Sunday and other stupid statements this week

guestposter

Oct 1

All contributions and examples welcome.

Lucinda Creighton looks back to some gentler kinder time in politics (as well as offering some neat bothsidesism) in the following from the Business Post this morning:

This cuts to the core of the polarisation of American politics and increasingly Western democracy. Partisanship is now a key feature, with voters pitched against each other and increasingly alarmist narratives being propagated by each party about the other side.

This is driving the politics of government shutdowns and the deep tensions what make compromise almost impossible. Neither side trusts the other, and scandals around high ranking political figures such as Trump and Menendez, simply entrench the bogeyman narratives which characterise the system.

Newton Emerson offers the following:

In reality, powersharing requires a degree of consensus that often leads to the path of least resistance. When everyone is in power, nobody gets the credit for difficult decisions. But they might still get some blame, so the motivation is to agree nothing contentious. The result is a policy such as Going for Growth, because growth is good and popular, while fining farms and factories is hard. Neglect and complacency – the sins of omission at Lough Neagh – are further effects of almost everyone being in power all the time.

The SDLP dropped out of the executive last year due to seat losses, becoming Stormont's official opposition. It is attempting an Assembly recall to debate Lough Neagh but the Executive parties are ignoring it – the form of opposition guaranteed by powersharing's rules is too small.

Devolution had another brief golden age in 2016, when the DUP and Sinn Féin found themselves alone in office and decided to make a virtue of necessity, presenting themselves as responsible partners, while others had walked away from difficult decisions. The RHI soon revealed this to be a sham, but the spin alone showed the potential for a proper government-and-opposition model.

Or the DUP might just walk away for good.

Here's a definition of 'non-ideological pragmatists' - but note the curious last two sentences:

This debate has yet to fully rear its head in Ireland, but when it does the Government's approach to the question ought to be predictable. A state that is hardly anxious about intervention – as we saw with Covid-19 travel bans and lengthy lockdowns – should really have no awkwardness about banning an obviously dangerous dog. If Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil wish to fashion themselves as clear-eyed, non-ideological pragmatists – free from emotive bias, motivated as evidence-based policymakers – then the American bully XL is the perfect litmus test. The central tension of liberal politics – as exposed during the pandemic – has found a new front. The Government can opt for law and order, banning and enforcing the ban of the aggressive breed. Or it can advocate for something more complicated: that to live in a liberal society naturally comes bearing risks. A cursory glance at the data suggests the answer is a very straightforward one.

What to make of this from an Independent editorial this week:

Those who feared that a vote of no confidence in Garda Commissioner Drew Harris might signal increased militancy by rank-and-file members of the force have been proven correct.

It was a rash move for members of An Garda Síochána, which has a long and distinguished reputation as an unarmed police force, to hold an albeit metaphorical gun to the head of its chief in a row over rosters.

And how about this example of hyperbole from the same stable?