With a firm sense of civic duty, I walked the short distance to my polling place on Friday morning. I followed a few of my fellow walking voters down the lane to the rear of the school. So far, it looked quite similar to polling places in Illinois.

I don’t know if there are state or city regulations prohibiting posters and electioneering close to the polling place; the location was deep on private property, so there wasn’t an opportunity for the parties to hang signs.

I entered the small gym to find a familiar system: two bored teenagers behind a table labeled with my district’s number, and an older man behind a second table for a different district. The young men were solicitous and quickly found my name on the Supplemental Register. I received one ballot, for the city councillors of Dublin. (Alas, only citizens of the EU could vote for Ireland’s Members of the European Parliament.)

Ireland uses proportional representation for almost all elections; techincally, I voted in a single transferable vote system. That means that my ballot consisted of a list of all the candidates for the office, and I could number them in my order of preference. On this ballot, each candidate’s box included the candidate’s party’s logo, area of residence, occupation and other professional information — but no face-photo, to my surprise!

I chose to rank my four preferred candidates, numbering them from 1 to 4 and leaving the rest blank. Ireland uses a secret ballot, so I folded my sheet in half and dropped it in an old-fashioned ballot box. The teenagers bade me farewell, and I was done!

Ballot-counting takes a little longer with proportional representation, but not by much in the digital age. The results were final in most areas by Saturday afternoon. As expected, the political establishment was thoroughly shaken, including the Dublin City Council.

Finally, what you’ve been waiting for — the final set of Face-Poster Trading Cards!

Set Three: Download the PDF today!

Set Two: Download the PDF today!

Now that Set Two is available, it won’t be long before Set One is gone forever!

For a very limited time

Download and print out your very own trading cards of the best Face Posters of Ireland 2009! Each PDF will be available for just a day or two, so be sure to check in frequently, so that you can…

COLLECT THE WHOLE SET!

Set One: Download the PDF today!

`

The upcoming election (in Dublin) is for two levels of government: representatives to the local councils and to the European parliament. The newspapers lead me to believe that there is a close parallel between these elections and mid-term Congressional elections in the US. In both cases, the media and the parties take the results to indicate the popularity of the parties at the national level.

As usual, some background first. PM Brown brought a sublimely thoughtful gift to Obama. It is no exaggeration to say that it approaches the ideal gift. President Obama gave Brown a box set of DVDs. A box set especially created by the American Film Institute for such occasions, but it still seems perfunctory.

We heard the American media’s ridicule of Obama’s gift way across the Pond. The British tabloids hyperventilated, of course. (See this American overview.) The Guardian had a more sober take. The Irish press had an article or two — not much more than its usual coverage of American diplomacy.

While Brown addressed the US Congress, I was catching up on American magazines. Serendipity handed me the November 2007 issue of The Atlantic Monthly, with a cover story entitled “The Future of the American Idea”. And lo, Tom Wolfe’s contribution gave me a sudden insight — the kind that makes thinking about history delightful at times (at least in the hands of a master like Wolfe). Here’s the first paragraph:

Since you asked … the American idea was born at approximately 5 p.m. on Friday, December 2, 1803, the moment Thomas Jefferson sprang the so-called pell-mell on the new British ambassador, Anthony Merry, at dinner in the White House. Oh, this was no inadvertent faux pas. This was faux pas aforethought. Jefferson obviously loved the prospect of dumbfounding the great Brit and leaving him speechless, furious, seething, so burned up that smoke would start coming out of his ears. And all that the pell-mell did.

It gets much more comical from there, but I don’t want to spoil it. I recommend that you read the whole story, for free, online. (Thank you, The Atlantic.) I hope that it enriches your perspective on American diplomacy. At the very least, I’m sure that you’ll think it’s a good yarn.

As for whether Obama was pulling a T.J. — well, I’ll leave that to the comments.

