casey, but he said what he thought, none of the individual points were actually racist or prejudiced in themselves, and people responded positively to this honesty. The only difficulty with all of this is the last point:

4. That it was a dogwhiste racist/prejudiced comment ala Donald Trump

The Trump comparisons are fairly obvious. The suggestion being that while not saying anything too bad himself, Casey is emboldening more extreme views than his to be given voice to in public.

If the above is true then we should rightly condemn Casey. But Im not sure there is evidence to back it up. Beyond his comments in the campaign, there is noting to suggest that he has affiliations with extreme groups or ideologies.

If one group of people claim that Caseys views are a dogwhistle to racism, it will lead to another group of people pointing out that you cant even make moderste criticisms of any minority related issue without being accused of implicit racism, and then we lead further into the realm of censorship and people not expressing their honestly held views.

Ultimately, my not so hot take on all this is that we as a society should allow and indeed encourage honest and open debate and not be on a hair trigger to shout people down as racists, sexists etc like they are in the USA. The only rela way to combat actual racism is to engage with it and debate it. Accusing people of racism merely because they make comments that could connect with a racial/minority issue is counter productive and I think we know where it leads to.

So Peter Casey wants to criticise Irish government and some local authority policy towards the Travelling Community - fine. Let him at it. I wouldnt vote for him because of that and Id hate to think we are creating a society that WILL vote for someone just because of that, because we are too busy tilting at windmills to actually engage in debate

VonZan

I think it's very clear that Ireland is moving further towards the right as a result of the government continually pandering to those that shout the loudest. Ireland has become unaffordable for a lot of people. You can no longer work a low skilled job and afford to purchase a home and that's inherently wrong.

Perpetual inflation has been caused by really poor government policy and the biggest drivers is our social welfare bill. You can't have affordability and give away 'free' money yet some insane people think you can.

Godot.

Casey topping the poll in Rathkeale and Askeaton, unsurprisingly - places with high population densities of travellers. But shure Casey is a racist, the D4 heads that have never interacted with a traveller in their lives said so :rolleyes:

fxotoole

VonZan wrote: »

I think it's very clear that Ireland is moving further towards the right as a result of the government continually pandering to those that shout the loudest. Ireland has become unaffordable for a lot of people. You can no longer work a low skilled job and afford to purchase a home and that's inherently wrong.

Perpetual inflation has been caused by really poor government policy and the biggest drivers is our social welfare bill. You can't have affordability and give away 'free' money yet some insane people think you can.

The right already had their chance to elect the National Party and they were roundly rejected by the electorate last time out. So the electorate have already put to bed the idea that Ireland needs a right wing party.

facehugger99

Disaster for SF considering the amount of support they threw behind Ni Riada. She must have double the amount of posters up as the other 5 combined.

Shows how soft the 'protest' or 'anti-establishment' vote really is. Other than the usual rump of hardcore SF/IRA voters, the rest of their usual support migrated to Casey in a couple of weeks.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

.

So basically I think this part had nothing really to do with Travellers per se, but rather with the perception that politicians other than Peter Casey will lie in order to be politically correct. This illustrates the problem with what in America is called the call out culture - if you censure people for saying what they honestly believe, then they will just not say it. It wont stop them believeing it or voicing those views in private.

What this ultimately means is that people start to feel lied to by career politicians, everything is spoken about indirectly and crucially, the people who make such an issue about combatting prejudiced views dont engage with those views or combat the prejudices, they just end up having those views not being discussed openly.

In my view this is a mistake and in extreme scenarios leads to loss of trust in politicians as we have seen in other countries.

I didnt vote for Peter Casey, but he said what he thought, none of the individual points were actually racist or prejudiced in themselves, and people responded positively to this honesty.
.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

.



Ultimately, my not so hot take on all this is that we as a society should allow and indeed encourage honest and open debate and not be on a hair trigger to shout people down as racists, sexists etc like they are in the USA. The only rela way to combat actual racism is to engage with it and debate it. Accusing people of racism merely because they make comments that could connect with a racial/minority issue is counter productive and I think we know where it leads to.

Agree 100% with these points.

Loafing Oaf

VonZan wrote: »

I think it's very clear that Ireland is moving further towards the right as a result of the government continually pandering to those that shout the loudest.

If this supposed 'move to the right' doesn't translate into actual votes at the next general election it won't have any impact on real-world politics.

FrancieBrady

facehugger99 wrote: »

Disaster for SF considering the amount of support they threw behind Ni Riada. She must have double the amount of posters up as the other 5 combined.

.

:D That is funny. Have you paid any attention to the campaigns at all?

