American in Ireland


Elected: Michael D Higgins - Ireland's most anti-American President

Posted on Friday, October 28, 2011 at 12:58 PM

RSS


Recent Posts

Archives

submit to reddit

Ireland's 9th president -
Michael D Higgins
Today Ireland elected Michael D Higgins as president. Higgins, who lived and worked in America 40 years ago, is the most anti-American president Ireland has ever had.

As an American living in Ireland it has been clear to me that since the early 1980s Higgins has been among the most outspoken opponents of American policy in Ireland. He's been at the forefront of organized protests and rallies directed at America for 30 years.

In the 1980s it was President Reagan that riled Higgins. During Reagan's short visit in June 1984 Higgins was a keen participant in the protests against Reagan at Shannon Airport, in Galway and then outside the Dáil (parliament) in Dublin when Reagan was speaking there.

During the 90s Higgins was opposed to the Gulf War and  opposed various aspects of America's defense policies during the Clinton years.

Flash-forward to the Bush years. In the run-up to the Iraq war, Higgins was with the majority of Irish people in opposing the war, but he went further than most here when he declared that the American military was going to "wage war on a civilian population." Visions of American war crimes came easily to him. When the fighting started he denounced the Irish government's policy on allowing American troop planes to land and refuel at Shannon.

While he hasn't been a fan of a number of America's presidents, he has allied himself with some of America's enemies. He has been an admirer of Fidel Castro's regime in Cuba, cited Castro favorably in the Dáil and simultaneously demanded that America lift its embargo on trade with Cuba.

He also courted Sandinista leader Daniel Ortega. Higgins was also a supporter of the Sandinista revolution in Nicaragua and in 1989 he hosted Nicaragua's Sandinista President Daniel Ortega in his own home. In early 2003 he visited Iraq in order to get the Baathist perspective before the war had begun. In 2004 he took part in a candlelight vigil to mourn the death of Yasser Arafat.

Before you worry that Ireland has gone off the deep end with Higgins, there are a few caveats: (1) a majority of people were totally dissatisfied with options on offer during the election and Higgins' win was more a rejection of the others and an embrace of him and his views; (2) Higgins only polled around a third of the electorate, but gained a majority on transfers from the other candidates; and (3) the position he's won is mostly ceremonial with no influence on policy.
____________
Read More:

Micheal Daniel Higgins, the man who will be Ireland’s new president

Irish Diaspora has spoken - vote Michael D Higgins as Ireland’s president

True Irish welcome for U.S. troops at wedding party
_____________

The last factor should mean that if Higgins does his job properly we'll hardly notice that he's in office during the next seven years. Higgins' is entitled to his views, which are to the left of the Irish population, but as President he's not in a position to make or even influence policy so his views shouldn't matter.

Yet, over the past 20 years Presidents Robinson and McAleese have managed to expand the role of the office beyond what was ever imagined when the constitution was first passed in 1937. One of the new roles of the President is leading trade and cultural delegations on trips abroad. Mary McAleese has made many such visits to different parts of America, where she never put a foot wrong.

Will Higgins be able to follow suit? I'm doubtful.

If Higgins were to go on a visit to America he would have to temper his reactions to those who hold opposing views to his. I'm not sure he can do this.

Last year Higgins turned the air blue during what had been a robust, but good-natured live radio debate between himself and Boston talk show host Michael Graham. The discussion ranged over a number of topics and Higgins got more and more wound up. Eventually he went off on Graham, urging him to support a national health care initiative for America and to "be proud to be a decent American rather than just a w****r". Whatever you may think of Graham's views they are not outside the American mainstream and Higgins couldn't cope with them.

The government would do well to take heed of Higgins' contempt for some aspects of the American people. An explosion like the one at Graham during a trade mission might cause the kind of upset that would drive potential jobs away from Ireland. In addition, his views on Israel might cause consternation in other quarters.

Overall, it would probably be a good thing if the next seven years did not include any Irish presidential visit to America.


