Had we better leaders a century ago?

K-9 · 05-01-2016 12:26PM

The difference with FF this time is they didn't get back to correct it. Haughey ballsed it up, Fg/Lab made things even worse and Haughey had no other option than to clean it up when he came back in.

The days of the 2 1/2 party system are over, 3 1/2 now, maybe 4 if Labour follow history and recover in 5 years time.

hytrogen · 05-01-2016 01:12PM

DeValera was like JarJar Binx, possibly the greatest sith lord of all times..
He didn't do too much during the rising or wars other than contradicted his own orders countless times, dodged numerous hits, waited until all of his mates got the bullet and then siezed control in the Senate by establishing an emperical republic..

Dravokivich · 05-01-2016 02:07PM

Agricola wrote: »

True, but time is a great healer, as is money. Was a good Christmas for retail by all accounts, consumer confidence is coming back, new car sales increasing.... when people have the a job, their kids have jobs and theres a bit of money floating about, all is good in the world. What happened back in September '08 again? Im not too sure........ oh look the new iphone is out!

I think FF will be back in government in some shape or form inside 10 years, quite possibly Election 2021. Short memories.

If the new car sales are largely based on credit, I'd be inclined to reserve such confidence.

05-01-2016 02:57PM

seamus wrote: »

Yeah, most people back then were pretty narrow-minded alright.

For the sake of saying a few empty words, they pushed the country into a vicious civil war which was ultimately unnecessary because they lost anyway.

Being willing to shed blood (especially other people's blood) for your beliefs is not objectively an honourable thing. It's selfish and narrow-minded.

De Valera himself was a wiley character, but he started Ireland down a path which gave us a state that barely functioned for the first 60-odd years. Again, due to his narrow-minded personal vision for a Catholic Ireland. Rather than building a genuine republic, he chose one that was ruled by proxy from the Vatican.

Are people just gonna make up history as the go along?

The link between State and Church was very clearly forged when WT Cosgrave, a personal friend of Archbishop McQuaid, became President of the Executive Council.

From then on, the die was cast. To pass the buck to de Valera, a man who effectively sidelined McQuaid in the 1953 Health Act (when a servile FG Government had collapsed in the face of his wrath) is simply sheer and utter nonsense. Yes, we were a Catholic country, a Catholic society, and McQuaid held much sway...but that was very much the country and society shaoed by Cosgrave's Governments.

blackcard · 05-01-2016 04:13PM

Heroditas wrote: »

A Niamh Horan article is hardly an ideal starting point.
I stupidly read the article.
It wouldn't look out of place in one of the comments sections on the Indo or Times Facebook pages.

Tbh I didn't read the article, it was the headline about leaders of today not having the guts of the leaders of a century ago. I think it is easy to look back with rose tinted glasses at the leaders of 100 years ago. You could argue that the organisation of the Rising was a shambles resulting in unnecessary deaths. Similarly in America, people look back to Abe Lincoln and George Washington as iconic leaders but if we were to judge them by today's standards, they would be seen as deeply flawed, as was Churchill

Permabear · 05-01-2016 04:25PM

This post has been deleted.

05-01-2016 04:33PM

K-9 wrote: »

The big drawback in hindsight was establishing the Catholic Church as such a force in Ireland. DeV gets the blame but it started under the CnaG administrations.

Don't know why John Redmond wasn't mrntioned. He was our political leader 100 years ago.

Yeah it's interesting to see what people make of Redmond, my view would be he led a lot more Irish people to their deaths and for a bankrupt cause (if he knew partition was the only solution the british would accept), but with fundamentally good intentions..

05-01-2016 04:37PM

Agricola wrote: »

True, but time is a great healer, as is money. Was a good Christmas for retail by all accounts, consumer confidence is coming back, new car sales increasing.... when people have the a job, their kids have jobs and theres a bit of money floating about, all is good in the world. What happened back in September '08 again? Im not too sure........ oh look the new iphone is out!

I think FF will be back in government in some shape or form inside 10 years, quite possibly Election 2021. Short memories.

With the attitudes you describe above the country will be bankrupt again in 10 years

Fleawuss · 05-01-2016 05:22PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Are people just gonna make up history as the go along?

