The Privatisation of Irish Politics

So he is a conservative catholic. It is fair to assume should he ever gain any position of power then his agenda would reflect this. So bring back the days of old.

The question then for the posters here is would they be pro Europe if it were dominated by a Christian agenda. It is unlikely but nothing can be ruled out in a downturn

youngdan wrote:

So he is a conservative catholic. It is fair to assume should he ever gain any position of power then his agenda would reflect this. So bring back the days of old.

The question then for the posters here is would they be pro Europe if it were dominated by a Christian agenda. It is unlikely but nothing can be ruled out in a downturn

The answer is "it depends". If there was a resurrected cult of Petainism in Europe I certainly wouldn't be supportive. Perhaps you are assuming that "My Country Right or Wrong" applies. It certainly doesn't for me and I would never give Ireland or Europe a free pass on anything. Critical support yes, blind obedience to anything no and never.

youngdan wrote:

So he is a conservative catholic. It is fair to assume should he ever gain any position of power then his agenda would reflect this. So bring back the days of old.

The question then for the posters here is would they be pro Europe if it were dominated by a Christian agenda. It is unlikely but nothing can be ruled out in a downturn

As an atheist....

Ronald Binge wrote:

I think comparisons between Jimmy Goldsmith and Declan Ganley only stand up in that they both created astroturf political organisations with similar objectives. Time will tell if Libertas gains grassroots and becomes a permanent part of the Irish political establishment.

However I do not dismiss Ganley's religious orientation as being something harmless and not worth commenting about. He chose Gerry McGeough's Hibernian Magazine. McGeough in turn put him on the cover. Ganley has allied himself with those who believe that the Republic took a wrong turn in the 1980s and 1990s in the legalisation of contraception, divorce and gay rights. If you don't believe me look at the Hibernian's archive and ask yourself if this is the sort of future you want for this country. I certainly don't.

I make no apologies for absolutely distrusting anyone who has chosen to play footsie with the far right in this country.

Well Ronald that is a good point, that Hibrenian feature is relevant as a political bench mark for Ganley.
It also ties in with the Anti abortion lot distributing Libertas propaganda during the election.

It is also very much a pan European courting of the far right that Ganley indulges in.

I am not assuming anything as I don't know much about Ganley. What I do know is I never saw such attention to a lad that hasn't been elected to a town council even

He has claimed the NO vote as a mandate. He is showing all the signs of seriously trying to launch a very right wing pan European party.
That deserves some attention. The source of his resources is another issue as is his pats. He demand transparency then he will have to give it up too.

Like I say about globalism, suck it up. This is the problem with a superstate. Left wing people will not be happy if he is sucessfull. Ye want a superstate and now ye have it with Ganley as boss. At least he is Irish, if it was La Pen ye would complain more. If he gets 51% make him King. One either believes in democracy or not. So much ado about an untried politician

there is plenty time to forestall that

Hang on a minute, I'm a Catholic and I'm way to the left, but I still oppose abortion and euthanasia (which has nothing to do with religion). Does that make me a 'conservative' or 'authoritarian'? Nonsense.

He's right-wing because he's right-wing, not because he's a Catholic.

There is a strain of Catholic social teaching that I detect in Ganley's attitude to Europe, one that puts the individual at the centre, not the system, and one that stands for a reclaiming of Europe's 'Christian heritage', based on a belief that if we stand for nothing but relativism, those who oppose Western society have the upper hand in standing strongly for their own point of view. I seem to remember detecting it in the Libertas Charter when it was first published, but I might be reading too much into it...

toxic avenger wrote:

Hang on a minute, I'm a Catholic and I'm way to the left, but I still oppose abortion and euthanasia (which has nothing to do with religion). Does that make me a 'conservative' or 'authoritarian'? Nonsense.

If you oppose abortion and other things on the basis of your Catholicism, then, yes, you're socially conservatively. If you oppose their availability in society on the basis of your Catholicism, then yes, that's authoritarian.

Congratulations!

toxic avenger wrote:

He's right-wing because he's right-wing, not because he's a Catholic.

He's right-wing as well as Catholic. Certainly his economically right-wing views have nothing to do with his Catholicism.

toxic avenger wrote:

There is a strain of Catholic social teaching that I detect in Ganley's attitude to Europe, one that puts the individual at the centre, not the system, and one that stands for a reclaiming of Europe's 'Christian heritage', based on a belief that if we stand for nothing but relativism, those who oppose Western society have the upper hand in standing strongly for their own point of view. I seem to remember detecting it in the Libertas Charter when it was first published, but I might be reading too much into it...