111 comments

Next Previous Page 2 of 8 pages
Higgins's radio statement against Michael Graham was that he was engaging in "the radio of hysterical ignorance" (which was true) and he urged Graham to "be proud to be a decent American rather than being just a wanker whipping up fear" (give the whole quote, "Yank"). Given Graham's uninformed and inflammatory remarks during the broadcast (he has admitted to being "loud and obnoxious"), Higgins's statement was apt, and received a loud approving cheer and applause from the live audience. Context is more true than selective and partial quotation, "Yank".
This is such an ignorant article. President Higgins is not anti-American and has often spoken of his love of Americans and how much fulfillment he enjoyed during his time living in the United States, and how decent he thought ordinary Americans were. He has criticized some US government foreign policies, but that is not anti-Americanism; that is opposition to some ugly actions by American leaders, which have been vocally opposed by many Americans themselves. Are they also anti-American? Perhaps "the Yank" is McCarthyish enough to believe that of his fellow citizens.
Another thought: a lot of these responses seem to be school essays. They suggest that 1: US foreign policy should be consistent over decades, like a debater; US policy should be true to some ideal THEY to attribute to America; US policy is the property of the world, including Ireland. Actually, the US is fairly moral compared with other world powers, but if Ireland thinks it has any say, it is dead wrong.
Forthright article that you must have realized would be met with strident responses. I agree that opposed does equal anti. I also agree that Mr. Higgins should probably stay out of this country, unless he really means to make Americans aware of how his country feels about America. It does surprise me that the Irish don't have an American sensibility about "speaking their minds." You may give your opinion, but what you say will influence how Americans respnd to you.
Forthright essay, in what you must have realized would be strident opposition. I is interesting that your correspondents feel very free to critisize US foreign policy and yet object that that is not being "anti-American." you are corrct to argue that opposed=anti.
Isn't it strange that a person who stands up for the poor and oppressed is labelled as Anti-American. When I was young and going to school I was taught that the American revolution was a beacon of hope for the dispossessed suffering throughout the world. Is this changed or have we another example of a right wing American slinging mud. I would suggest to you sir that you are anti-American. You are against fairness and equality and everything America is supposed to stand for.
There are free radicals and extremists in every religion, however, Islam does teach that all who doesn't accept this religion should be put to death. As for the Anti-American president, of course half the United States does not agree with many of the policies and that would be why there is such rebellion arising, but I don't agree with you generalizing all Americans in to your ignorance either, you ass.
Your personal insults are like fading flowers tragic.
Mary McAleese will be sorely missed.
Dear SeanOMelbourne, I'm afraid you are now simply being a silly boy. There really is no point in continuing this with you. As somebody once said to me, there is no point in trying to reason with dyed-in-the-wool left wing liberals - they never try to look at the other side and once they realise their argument is lost, they start shouting insults. Now, I will NOT be responding to any more of your comments, although I understand that you will be unable to refrain from one last blast. Take care, Éamonn.
Ennis85 the Israeli state is a terrorist state.UNESCO by a huge majority accepted Palestine as an independent state,you are in the minority read and weep.
There are extremist and bigots attached to every religion. you maybe capable of reading,I doubt if you are capable understanding the written word.
I see the Religion of Peace was at it again yesterday, in Paris. In addition, that is, to its ongoing peace extermination of Christian Copts and others on a daily basis. I await the "moderates" condemnation ............?.....?. . . . ? Éamonn.
Come on SeanoMelbourne, get a grip. I thought this was a board for some sense? You lived in a Muslim country and found it "free and secular", whereas you pick out the MOST extreme instances of other religions. And YOU accuse ME of BIGOTRY! I really do not like aggression and arguing, but it really is time to read your own posts before you press the "comment" button. BTW, you STILL have not told me what I "editorialised" - and maybe you can point out for me just where I accused ALL of Islam? Best Wishes, Éamonn.
"Islam is no different to Christianity or Judaism" You know this is something I really am sick of hearing. That all religions are alike, that they all teach the same thing. I got news for ya, they don't. Despite what all the diversity trainers tell you Islam is not a religion of peace. Of course I acknowledge that the old testament is full of violence(God wipes out everyone except for Noah, etc) But he doesn't seem to direct it so much at outsiders. Jesus taught turn the other cheek whereas Mohammad taught that Non-believers were lower life forms and to kill them wherever you may find them and subjugate them. I also laugh at your attempt to find some moral equivalence between the state of Israel and Islamic autocracies like Iran and Saudi Arabia. "Exteme Jews hold office in Israel " Well you know what? Arab members of the Israeli parliament have often publicly expressed support for the "struggle" of the Palestinian terrorist organizations against Israel. They have sometimes expressed this support while visiting states at war with Israel, such as Syria and the Palestinian National Authority. One Arab member of the Israeli parliament urged Palestinians to kill Israeli soldiers but spare Israeli civilians. Another assured his Jewish colleagues in the Knesset (Israel's parliament) that "we will drive you [the Jewish people] out the way we did the Turks and the Crusaders before you." Yet they are not charged with any crime, remain in the Israeli parliament and continue to receive their salaries from the state. Oh and by the way how do those poor downtrodden Palestinians treat their homosexuals in comparison to Israel? Do they let them have Gay pride parades, have civil right laws that protect LGBT people from discrimination or harassment and allow consensual same-sex sexual acts?
Next Previous Page 2 of 8 pages




Log into IrishCentral with your Facebook account


or sign-in directly

E-Mail:
Password:
 Remember me Forgot my password
Not a member? Register Now!
print this article Print
email this articleE-mail