FrancieBrady

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

If this supposed 'move to the right' doesn't translate into actual votes at the next general election it won't have any impact on real-world politics.

Casey won't target travellers again. He rules it out as the reason for his vote.

Plenty of other parties saying what he is saying about the working man/woman being pressured.

I think he will fade away. As somebody said, probably get a 'George Hook' or loudmouth style radio slot.

ThunbergsAreGo

I think it's clear after a continuous move towards the left, some parts of Ireland wishes to become more centrist again and reward work. Travellers would have had zero to do with my support for Casey as an example

I hope that it leads to acknowledgement there are reasons people have differing opinions, and somehow stop the insults of racist, Looney left on people that have a differing opinion. I won't be holding my breath though.

In addition I hope those that voted Casey bring up their reasons come general election time and engage with their local reps about them

facehugger99

FrancieBrady wrote: »

:D That is funny. Have you paid any attention to the campaigns at all?

Francie lad, I frequently take time away from the old keyboard. My job takes me all over the country.

Try it sometime.

ancapailldorcha

FrancieBrady wrote: »

:D That is funny. Have you paid any attention to the campaigns at all?

facehugger99 wrote: »

Francie lad, I frequently take time away from the old keyboard. My job takes me all over the country.

Try it sometime.

Less of this please.

Adamcp898

Cross-post from the election thread. Hadn't noticed this one and it's probably better placed here.


Something I feel people may be missing Re: 'Casey vs. The Political Establishment'

Most of the candidates this year kept using so-called 'disadvantaged' groups as their platform for how they'd improve Ireland through becoming President, be they people suffering from mental illness, the homeless, or suffering from other health problems.

But at a time when we're surrounded by 'talk' which proclaims to improve the standing of many 'marginalised' groups including those mentioned, yet with markedly fewer results to point to, perhaps it was that jaded message that didn't resonate with the electorate? Or dare I say a message that is quickly becoming synonymous with political buzzword culture where people say them without ever meaning a whole lot?

Then we have Casey who comes along and simply by speaking his mind, rightly or wrongly, inherently comes across as genuine in comparison and so wins the vote of many.

For instance, we've been hearing from politicians about the homeless crisis promising they're putting measures in place to fix it for so long that one can't help but be a little skeptical now every time someone else comes along now and says they're going to be the one to fix things?

Just a thought. Sometimes there's no needs to start appraising and comparing the actions of foes when it's the message to begin with that's at fault.

I voted for Peter Casey less about his views on travelers and more about that a good vote for him might drive a discussion around social welfare and that imo we as a country are creating a system that is a long term career and allows people to have a lifestyle above some that work 40 hours plus a week. This to me leads to workers feeling undervalued and discourages people to work, negatively impacting the economy in the long term.

As someone in my 30s I continue to be surprised as to how controversial and edgy economic conservativism is in this country. I grew up in North Kerry, a comically conservative area with regards money, and as a teenager I genuinely thought Irish people were very sensible when dealing with their finances. As I got older as saw some crazy stuff during the so called Celtic Tiger and poor handling of public finances I realise Irish people in generally just spend for today with no thought to the rainy day.

One thing about yesterday's vote is that the surge in the Casey vote could be ignored by the media and politicians as merely votes from ignorant, uneducated rural people like me and the economic mismanagement around social welfare spending will continue.

ThunbergsAreGo

Braelyn Itchy Globe wrote: »

One thing about yesterday's vote is that the surge in the Casey vote could be ignored by the media and politicians as merely votes from ignorant, uneducated rural people like me and the economic mismanagement around social welfare spending will continue.

I didn't vote Casey, but agree 100% with you.

It's up to those who voted Casey and others who feel similarly to ensure it is an issue come the next GE and to speak to their representatives about it. The media are already trying to use the uneducated angle , which is incredibly insulting

salmocab

I’m not so sure that the Casey vote is much to do with the right, it’s a lazy comparison made by poor journalism. I’d be quite liberal leaning as would a lot of my friends and there was a lot of sympathy for his views. I wouldn’t think it actually translated into votes within my circle of friends for him.
It’s quiye possible to be liberal and dislike people in society living off your taxes, I’m not just talking about some travelers but plenty of settled people too. Liberal doesn’t mean that you support a welfare state. It’s a phrase that’s been stolen by far right groups and turned into something it isn’t.