First, a tiny bit of background information. The Irish government is parliamentary, with the nation’s legislative and executive functions fulfilled by a majority of Dáil representatives in a formal coalition. Occasionally, a single party can form a Government on its own. The ministers of the government work, among other places, from offices in the Government Building, pictured at right. There are (currently) three major parties: Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael, and Labour. The first two have been major parties for decades, but Labour’s fortunes are more variable. For example, the Labour party was marginalised in the May 2007 election, but were elections held today, it might be the second largest party in the Dáil. Elections for the Dáil are held on an irregular basis, like the British parliament.

A note for those who read the articles (which are all from Friday’s paper):

• The literal translation of Fianna Fáil is “Soldiers of Destiny” which may seem grandiose to non-Irish readers. But consider, US residents, that the Democrats and Republicans have similarly pompous names when taken literally. The phrase “Soldiers of Destiny” has (relatively recent) historical relevance as one of the Irish names for the Irish Volunteers — the army of the Irish War of Independence. By the way, Fine Gael, another major party, can be translated as “Family of the Irish”. Its name originates in the merging of three parties in 1933.

Fianna Fáil faces meltdown at polls

According to the poll, Fianna Fail are no longer the biggest party in the country. … [T]hey could be relegated to third unless Mr Cowen can stem the rising tide of public dissatisfaction with the Government. … According to the poll, Fianna Fail would lose anything up to 30 Dail seats if an election was called today. The findings are stark: just over one-in-five voters think their leader is doing a good job; one-in-10 are satisfied with the Government.

Fine Gael ahead but Kenny can’t land killer blow

Fine Gael is the best supported party, but party leader Enda Kenny can’t claim credit for it. … After almost seven years as leader, Mr Kenny ought to be gaining traction. His satisfaction rating was last this low in autumn 2003, when the Government was still embroiled in controversy over public finances and shortfalls in tax returns. … While a majority of 52pc want an election [now], when it comes to Fine Gael supporters, a less than resounding 56pc want to go to the country. Either Fine Gael supporters don’t want to get landed with current crisis or they are not confident about actually getting into power because Mr Kenny’s inadequacies will be highlighted yet again.

Gilmore capitalises on FF decline as support doubles

Labour Party supporters are gung-ho about a general election, with the party support doubling since the last run out. Labour’s support — at 22pc — is a full 12pc ahead of the last general election, an Irish Independent / Millward Brown IMS poll shows. Capitalising on Fianna Fail’s decline, party leader Eamon Gilmore has become by far the most popular party leader. Mr Gilmore’s satisfaction rating — at 52pc — is well ahead of his contemporaries. … The Labour Party’s rise in support is not solely based on a public-sector worker backlash either. Right across the social classes, Labour’s vote is evenly distributed. And Mr Gilmore is picking up votes from right across the political spectrum — from Fine Gael, Fianna Fail and the Green Party.

Little appetite for Sinn Féin option as Greens escape the backlash

DESPITE seeing its coalition partner obliterated in the polls, it appears the Green Party is holding its own in government. The junior Government party has come in for stinging criticism from the Opposition in recent months, during which time it has endured a series of high-profile defections from its ranks. However, support for the party remains steady at 5pc — the exact same as the party vote in 2007 general election.

The idea of forming a government apart from the British Parliament was promoted for 15 years by Arthur Griffith, the founder of Sinn Féin. According to Michael Laffan of the Irish Times, many Irish voters at the time saw their representatives at British Parliament as lobbyists who could occasionally bring home pork projects (to put it in American terms). Why give up those lobbyists for the sake of an improbable ideal?

The equation changed when the three years after the Easter Rising added new factors. Ready for the list?

• the threat of conscription
• the Ulster unionists’ paramilitary mobilisation
• the British Parliament’s signals that it would renege on its promise to re-establish an Irish Parliament
• the Irish Members of Parliament (MPs) loss of status as swing voters on many bills, and
• the harsh treatment of the heroes of the Easter Rising.