The link between State and Church was very clearly forged when WT Cosgrave, a personal friend of Archbishop McQuaid, became President of the Executive Council.

From then on, the die was cast. To pass the buck to de Valera, a man who effectively sidelined McQuaid in the 1953 Health Act (when a servile FG Government had collapsed in the face of his wrath) is simply sheer and utter nonsense. Yes, we were a Catholic country, a Catholic society, and McQuaid held much sway...but that was very much the country and society shaoed by Cosgrave's Governments.

The 1937 constitution was the crucial piece of legislation in creating the hegemony of the RCC. That was Devs work. Current FFers don't like that but you can't rewrite history to suit FF. That said, no political party dared go against the RCC at the time and FG were no better.

To go to the OP: were our leaders better? Pearse et al launched the rising with no mandate. They declared a type of govt with no mandate. The civil war was fought because the Dail voted to accept the treaty and some people tried to set aside the will of parliament by the gun. They lost. I don't think they were better for that reason: true democracy was something they had to learn. Arguably as a country we are still learning it.

K-9 · 05-01-2016 05:43PM

riffmongous wrote: »

Yeah it's interesting to see what people make of Redmond, my view would be he led a lot more Irish people to their deaths and for a bankrupt cause (if he knew partition was the only solution the british would accept), but with fundamentally good intentions..

I don't think partition was clear at the start the war, became clearer at the Irish summit that took place then. Events took over then.

Smart thing was resisting conscription for the war when he copped the British couldn't deliver a United Ireland under Home Rule.

feargale · 05-01-2016 06:12PM

Agricola wrote: »

Was a good Christmas for retail by all accounts, consumer confidence is coming back, new car sales increasing.

I utterly fail to see new car sales as a barometer of economic health in Ireland, other than a negative one. Almost every euro spent on a car in Ireland, whether on purchase or fuel, is a euro out of the country.

topmanamillion · 05-01-2016 06:13PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

How do you mean it was misleading?

It was exactly what it was, a courtesy paid to a diplomat in Ireland by the leader of a neutral country. Badly judged, perhaps, but what do you think it really meant?

I meant would you take another angle on Devalera sympathizing with a Nazi over the death of one of the greatest tyrants the world has ever seen. I have my answer, thank you.

Neutrality In WW2 at best was foolish, if the Germans had broken main land Britain, all they needed was a fart and a burp and our history would be severely altered.
It was in our undoubted interests that Britain did not fall. But of course we were never neutral in a similar way to how we can not call ourselves neutral today when we allow American military aircraft to refeul on our soil.

Skylinehead · 05-01-2016 06:16PM

feargale wrote: »

I utterly fail to see new car sales as a barometer of economic health in Ireland, other than a negative one. Almost every euro spent on a car in Ireland, whether on purchase or fuel, is a euro out of the country.

If people are buying new cars, they're buying other things too.

Iwasfrozen · 05-01-2016 07:32PM

The difference is they didn't have a media that tears politicians to shreds back then.

Could you imagine Patrick Pearse becoming the legendary figure he is if he were alive today and the Daily Mail found out about his fondness for little boys?

Fleawuss · 05-01-2016 07:36PM

Article 8.

Freedom of conscience and the free profession and practice of religion are, subject to public order and morality, guaranteed to every citizen, and no law may be made either directly or indirectly to endow any religion, or prohibit or restrict the free exercise thereof or give any preference, or impose any disability on account of religious belief or religious status, or affect prejudicially the right of any child to attend a school receiving public money without attending the religious instruction at the school, or make any discrimination as respects State aid between schools under the management of different religious denominations, or divert from any religious denomination or any educational institution any of its property except for the purpose of roads, railways, lighting, water or drainage works or other works of public utility, and

The 1922 Constitution articles on religion above

Below is the very start of the original 1937 constitution:

In the Name of the Most Holy Trinity, from Whom is all authority and to Whom, as our final end, all actions both of men and States must be referred,
We, the people of Éire,
Humbly acknowledging all our obligations to our Divine Lord, Jesus Christ, Who sustained our fathers through centuries of trial,