I think you're correct, myself. Personally I would be appalled by a Europe based on "Christian values" or any other narrowly defined set of values. What have Europe's Muslims to do with a Christian Europe? Europe's Jews? Her atheists, her Hindus, her pagans? Any set of values, unless defined so broadly as to be meaningless, exclude someone.

I've said it before, but I think it bears repeating - the EU should be dull. It should not be inspiring. It should be a piece of machinery, because only a piece of machinery will serve everyone equally. In turn, it should be served only by those who believe in the value of the service the machinery provides. It should not inspire by itself, because down that road lies the superstate, and a Europe that imposes its values both on its own citizens and on the world. I do not see the value of such a Europe, and I do not support such a Europe.

The EU we have, dull, complex, and technocratic as it is, has delivered 50 years of growth, of prosperity, of peace, of the progressive lifting of restrictions, the abolition of the death penalty and of torture. It has not adventured abroad, and it has not imposed its will on its citizens. Researchers of the EU dig into the study of EU comitology, the details of qualified majority voting, and a mass of common market legislation instead of analysing whether its campaigns in Iraq are successful or not. It makes the eyes of its nominal citizens glaze over - and so it should. Yes, it's hard to inspire people to care about EU institutional reform - of course it would be easier to achieve further integration if European voters' hearts were stirred by the thought of the EU - naturally it would be more appealing to the citizen if the EU's position on world events sprang from some European vision of the future rather than being negotiated by a thousand committees - but it would be all wrong.

We do not need Ganley's "inspiring" Europe, and we do not need it because it is inspiring. We need a Europe that works - neither more, nor less.

toxic avenger wrote:

Hang on a minute, I'm a Catholic and I'm way to the left, but I still oppose abortion and euthanasia (which has nothing to do with religion). Does that make me a 'conservative' or 'authoritarian'? Nonsense.

He's right-wing because he's right-wing, not because he's a Catholic.

There is a strain of Catholic social teaching that I detect in Ganley's attitude to Europe, one that puts the individual at the centre, not the system, and one that stands for a reclaiming of Europe's 'Christian heritage', based on a belief that if we stand for nothing but relativism, those who oppose Western society have the upper hand in standing strongly for their own point of view. I seem to remember detecting it in the Libertas Charter when it was first published, but I might be reading too much into it...

I don't think you are at all. There has been a Christian Right" with its own parties in Europe going back a long way. FG would perhaps have been nearest we have in Ireland to it before its strange liberal morphing in the 70s and 80s. The Hibernian expresses those politics too.

In the times we live in when much of the European population is not Christian but agnostic or moslem, the Christian right sets itself not so much against "relativism" ( although I'm not sure if I understand 100% what you mean by that) as against co-existence with other beliefs and races. The Mouvement Pour La France for example, to which Ganley finds himself allied, is strongly opposed to Turkish entry to the EU on precisely these grounds and Ganley states "more Christian births" (conversion apparently won't do) to be Europe's most important issue.

toxic avenger wrote:

x

There is a strain of Catholic social teaching that I detect in Ganley's attitude to Europe, one that puts the individual at the centre, not the system, and one that stands for a reclaiming of Europe's 'Christian heritage', based on a belief that if we stand for nothing but relativism, those who oppose Western society have the upper hand in standing strongly for their own point of view. I seem to remember detecting it in the Libertas Charter when it was first published, but I might be reading too much into it...

You remember correctly. (From the Charter on the original Libertas .org site, no longer available) :

‘Having regard to Europe’s traditional values of liberty, truth, justice. peace, democracy, tolerance, reason, innovation, family, dignity and the rule of law, forged through our ancient history anchored in Greek democracy, the Roman Republic, the foundations of Christianity and the Enlightenment’


The Greeks, Romans and Christians version of Europe has disappeared in the new site:


‘Libertas stands for individual freedom, democracy and a culture embracing life. We stand for tolerance and for the belief that every individual has rights and limitless potential.’

(From the Libertas .eu , About us)

It is interesting to note the similarities in the preamble to the Charter of Fundamental Rights which was incorporated in the Lisbon Treaty:


'Conscious of its spiritual and moral heritage, the Union is founded on the indivisible, universal values of human dignity, freedom, equality and solidarity; it is based on the principles of democracy and the rule of law.