In the election of the British Parliament in 1918, the Irish people chose Sinn Féin overwhelmingly over those moderate lobbyists.

Sinn Féin led the anti-conscription campaign and ran for election on an explicit policy of “absentionism” — they would refuse to take their seats in Westminster’s Parliament. Soon after the election, the number of absentionist MPs, and their popular support, made it feasible to convene the first independent Irish legislature. The Sinn Féin leaders reserved space at the Mansion House, the residence of the Lord Mayor of Dublin, and they sent invitations to all the Irish MPs (who were supposed to be sitting in Westminster, serving the British Empire). The First Dáil Éireann met on Tuesday, 21 January 1919.

Americans may want to think of the first meeting of the Dáil as something closer to the second meeting of the British colonies of America’s Continental Congress in the 1770s. It was held in defiance of the internationally-recognised sovereign at the time, and its very existence constituted a threat to the legitimacy of that government. Like the Continental Congress, the First Dáil set the program for the establishment of an independent state, while hoping for the military and diplomatic success that would make that possible. (A small dissimilarity is that the First Dáil did it all at once.) To put it simply: each of these two meetings moved a people from widespread revolts to a coordinated revolution.

It would be wrong to push the analogy any further, of course. Imagine that the Continental Congress had no control of General Washington or any other member of the American military. Imagine that Washington and other generals raised their own funds from all over the world, making promises about the future policies of the United States, and never reported to the Congress at all. In fact, the Continental Congress exercised tight control over the Continental Army.

In addition, the delegates at the Congress were beholden to the states and they were mostly held in check by political entities in each of the former colonies. The members of the First Dáil did not act as representatives of geographical or ideological constituents. From my perspective, they seem more like a 1960s convention of the SDS (Students for a Democratic Society) — big personalities vying for charismatic leadership over a group of idealistic intellectuals.

The story of the First Dáil is all the more interesting for those personalities and ideals. And, unlike the stuffed shirts of the Continental Congress (Ben Franklin excepted), the members of the First Dáil aspired to modern democratic ideals. You can expect to read more about the Irish men and women of 1919 in the next few days.

If you can’t wait, take a look at the collection of articles on First Dáil published online by the Irish Times.

And just one more thing: it’s pronounced a lot like the common American last name “Doyle”. But, as with most words in Gaelic, that pronunciation is not quite right.

It’s no surprise that Ireland’s news-media pays more attention to world events than the big media of the USA. What occasionally surprises Anita and me is how much attention Irish news outlets pay specifically to US political news. For example:this spring, during the debate regarding the delegates from Michigan’s Democratic primary, the standard three-minute news update on an Irish pop radio station included a detailed explanation of how the primary system worked (and didn’t work in this case).

Illinois Governor Blagojevich wasn’t mentioned by name at first (and who could blame the announcers). Neither was Patrick Fitzgerald: we simply heard that the Governor of the State of Illinois was arrested by federal authorities. The newspapers went into more detail, and later radio reports did too. I haven’t yet noticed any analysis or editorial comments (beyond inane radio-personality chatter).

So here’s my request regarding Blagojevich: Can you help me find the right word to describe what I feel?

About six years ago, I embarked on a search for a word that described the attitude of politicians that engage in a certain style of corruption, blithe ignorance, and conceit. I arrived at “gall”, a word closely related to “temerity” and “effrontery”. (The built-in MacOS dictionary application — which appears to be the New American Oxford Dictionary — has a nice discussion of this family of words. Here’s a page that appears to be lifted from that application.)

When one hasn’t paid attention to a corrupt politician, one can be surprised by that politician’s gall. One may, thus, react with disgust or disillusionment. (If one has some temerity oneself, one may react with self-righteousness or superciliousness.)

But what about when you know that such a politician is corrupt, ignorant, and/or conceited? Sometimes, the only surprising thing about a federal case is the depth of the politician’s gall.