And in regard to religion:
RELIGION
Edit
Article 44
1. The State acknowledges that the homage of public worship is due to Almighty God. It shall hold His Name in reverence, and shall respect and honour religion.
2. The State recognises the special position of the Holy Catholic Apostolic and Roman Church as the guardian of the Faith professed by the great majority of the citizens.
3. The State also recognises the Church of Ireland, the Presbyterian Church in Ireland, the Methodist Church in Ireland, the Religious Society of Friends in Ireland, as well as the Jewish Congregations and the other religious denominations existing in Ireland at the date of the coming into operation of this Constitution

I think the enlargement of position of religion and the RCC is very clear in the 1937 constitution. Just adding this in to clarify historical fact as opposed to party political spin

feargale · 05-01-2016 07:40PM

Dev is to be criticised for many things, but there are few who don't praise his conduct in WWII. Hempel the German minister to Ireland was a career diplomat who had little sympathy with Naziism but sought to serve his country as best he could. His behaviour as a diplomat in Ireland was impeccable. By contrast David Gray, the US ambassador behaved as a despicable bully and showed no respect for Ireland's neutrality. It was in this context that Dev paid his respects to Hempel on the death of Hitler.
It's no harm to note that when Mussolini survived Violet Gibson's attempt on his life W.T.Cosgrave was one of those who communicated with Il Duce expressing relief that he was little the worse. If I'm not mistaken the British government did likewise. In the great moral code of imperial powers tyrants become baddies only when they upset those powers.
On the issue of neutrality itself it is not customary for countries to enter alliances with countries they were at war with less than two decades previously. In 1939 the British psychology still saw Ireland as a part of the Empire, without a right to determine its own foreign policy, hardly surprising since it took them about two centuries to forgive the Yankees for breaking free. One can still read in the British press articles bemoaning Ireland's WWII neutrality with its allied bias, but not a word of complaint about the Nazi-leaning neutrality of Switzerland, Sweden or Portugal.

Iwasfrozen · 05-01-2016 07:46PM

feargale wrote: »

Dev is to be criticised for many things, but there are few who don't praise his conduct in WWII. Hempel the German minister to Ireland was a career diplomat who had little sympathy with Naziism but sought to serve his country as best he could. His behaviour as a diplomat in Ireland was impeccable. By contrast David Gray, the US ambassador behaved as a despicable bully and showed no respect for Ireland's neutrality. It was in this context that Dev paid his respects to Hempel on the death of Hitler.
It's no harm to note that when Mussolini survived Violet Gibson's attempt on his life W.T.Cosgrave was one of those who communicated with Il Duce expressing relief that he was little the worse. If I'm not mistaken the British government did likewise. In the great moral code of imperial powers tyrants become baddies only when they upset those powers.
On the issue of neutrality itself it is not customary for countries to enter alliances with countries they were at war with less than two decades previously. In 1939 the British psychology still saw Ireland as a part of the Empire, without a right to determine its own foreign policy, hardly surprising since it took them about two centuries to forgive the Yankees for breaking free. One can still read in the British press articles bemoaning Ireland's WWII neutrality with its allied bias, but not a word of complaint about the Nazi-leaning neutrality of Switzerland, Sweden or Portugal.

The entire anglosphere bar Ireland was united against Germany. We have cultural and ethnic ties with the rest of the anglosphere that we don't have with Germany or Italy. Britain was facing an existential crisis and to our shame we didn't help them. You can hardly blame the Americans for being appalled!

The_Valeyard · 05-01-2016 07:53PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The entire anglosphere bar Ireland was united against Germany. We have cultural and ethnic ties with the rest of the anglosphere that we don't have with Germany or Italy. Britain was facing an existential crisis and to our shame we didn't help them. You can hardly blame the Americans for being appalled!

Yes, help those who just a few years previous had been rampaging across the country harassing the population. Best thing we could do was keep out. Let the big boys duke it out. All we could be was cannon fodder for allied front lines and once more reduce our urban centres to ruin.

Iwasfrozen · 05-01-2016 07:58PM

The_Valeyard wrote: »

Yes, help those who just a few years previous had been rampaging across the country harassing the population. Best thing we could do was keep out. Let the big boys duke it out. All we could be was cannon fodder for allied front lines and once more reduce our urban centres to ruin.

I wasn't aware the average British person was "rampaging" across Ireland?