I didn't find reference to 'tolerance' but it states:

'while respecting the diversity of the cultures and traditions of the peoples of Europe '


The CFR also states:

'It [the EU] places the individual at the heart of its activities, by establishing the citizenship of the Union and by creating an area of freedom, security and justice.'

My impression from the original Libertas charter that the emphasis was on the property rights of the individual rather than citizenship but I can't find the rest of the original charter.

It seems from this cursory look that the notable differences are diversity and solidarity, but since I have no idea what a 'culture embracing life is' who knows?

candide wrote:

It seems from this cursory look that the notable differences are diversity and solidarity, but since I have no idea what a 'culture embracing life is' who knows?

It's a 'dog-whistle', if you know that expression. To the right constituency, you'll find it means no abortion - possibly no stem cells either.

Think "pro-life".

Aha, 'a dog-whistle'. Gottit. Handy phrase.

ibis wrote:

toxic avenger wrote:

Hang on a minute, I'm a Catholic and I'm way to the left, but I still oppose abortion and euthanasia (which has nothing to do with religion). Does that make me a 'conservative' or 'authoritarian'? Nonsense.

If you oppose abortion and other things on the basis of your Catholicism, then, yes, you're socially conservatively. If you oppose their availability in society on the basis of your Catholicism, then yes, that's authoritarian.

Congratulations!

Please note boldy words.

Not the only thing re-written from the original Libertas website - the bizarre anti--islamic tract by Ganley I think was tidied up a bit too.

I asked this question before, and I find it intriguing, but don't have the answer. Why does Ganley want to mask the real nature of his politics as Centrist, whilst sending subtle "dog whistles" that are recognised by the right ?

Try the internet time machine;
http://web.archive.org



http://web.archive.org/web/20080122115509/www.libertas.org/content/view/81/88/

There is a good op-ed in The Irish Times about the tendency of rich businessmen to enter politics, as part of their mid-life crisis: Libertas leader engaged on a vanity project This says a lot about the privatisation of politics in Ireland these days...

Quote :

Declan Ganley is merely the latest in a long line of self-made multimillionaires having fun with politics and enjoying the attention and celebrity status which it brings. Businessmen cum-political celebrities are the modern equivalent of the wealthy men of old who used to purchase titles in the House of Lords or buy up "rotten borough" seats in the House of Commons. Some had a genuine desire for public service: some had comprehensive political positions. Most, however, were motivated exclusively by ego.

My position is that it is more than ego for Ganley. It is all about branding his businesses, and making more money, which has been his overriding motivation since an early age, to the exclusion of education, politics, religion and nationality, which was attested to even by his own family, on the Prime Time program on Ganley. Incidentally, I haven't heard of any papers being filed in that threatened law-suit against RTE News yet.

In response to the several accusations here that we are helping Ganley by giving him free advertising on a couple of political web sites; it is not only inaccurate, but it seems to me to be a ploy to try and deter us from having informed discussions and performing detailed analysis of the Libertas machine. You only have to do a google news search, which returns about 1,500 news articles alone, leaving out blogs and web sites, to realise that the two sites here in question (p.ie and machine nation) are minuscule in comparison to the media Libertas generate. But you won't find the kind of analysis we perform here in hardly any of those 1,500 stories, for now anyway.

The Irish Times does get to the core issue of privatisation of politics, where Noel Whelan states:

Quote :

Frankly, I for one am not overly interested in where Ganley got his wealth. I am more concerned about what he is doing with his money in the Irish and European political system. This country now has a relatively rigorous - if still incomplete - system of checks and balances, setting limits on and requiring greater transparency about political donations and expenditure. These reforms were designed, in light of various tribunal revelations, to restrain the influence of wealthy donors in our politics. But they don't appear to adequately protect against the prospect of a very wealthy person using his or her own money to distort our political system.

cactus flower wrote:

Not the only thing re-written from the original Libertas website - the bizarre anti--islamic tract by Ganley I think was tidied up a bit too.

I asked this question before, and I find it intriguing, but don't have the answer. Why does Ganley want to mask the real nature of his politics as Centrist, whilst sending subtle "dog whistles" that are recognised by the right ?

For the standard reason - it allows Ganley to appeal to the same constituency as COIR (and indeed, work with people like COIR) without sounding like a fruitloop and upsetting the mainstream.

toxic avenger wrote:

Please note boldy words.

Apologies - however, even leaving out religion, an anti-abortion position is generally regarded as socially conservative, and preferring to outlaw abortion as opposed to simply refraining from it is an authoritarian position (I'm presuming, of course).

ibis wrote:

toxic avenger wrote:

Please note boldy words.