Here’s what I have in mind. Everyone who (a) talked with me, and (b) took any interesting in state-level politics — everyone knew that Blagojevich had plenty of insolence and temerity. So I wasn’t quite surprised by the news of his arrest. But I was still amazed by just how reckless and flagrant his actions were.

Well, not quite amazed. Not exactly astonished, either. There is an element of disgust or contempt that isn’t conveyed by those words. “Flabbergasted” and “astounded” make it sound like I was incapacitated in some way, and that’s not true. “Boggled” is just silly.

I’m looking a word to describe the reaction that I feel when confronted (but not surprised) by another person’s gall. It’s something that I feel with increasing frequency, alas, and I believe that others feel the same way. I believe that I’ve had conversations where everyone struggled to articulate a common feeling.

So, help me out here. Surely there’s a good word — or maybe an apt phrase. Maybe I need to borrow a word from another language — as with schadenfreude or agitprop. I’d be delighted to discuss all of this with y’all in the comments. Do you ever feel this way yourself?

The Irish Times brought together a remarkable group of writers to reflect on the UDHR, so I recommend the web version of their project.

One welcome aspect of living in Ireland is the amount of attention paid to the big questions facing the whole world. It is now the International Year of Human Rights Learning, and so Ireland’s institutions have programmes that actually affect people. In the US, if such declarations are noted at all, it is usually either co-opted as a partisan rallying cry, or treated as political frivolity, like Particle Accelerator Day or Uno the Beagle Day. Some circles do take it seriously, but did you hear about the UDHR’s anniversay until just now?

I humbly suggest that you take interest in your humanity today, for 10-15 minutes. If you’ve never read the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, do it today. If you have, take a look at that Irish Times website, or for an American perspective, read (or listen to) Eleanor Roosevelt’s speech from sixty years ago. (The inspiring stuff starts about one-third in, but the political context is interesting too.)

And you’re welcome, as always, to add your own reflections here.

The proposal that generated the loudest outcry was the introduction of means-testing for medical cards for those over 70 years old. For the past several years, persons over 70 received a card that entitled them to free health care. With budget deficits looming, the Government chose to limit spending on health care for the growing number of Irish people living a longer time. The proposal was a means-test which would eliminate free care for those able to pay their own way, thereby introducing a tiered system of benefits.

The specific extent of means testing was more than a small step away from universal health care — according to the Irish Independent, more than 50% seniors would not qualify for full coverage. The response was immediate outrage. A protest was called for this past Wednesday, to bring that outrage to the door of the Dail on Kildare Street, just a few blocks from our home.

I attended the protest. These elders know how to protest: an impressive mass of people (from all ages and walks of life)…

…fiery speeches from all parts of the political spectrum…

…and creative banners and picket signs.

The assembly was orderly but forceful. What I found most remarkable was the protesters’ common expectation that the demonstration would have a profound effect. One group discussed how the legislators’ response would “make or break their careers.” I have never been to a protest that exhibited such confidence — including other protests in Dublin.

The Government has already changed the details of the proposal, but the controversy continues hotting up. Disputes within the ruling coalition and the Fianna Fail party itself are more intense than any time since we moved to Dublin. The next few weeks will bring some political upheaval to Ireland after a quiet summer.

For more photos and descriptions of the event, take a look at my set of photos on Flickr.

And everybody talks about the American economy, but especially Americans.

All that is by way of introduction to two podcast episodes that I found fascinating and accurate in representing the mainstream of English-speaking European thought about the US.

Open Source: “As Others See Us” (direct link to mp3)

An Open Source podcast episode, produced by Brown University (in the US), featuring Godfrey Hodgson from Oxford. Within the theme of Nixon’s campaign in 1968, Hodgson articulates a dominant, moderate, intellectual view of US politics from Ireland, the UK, and most of the Continent.