Why are the Irish so cowardly. "Let the big boys duke it out" what does that even mean? If America had pulled out and Britain been occupied do you think Ireland would have been left out of this new European order?

K-9 · 05-01-2016 08:03PM

topmanamillion wrote: »

I meant would you take another angle on Devalera sympathizing with a Nazi over the death of one of the greatest tyrants the world has ever seen. I have my answer, thank you.

Neutrality In WW2 at best was foolish, if the Germans had broken main land Britain, all they needed was a fart and a burp and our history would be severely altered.
It was in our undoubted interests that Britain did not fall. But of course we were never neutral in a similar way to how we can not call ourselves neutral today when we allow American military aircraft to refeul on our soil.

He was following diplomatic protocol for a neutral state. Just ditching neutrality at the end would have made a mockery of it.

Added bonus for DeV that it really annoyed Churchill, and it really did annoy him. Took a dig at Ireland on his VE speech in Westminster.

The_Valeyard · 05-01-2016 08:33PM

K-9 wrote: »

He was following diplomatic protocol for a neutral state. Just ditching neutrality at the end would have made a mockery of it.

Added bonus for DeV that it really annoyed Churchill, and it really did annoy him. Took a dig at Ireland on his VE speech in Westminster.

And Devs speech back at Churchill was really quite brilliant.

Orangebrigade · 05-01-2016 08:40PM

feargale wrote: »

Dev is to be criticised for many things, but there are few who don't praise his conduct in WWII. Hempel the German minister to Ireland was a career diplomat who had little sympathy with Naziism but sought to serve his country as best he could. His behaviour as a diplomat in Ireland was impeccable. By contrast David Gray, the US ambassador behaved as a despicable bully and showed no respect for Ireland's neutrality. It was in this context that Dev paid his respects to Hempel on the death of Hitler.
It's no harm to note that when Mussolini survived Violet Gibson's attempt on his life W.T.Cosgrave was one of those who communicated with Il Duce expressing relief that he was little the worse. If I'm not mistaken the British government did likewise. In the great moral code of imperial powers tyrants become baddies only when they upset those powers.
On the issue of neutrality itself it is not customary for countries to enter alliances with countries they were at war with less than two decades previously. In 1939 the British psychology still saw Ireland as a part of the Empire, without a right to determine its own foreign policy, hardly surprising since it took them about two centuries to forgive the Yankees for breaking free. One can still read in the British press articles bemoaning Ireland's WWII neutrality with its allied bias, but not a word of complaint about the Nazi-leaning neutrality of Switzerland, Sweden or Portugal.

Only the Irish could serve tribute to Adolf Hitler..

In answer to the OP question, yes. Most leaders now don't hold any convictions and stick by them. As much as Gerry Adams is a tool and as dodgy as a chocolate tea pot, at least you know what he stands for.

It could be a Southern thing full of people who love political correctness and no real beliefs in anything.

eeguy · 05-01-2016 09:22PM

I dont believe you can compare anyone from 100 years ago to anyone today.

It was a totally alien culture and belief structure from what we have at the moment.

How many people in Ireland today would willingly sacrifice themselves for a cause?

How many would join the army if they were called upon?

Probably a fraction of those who fought in various wars from 1914-1922.

I'm not saying this is a bad thing, perhaps we're a more focused on the individual now and more knowledgeable with the consequences of putting heart before mind.

Fleawuss · 05-01-2016 09:46PM

Orangebrigade wrote: »

Only the Irish could serve tribute to Adolf Hitler..

In answer to the OP question, yes. Most leaders now don't hold any convictions and stick by them. As much as Gerry Adams is a tool and as dodgy as a chocolate tea pot, at least you know what he stands for.

It could be a Southern thing full of people who love political correctness and no real beliefs in anything.

I could say something equally as stupid as this about Orangemen but it would only be a vapid and worthless generalization. You might like to research the country in which Hitler secured power and how tribute was due to him, legally. The country is called Germany

kingchess · 05-01-2016 10:00PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The entire anglosphere bar Ireland was united against Germany. We have cultural and ethnic ties with the rest of the anglosphere that we don't have with Germany or Italy. Britain was facing an existential crisis and to our shame we didn't help them. You can hardly blame the Americans for being appalled!