Apologies - however, even leaving out religion, an anti-abortion position is generally regarded as socially conservative, and preferring to outlaw abortion as opposed to simply refraining from it is an authoritarian position (I'm presuming, of course).

Without getting in to the abortion argument (I'm too old and tired...), if someone believes that it involves a human life, surely they are compelled to advocate outlawing it? So it isn't a matter of outlawing it being authoritarian or not, it's a matter of whether a belief that it is a human being involved is authoritarian or not? As I said, makes no sense to me. I don't think abortion is a matter of left or right (there are socialists against it, and monetarists for it) or authoritarian/libertarian. I think it's outside all that stuff.

toxic avenger wrote:

ibis wrote:

toxic avenger wrote:

Please note boldy words.

Apologies - however, even leaving out religion, an anti-abortion position is generally regarded as socially conservative, and preferring to outlaw abortion as opposed to simply refraining from it is an authoritarian position (I'm presuming, of course).

Without getting in to the abortion argument (I'm too old and tired...), if someone believes that it involves a human life, surely they are compelled to advocate outlawing it? So it isn't a matter of outlawing it being authoritarian or not, it's a matter of whether a belief that it is a human being involved is authoritarian or not? As I said, makes no sense to me. I don't think abortion is a matter of left or right (there are socialists against it, and monetarists for it) or authoritarian/libertarian. I think it's outside all that stuff.

Some of the considerations are scientific, some religious and some are rights-based and political.

Abortion debates that are political involve putting a weight on the rights of the mother, the father and the child or potential child. I would be inclined to think that a standpoint that put the same weight on the rights of a one week old embryo as on a four, five or six month old one was inherently religious. This kind of quiz is too basic to be able to pick up these things.

toxic avenger wrote:

ibis wrote:

toxic avenger wrote:

Please note boldy words.

Apologies - however, even leaving out religion, an anti-abortion position is generally regarded as socially conservative, and preferring to outlaw abortion as opposed to simply refraining from it is an authoritarian position (I'm presuming, of course).

Without getting in to the abortion argument (I'm too old and tired...), if someone believes that it involves a human life, surely they are compelled to advocate outlawing it? So it isn't a matter of outlawing it being authoritarian or not, it's a matter of whether a belief that it is a human being involved is authoritarian or not?

Not really - it's a question of being sufficiently certain that what you believe is right that you're willing to have it enshrined in law. You must be aware that people (like me,say) do not agree that it is equivalent to murder - and indeed, I would say that outlawing abortion leads to greater distress to human beings than does allowing it.

That's not to argue whether abortion is right or wrong - it's to point out that you are willing to override my disagreement because you know you're right. It's not about whether you think abortion is murder, but that you are sure - sure enough to ensure that while I may be able to argue my side of the debate, I am arguing for something that is illegal. That is an authoritarian position - "I am right, this is wrong, therefore we shall make it criminal to do it".

One can follow the same line on drugs - I know people who are convinced that drugs are wrong, and are therefore 100% behind keeping them illegal. It doesn't matter why they think drugs are wrong - what matters is that because they think drugs are wrong, they think they should be illegal.

toxic avenger wrote:

As I said, makes no sense to me. I don't think abortion is a matter of left or right (there are socialists against it, and monetarists for it) or authoritarian/libertarian. I think it's outside all that stuff.

Eh, well, hence the other axis, I think.

ibis wrote:

Not really - it's a question of being sufficiently certain that what you believe is right that you're willing to have it enshrined in law. You must be aware that people (like me,say) do not agree that it is equivalent to murder - and indeed, I would say that outlawing abortion leads to greater distress to human beings than does allowing it.

That's not to argue whether abortion is right or wrong - it's to point out that you are willing to override my disagreement because you know you're right. It's not about whether you think abortion is murder, but that you are sure - sure enough to ensure that while I may be able to argue my side of the debate, I am arguing for something that is illegal. That is an authoritarian position - "I am right, this is wrong, therefore we shall make it criminal to do it".

One can follow the same line on drugs - I know people who are convinced that drugs are wrong, and are therefore 100% behind keeping them illegal. It doesn't matter why they think drugs are wrong - what matters is that because they think drugs are wrong, they think they should be illegal.

Or on racism. Or on sexism. Is that authoritarian?

Is it true Ganley has a fleet of bomber planes?

ships maybe