BBC Radio Ulster: Everyday Ethics, 21 Sept 2008 (direct link to mp3)

An episode of Everyday Ethics, a podcast from BBC Radio Ulster that is far broader than its title suggests. The episode contains three stories, and the first and third are interesting perspectives on current American issues. The first story is a panel discussion of the root causes of the international credit crisis. In the third story, the BBC’s North America editor “makes the case for giving America a second chance.” The second story is about near-death experiences. It’s nice enough, but not relevant to the theme of this post.

Other countries also commemorate their constitutions — on appropriate dates, naturally. In the US, Constitution Day ranks well below most other patriotic holidays. (Unlike Norway!)

If you’ve been reading our posts on recent Irish history, you won’t be surprised to learn that the Republic of Ireland has a hesitant relationship with its constitution. The problems start with the contested progression from the UK-imposed Constitution of the Free State, which more or less initiated a civil war, to the current Constitution of 1937, which was more or less written by Éamon de Valera, and formally declared the independent Republic of Ireland. And don’t forget that Ireland’s constitution is the sole reason why the Irish electorate was allowed to vote on the Lisbon Treaty!

Ireland’s constitution sets it apart from the British tradition of common law — and much closer to the American commitment to a supreme founding document. It took decades for the British-trained lawyers of Ireland to develop their own idea of judicial review, but like the US, Ireland still struggles to apply a constitutional ideal of the rule of law.

Ireland’s recent constitutional history diverges from the United States on the matter of amendments. There are relatively few amendments to the US Constitution compared to other national constitutions from the last two centuries. For example, Ireland saw twenty-one amendments added to its constitution since 1972. (Five referenda to amend the Constitution of Ireland failed since that year.)

I don’t remember the passage of the twenty-seventh amendment in 1992. Maybe that is because it was trivial; here’s the entire text:

No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.

Hopefully what passed for reform in the early 1990s won’t satisfy my generation. Wait — that’s a contentious statement, isn’t it? Does the US really need more constitutional amendments?

The meaningful American proposals in recent history were the Equal Rights Amendment and the District of Columbia Voting Rights Amendment. Those failed to attain the approval of enough states. Meanwhile, American politicians introduce hundreds of amendments each year as a form of political speech. In the past few years, the US media paid attention to proposals regarding the definition of marriage, the requirement of balanced budgets, and the prohibition of flag desecration.

If there were a serious way for you to propose an amendment to your constitution, what would you put forth?

By the way, the State of Illinois may hold a constitutional convention in the near future. More on that later…

The Bugle would like to use this occasion to remind you that we are approaching the registration deadlines for most localities. (Illinois is Tues, Oct. 7; Missouri is Wed, Oct. 8; New York is Fri, Oct. 10; Iowa is Fri, Oct. 24; and in Wisconsin you can register on Election Day.)

If you’re not registered to vote at your current address, right now is the best time to do it. There are several organizations that will to help you register with online resources. Here are three; pick any one — just do it today!

• Obama’s Voter Registration Tools
• McCain’s Voter Registration Tools
• The venerable League of Women Voters are the best at it

I believe that the election of the US President is sometimes not the most important one, because your local authorities affect your day-to-day life more immediately. They often determine the policies of zoning, development, traffic, and policing that make your community what it will be tomorrow. If you’re tired of hearing about Obama, McCain, Palin and Biden, look into the issues at stake in your local elections.

French Prez Sarkozy will visit Dublin Monday

After the defeat of the Lisbon Treaty in Ireland, Sarkozy has been downright intimidating about Ireland’s role in the EU. His visit to Dublin to meet with government officials (and possibly representatives of the opposition to Lisbon) should make my neighbourhood fairly exciting on Monday.

Don’t miss this tourism survey

This report is essential reading. Its findings are substantiated by BBB&B’s own data.

Rumours flying that Obama will visit Ireland

Anita heard, on the radio, that Obama would/could/might visit Ireland during his European trip. I can’t find any solid information on this, except that some political grandstanding may have started the buzz.