Correct me if I am wrong but was there not a desire in America to stay neutral? until Germany declared war on America-I know the Americans were supplying war materials to the UK but the British had to pay hard cash for it?

eeguy · 05-01-2016 10:07PM

kingchess wrote: »

Correct me if I am wrong but was there not a desire in America to stay neutral? until Germany declared war on America-I know the Americans were supplying war materials to the UK but the British had to pay hard cash for it?

Lots of German immigrants in the US and a big isolationist movement. Roosevelt pushed for war but it took the lusitania and unrestricted sub warfare to get them in.

masti123 · 05-01-2016 10:12PM

It presupposes a lot really.
Ireland as a country really isn't that old, even if the Irish have been knocking about for 2,000 years or so. We tend towards hagiography of the leaders of the Rising and from the distant past because they were the first men (plus Constance) to assert political Irishness. They're our Founding Fathers, and we treat them with the same sycophancy that the Americans treat theirs with.
Looking at the worst possible view of all those mentioned:

Pearse
Bit dodge on the youthful boys question. Imagine a cross between David Norris and Dev - he wanted young, Gaelic boys who would be athletic and Gaeilgeoirs. Less interest in the comely maidens, obviously.
Let's just say I'd rather he not get his hands on the Department of Education.
Collins
Hero and traitor, terrorist, clearly. Ruthless and violent, and, not unskilled as a leader. Bloody good at murdering people, would he have handled the recession well?
De Valera
Heh.
Griffith
Raging anti-Semite who wanted Ireland to be one part of a British Austro-Hungarian-esque dual monarchy. Never really did much other than set up SF and sit around waiting for things to go mental.
Larkin
After the Lockout he ****ed off to the States for a while and became an ardent communist. Later convicted in dodgy circumstances and deported. Came back to Ireland, was a commie for a while, then thought better of it, became Catholic again and a fairly straightforward trade unionist, eventually applying to join the modern Labour Party. Was buried by Archbishop McQuaid.
Cosgrave
Funny one really, ended up the Taoiseach by accident rather than design and asserted the primacy of the State and the Constitution. Not really popular for how he did that. (Had a rake of people killed.)
A fairly solid and very conservative leader, he steered Ireland into independence, but was definitely not a man of the people.

Kenny
He's the human equivalent of lettuce.
Martin
Looks like the sort of lad who should have been a priest rather than a politician. He's a classic FF hypocrite who dares complain about the very health system he ****ed up whilst championing hte party that ****ed the country. And he's from Cork.
Burton
Moan Burton. Worst Labour leader I can recall. About as charismatic as mild torture and a dreadful communicator who has singularly failed to offer any effective leadership or message for her party.
Adams
Haha.
Murphy
Ambitious little prick who'll say anything to get into power. Tells people that if he got into power that wouldn't be enough to give them the change the left wants - claims Labour are traitors to the left for not doing enough.
Wallace
Dodgy builder who should be in prison.

Looks like the past was slightly better.

kingchess · 05-01-2016 10:14PM

eeguy wrote: »

Lots of German immigrants in the US and a big isolationist movement. Roosevelt pushed for war but it took the lusitania and unrestricted sub warfare to get them in.

Sorry-skimmed thread and was thinking you were discussing Dev and ww2.

feargale · 05-01-2016 10:18PM

masti123 wrote: »

It presupposes a lot really.
Ireland as a country really isn't that old, even if the Irish have been knocking about for 2,000 years or so. We tend towards hagiography of the leaders of the Rising and from the distant past because they were the first men (plus Constance) to assert political Irishness. They're our Founding Fathers, and we treat them with the same sycophancy that the Americans treat theirs with.
Looking at the worst possible view of all those mentioned:

Pearse
Bit dodge on the youthful boys question. Imagine a cross between David Norris and Dev - he wanted young, Gaelic boys who would be athletic and Gaeilgeoirs. Less interest in the comely maidens, obviously.
Let's just say I'd rather he not get his hands on the Department of Education.
Collins
Hero and traitor, terrorist, clearly. Ruthless and violent, and, not unskilled as a leader. Bloody good at murdering people, would he have handled the recession well?
De Valera
Heh.
Griffith
Raging anti-Semite who wanted Ireland to be one part of a British Austro-Hungarian-esque dual monarchy. Never really did much other than set up SF and sit around waiting for things to go mental.
Larkin
After the Lockout he ****ed off to the States for a while and became an ardent communist. Later convicted in dodgy circumstances and deported. Came back to Ireland, was a commie for a while, then thought better of it, became Catholic again and a fairly straightforward trade unionist, eventually applying to join the modern Labour Party. Was buried by Archbishop McQuaid.
Cosgrave
Funny one really, ended up the Taoiseach by accident rather than design and asserted the primacy of the State and the Constitution. Not really popular for how he did that. (Had a rake of people killed.)
A fairly solid and very conservative leader, he steered Ireland into independence, but was definitely not a man of the people.

Kenny
He's the human equivalent of lettuce.
Martin
Looks like the sort of lad who should have been a priest rather than a politician. He's a classic FF hypocrite who dares complain about the very health system he ****ed up whilst championing hte party that ****ed the country. And he's from Cork.
Burton
Moan Burton. Worst Labour leader I can recall. About as charismatic as mild torture and a dreadful communicator who has singularly failed to offer any effective leadership or message for her party.
Adams
Haha.
Murphy
Ambitious little prick who'll say anything to get into power. Tells people that if he got into power that wouldn't be enough to give them the change the left wants - claims Labour are traitors to the left for not doing enough.
Wallace
Dodgy builder who should be in prison.

Looks like the past was slightly better.

Looks like you're the only one who is above reproach. Which constituency will you be standing in?

blackcard · 05-01-2016 10:33PM

masti123 wrote: »

It presupposes a lot really.
Ireland as a country really isn't that old, even if the Irish have been knocking about for 2,000 years or so. We tend towards hagiography of the leaders of the Rising and from the distant past because they were the first men (plus Constance) to assert political Irishness. They're our Founding Fathers, and we treat them with the same sycophancy that the Americans treat theirs with.
Looking at the worst possible view of all those mentioned:

Pearse
Bit dodge on the youthful boys question. Imagine a cross between David Norris and Dev - he wanted young, Gaelic boys who would be athletic and Gaeilgeoirs. Less interest in the comely maidens, obviously.
Let's just say I'd rather he not get his hands on the Department of Education.
Collins
Hero and traitor, terrorist, clearly. Ruthless and violent, and, not unskilled as a leader. Bloody good at murdering people, would he have handled the recession well?
De Valera
Heh.
Griffith
Raging anti-Semite who wanted Ireland to be one part of a British Austro-Hungarian-esque dual monarchy. Never really did much other than set up SF and sit around waiting for things to go mental.
Larkin
After the Lockout he ****ed off to the States for a while and became an ardent communist. Later convicted in dodgy circumstances and deported. Came back to Ireland, was a commie for a while, then thought better of it, became Catholic again and a fairly straightforward trade unionist, eventually applying to join the modern Labour Party. Was buried by Archbishop McQuaid.
Cosgrave
Funny one really, ended up the Taoiseach by accident rather than design and asserted the primacy of the State and the Constitution. Not really popular for how he did that. (Had a rake of people killed.)
A fairly solid and very conservative leader, he steered Ireland into independence, but was definitely not a man of the people.

Kenny
He's the human equivalent of lettuce.
Martin
Looks like the sort of lad who should have been a priest rather than a politician. He's a classic FF hypocrite who dares complain about the very health system he ****ed up whilst championing hte party that ****ed the country. And he's from Cork.
Burton
Moan Burton. Worst Labour leader I can recall. About as charismatic as mild torture and a dreadful communicator who has singularly failed to offer any effective leadership or message for her party.
Adams
Haha.
Murphy
Ambitious little prick who'll say anything to get into power. Tells people that if he got into power that wouldn't be enough to give them the change the left wants - claims Labour are traitors to the left for not doing enough.
Wallace
Dodgy builder who should be in prison.

Looks like the past was slightly better.

I think that each generation has their share of flawed leaders. We are going to celebrate the leaders of a century ago whilst denigrating current leaders Both sets of leaders are flawed as will future leaders. Tbh I don't think you can get to the top and stay there without being ruthless and egotistical

Had we better leaders a century ago?

Comments