ThunbergsAreGo

salmocab wrote: »

I’m not so sure that the Casey vote is much to do with the right, it’s a lazy comparison made by poor journalism. I’d be quite liberal leaning as would a lot of my friends and there was a lot of sympathy for his views. I wouldn’t think it actually translated into votes within my circle of friends for him.
It’s quiye possible to be liberal and dislike people in society living off your taxes, I’m not just talking about some travelers but plenty of settled people too. Liberal doesn’t mean that you support a welfare state. It’s a phrase that’s been stolen by far right groups and turned into something it isn’t.

Most of Ireland are centrist. It's a lazy convenient narrative for "journalists".

Try_harder

salmocab wrote: »

I’m not so sure that the Casey vote is much to do with the right, it’s a lazy comparison made by poor journalism. I’d be quite liberal leaning as would a lot of my friends and there was a lot of sympathy for his views. I wouldn’t think it actually translated into votes within my circle of friends for him.
It’s quiye possible to be liberal and dislike people in society living off your taxes, I’m not just talking about some travelers but plenty of settled people too. Liberal doesn’t mean that you support a welfare state. It’s a phrase that’s been stolen by far right groups and turned into something it isn’t.

You're not that liberal then

ThunbergsAreGo

Try_harder wrote: »

You're not that liberal then

Define liberal?

It's this boxing off of people that is causing divides, not fixing things

You could be socially liberal but economically conservative which is where I feel I sit, certain when it comes to voting.

That is I voted for gay marriage and to repeal the 8th but am as traditional as it comes on my economic views.

listermint

Try_harder wrote: »

You're not that liberal then

You are wrong.



Wrong wrong wrong

salmocab

Try_harder wrote: »

You're not that liberal then

See that’s just rubbish, they aren’t mutually exclusive. You can have liberal views without wanting to fund peoples lifestyles.
To be clear I do believe in social welfare but not as a means to support people who have no interest in working.

thecomedian

Try_harder wrote: »

You're not that liberal then

So someone who voted yes on gay marriage, abortion and blasphemy but voted for Casey isn’t liberal??

ednwireland

This FG led government has spent the last two terms pitching sections of society against each other, deliberately imo. No one should be suprised that sections of society are being tarred with the same brush .
Once the genie is out of the bottle who knows where it ends.
(Eg. Workers against welfare recipients. Public vs privaté sector . Motorist vs cyclists)
Unfortunately I don't see an answer and there's not a lot of leadership out there.

tretorn

All this media talk sbout Caseys vote being a kickback against the PC liberal agenda is fudging the issue.
Its clear the biggest votes Casey got is from rural Iteland and its this sector of the community that bear the brunt of traveller criminal behaviour. There is nothing co incidental about the voting patterns and we dont need deep intellectual debates. We need enforcing of the existing laws and some effective consequences for travellers who break those laws.
At the moment all people see is travellers apoearing in court time and time again. Most travellers operate under the radar but Cash has thrown a search light on the community and reinforced what most people think, huge families living entirely on social welfare with long criminal records.
I had a conversation with a pensioner yesterday, she has a couple of traveller families living in her estate and they cause no trouble. She thinks this is because there are so many ither people living there the travellers know they wont get away with any anti social carry on. There is a small green in the estate and the residents are on permanent alert in case travellers move in and destroy it.
Can you imagine people living near Herbert Park in Dublin or the Phoenix Park living with concerns like that, this election has thrown focus on a big problem and thats why John Connors is ranting on twitter, he is afraid official Ireland will wake up and actually do something about the traveller problem now, ie take some steps to get able bodied people working even if it means paying employers to employ them.

splinter65

naughtb4 wrote: »

Define liberal?

It's this boxing off of people that is causing divides, not fixing things

My brother would be very far left liberal leaning but despises the entitlement culture that’s so eloquently espoused by Ms Margaret Cash and the Travellers in Thurles. It’s reallt not difficult to see that the notion that personal responsibilty is something that other people need is actually bad for everyone in every way.

P_1

We have serious issues in this country.

FF just give everything away
The Blueshirts whored us out to the American mncs and only care about profit
Labour betrayed the working class
Look at the mess the shinners created up north

It costs 3 times as much to rent here than it does in Manchester.
Nothing works here, look at healthcare and public transport.
Rather than punch up everyone seems to be happier punching down.

How do we fix this?

Wheeliebin30

P_1 wrote: »

We have serious issues in this country.

FF just give everything away
The Blueshirts whored us out to the American mncs and only care about profit
Labour betrayed the working class
Look at the mess the shinners created up north

It costs 3 times as much to rent here than it does in Manchester.
Nothing works here, look at healthcare and public transport.
Rather than punch up everyone seems to be happier punching down.

How do we fix this?

FG only care about profit?

Can you explain that, profit for who like?

The country? The government?

Isn’t that a good thing??