Our recession can beat up your recession

Do the following news reports sound familiar? A credit crunch is contributing to crashing home values. Massive numbers going unemployed. A civil service that seems unprepared for any of it. There is little confidence in the current government’s ability to handle the economic crisis.

Oxegen festival a great success

Dublin was dead quiet this past weekend — most people between the ages of 18 and 30 were at the Oxegen festival. The lineup was so amazing that Anita and I were tempted to camp with the young’uns — but only tempted. Good news in the aftermath, too: young folks know better than to drive home drunk.

Oregon cop causes outrage in Ireland

A young Irish man was killed by a police officer in Oregon on 30 June. His mother, living in Dublin, can’t get information about the shooting. This is causing some outrage in Ireland, especially after the officer was charged with child sex abuse as well. As far as I know, neither national government has taken notice yet.

Immigration laws create extraordinary problems for families

I visit the US embassy a lot, and I see many families trying to work out visas, passports, etc, for their children or themselves. A Galway family had a particularly hard time of it, since it took a complex lawsuit to move back home.

Independent: Americans still not visiting

“The number of wealthy US tourists travelling to Ireland has dropped by almost 15pc — and those who do travel are spending less.” Come on! What will it take to get you to enjoy our glorious Irish summer?

Can’t get enough Lisbon Treaty?

Look into the anguish of a thoughtful Irish voter just before the vote. Observe the contempt engendered by the campaigns. Nod sagely as Germany’s Spiegel analyzes the vote.

Another Irish lawyer on the run

Is it that these cases don’t make the papers in the US, or is it something about this time and place? First Michael Lynn and now this Thomas Byrne guy — up millions of euros, and on the lam.

I read Waters’s book on Irish politics in the 1980s in one sitting. I was completely absorbed by it because it spoke to my experience and then it offered so much depth and insight beyond my own awareness. Here’s a passage that resonated with my exposure to Irish society so far (pages 31 and 32):

The nature of our political ‘beliefs’ was always difficult to explain to outsiders. Your ‘politics’ were a bit like the colour of your eyes: you picked them up from one or both parents, you did not question or even think about them very much, and yet they became part of what other people perceived you to be.

…The process is complex to the outsider, but second nature to the individual member of the community in question. When two of the town’s inhabitants meet in the street, a process occurs in which both are able to flash up in some part of their brains a ‘description’, a social image, of the other. This unwritten description will include such data as the person’s address, occupation, … their mode of dress, speech and general physical demeanour, and of course, the person’s political ‘persuasion’. This information will enable both of them to define the nature of their relationship.

…Both the individual in question, in that instant, will have come to the same conclusion as to their relationship. Other than by leaving, it is almost impossible, within the ordinary activity of one’s life, significantly to alter one’ own position in the pecking order.

…If one were to take, say, five people from various part and backgrounds in such a town and, having dosed them with some form of truth serum, ask each of them to draw up a list placing themselves and the other four in the correct order of their ‘importance’ in the town, all five lists would be the same. Deep down, everybody knows where they stand.

Waters was a columnist for the Irish Times, and I have the impression that he was a bit of an outsider to the world of Irish journalism. For me, he filled many of the gaps in my conception of Ireland that persisted after reading thousands of newspaper articles. I’d like to share more of his work with you, and I believe his book is currently out-of-print in the US. I’ll look into the copyright issues, etc, involved in sharing more of Jiving at the Crossroads with you.

I couldn’t read the other book, Jared Diamond’s Collapse, in one sitting. It is a much longer book! The massive popularity of this book a few years ago means that I have little new to say about it. It is very well-written and presents fair-minded analyses of the collapses of societies from pre-history to the present day.

I was enthralled by his vivid descriptions of civilizations that I’ve heard about in snippets about throughout my life: Anasazi, Maya, Easter Island, Greenland Vikings. The book’s arguments are unsettling when he turns to present-day societies, but he is not scare-mongering in any way. In fact, I found him unduly optimistic!

Dubliners, at least, always have a great interest in the US — more its politics than its economics. Over the past year, the general Irish attitude about America was still wary, but it shifted toward positivity, mostly due to the success of the 3% Irish presidential candidate, Barack Obama. He is seen as a spiritual successor to JFK, and Kennedy is still revered and adored all over Ireland. The dominant mood, as I sense it, is that the US can inspire hope and energy abroad once again.

Finally, let us not forget the close bond between America and the rebellions of Ireland after the Declaration of Independence. The success of American independence from Great Britain was an inspiration for the Rising of 1798:

John Cladwell described how “..on the news of the battle of Bunker Hill, my nurse Ann Orr led me to the top of a mount on midsummer eve, where the young and the aged were assembled before a blazing bonfire to celebrate what they considered the triumph of America over British despotism.”

Many of the United Irishmen, the intellectual leaders of that rebellion, looked across the Atlantic. They would continue to look west through the subsequent risings as well. And Irish immigrants to the US would play decisive roles for both nations.

While Wolfe Tone, one of the heroes of the 1798 rebellion, did not admire the Americans he met in Pennsylvania, his “Declaration of the United Irishmen” echoes the “Declaration of Independence” that we celebrate today:

In the present great era of reform, when unjust Governments are falling in every quarter of Europe; when religious persecution is compelled to abjure her tyranny over conscience; when the rights of man are ascertained in theory, and that theory substantiated by practice; when antiquity can no longer defend absurd and oppressive forms against the common sense and common interests of mankind; when all Government is acknowledged to originate from the people, and to be so far only obligatory as it protects their rights and promotes their welfare; we think it our duty, as Irishmen, to come forward, and state what we feel to be our heavy grievance, and what we know to be its effectual remedy. We have no national Government— we are ruled by Englishmen, and the servants of Englishmen whose object is the interest of another country, whose instrument is corruption, and whose strength is the weakness of Ireland; and these men have the whole of the power and patronage of the country as means to seduce and subdue the honesty and spirit of her representatives in the legislature.

And the United Irish catechism makes the connection absolutely clear:

What is that in your hand? It is a branch.
Of what? Of the Tree of Liberty.
Where did it first grow? In America.
Where does it bloom? In France.
Where did the seeds fall? In Ireland.

The spirit of the Fourth of July is not about the United States of America (a country which came in being well after 1776). It is the spirit of Liberty that continues to inspire so many today.

Ballad for an Undecided Irish Voter

Part One, to the tune of the Oscar Mayer wiener jingle. (MP3 available on this page)

Oh, I like to be an undecided voter,
That is what I really like to be.

‘Cause when I am an undecided voter,
All attention is squarely put on me!

But, I wish not to be an undecided voter,
For referendum of the Lisbon Treaty.

‘Cause I can’t tell what it all means for Ireland,
And everybody just shouts threats at me!

Part Two, to the tune of the Oscar Mayer wiener song. (MP3 also available)

This treaty has a first name,
L-I-S-B-O-N.

My TD has suggestions:
Y-E-S or Tá.

But I don’t know just what that means
so instead of vote, I’d rather say…

Explain it well or else you’ll pay,
I’m sick of both sides any way.

Let’s look at the campaigns for and against the Lisbon Treaty, as I saw and heard them.

I paid careful attention to some major media outlets during the campaigns — mostly newspapers and radio (and of course, the ubiquitous signs). This is my impression of the major campaigns, with a healthy bit of bias and on-the-fly analysis.

Both the “Yes” and “No” campaigns relied heavily on predictions of Ireland’s future. The “Yes” campaign said:

• If Ireland ratifies the Treaty, then it will take its place among the decision-makers in the EU. Under the Treaty, the EU will be able to handle the new challenges it faces: ensuring economic progress, integrating eastern european states, and acting in the interests of justice and democracy in foreign affairs. There will be more jobs for the Irish, and more prosperity for all.
• If Ireland does not ratify the Treaty, then it will lose its hard-won status in Europe. Ireland will be seen as a politically unstable state, and unreliable for international business. Finally, the major powers of the EU (predominantly France and Germany) will punish Ireland. Ireland will not successfully transition from the Celtic Tiger and it will be seen as a second-class country once again.

The dominant theme of the “No” campaign (which was mostly centre-right rather than progressive voices) predicted as follows:

• If Ireland ratifies the Treaty, then it will cede its economic and political sovereignty to the EU. The EU is economically dominated by old western states which resent Ireland’s tax policy, and numerically dominated by eastern states which wish to eliminate competition to their own pro-corporate policies. Thus, the new majoritarian procedures will be used by this coalition to force Ireland to adopt corporate tax policies that will drive international corporations from Ireland. Finally, the EU will be led into foreign military conflicts by the interventionist tendencies of the old european powers. Ireland will lose its long-standing neutrality and be seen as a US-style state within an aggressive union.
• If Ireland does not ratify the Treaty, then it will stand with the Dutch and French people and insist on a genuinely democratic EU. The powers-that-be will be forced to return to the drawing board and enact real, meaningful reforms, rather than the re-packaged EU Constitution that was rejected for good reasons. Ireland will be a progressive leader within Europe, taking a brave stand when it matters. Ireland will have dodged a blow, and in a matter of time, the Irish people will be hailed as a force for justice and democracy.

What do I think about the campaigns?

I have a mostly negative opinion about both dominant campaigns. For now, I’ll just talk about the way that the campaigns were conducted, rather than the substance of the positions. (As you might have reckoned by now, I don’t think there was much substance to their positions!)

Both campaigns were unpalatable to me in two ways. First, both sides concentrated almost entirely on arguments about the economic impact of the Lisbon Treaty. To me, that seems like arguing about banning partial-birth abortion in the US by discussing its impact on Medicare. The issue is the reform of the EU — major structural changes — and nobody wanted to talk about what that meant for the political atmosphere of the EU as a whole or for Ireland in particular. (For Irish readers — I’m leaving aside the simplistic slogan, “We’ll lose our councillor!”)

Second, both sides were myopically focused on present-day Irish interests. The debate started and ended with the question, “Is this a good deal for Irish citizens (in the short-term)?” Add the general restriction to economic issues (i.e. jobs) and you get, from my point of view, an incredibly artificial debate about a profoundly important issue!

I believe that the skepticism expressed by undecided Irish voters, and the suspicion articulated so frequently from so many different interests, is related to an implicit consensus about why the debate was artificial, a consensus that developed inexorably during the last six weeks. Simply put: most neutral observers came to believe that both sides were hiding something. Something big.

Many commentators asserted that both sides were hiding that they did not even understand the Treaty itself, which is over 100 pages long and written in impenetrable legalistic code. They concluded that both sides were acting on the orders of other powers: France and Germany, Austrian nationalists, corporate cronies, pinkos, whoever.

Others suspected that one of the two sides was hiding a poison pill of some kind: clauses within the Treaty that would have an effect nowhere near the expressed intent of the Treaty (as written in that cute little pamphlet).

I have no idea. I do know that the debate devolved into a finger-pointing kabuki that rivaled anything from American presidential politics. As the election date came closer, representatives from both sides would attend debates and begin with accusations of scare-mongering. Those accusations were accurate! But the default response would be, “Your accusations are lowering the level of debate.”

“No, you, sir, are lowering the level of debate.” And so on — it didn’t matter who took the floor first, almost every debate would take this path. And one-on-one interviews are simply slow-motion debates in this age of PR tactics and TV soundbites.

It seems to me that nobody talked about the Treaty itself. So I end my tune, again, on the same note: I don’t know what the Lisbon Treaty is, and nobody told me, even when I asked nicely.

The counting is still going on, just a mile from my place. I’ll write again when there are firm results. You can look forward to my chart-topping lament: “Ballad for an Undecided Irish Voter”