Using Wiki as your reference point pretty much bars you from any debate as lets face it you could state on Wiki that DeV was married to Maud Gonne and Niall of The Nine Hostages was a political prisoner and its accepted.Originally Posted by QuizMaster
We are only 90 years old for christs sake. The fact is we have had plenty of important political figures in our short history but we have yet to have one that can be categorised as very good.
The fact that they were Taoiseach or Ministers makes them important but none of them have been on the inspirational or high achievement level.
. When people are splitting hairs over a 'De' or 'de', its comical, anyway the myths against wikipedia bar No one from contributing, the fact remains Wikipedia is largely, mostly accurate & the mistakes/ deliberate lie inserted are usually taken within a short time.
Back to the original question, the opportunity & salary careers of Sean Lemass & T.K Whitaker who simply opened Ireland up to the highest bidders (good) but with the economic dependency & consequences, would have differed greatly if a single-minded poet & detemined Trade unionist hadn't pushed an indifferent island foward. The two men were Padraig Pearse & James Connolly, part of a minority movement that was angered into a majority.
Regardless of they caused progression or regression, the 'nation' moved a different direction
Not DeV. He was responsible for creating the many negative aspects of Ireland and in that sense was important but he was far from the most.
My heart says Michael Collins but what he could have done is pure speculation. We will never know what that great patriot could have achieved because his life was cut so tragically short.
Most important politiciann was WT Cosgrave followed reasonably closely by Sean Lemass.
WT Cosgrave led the government that founded the state. He cemented our independance from Britain from 1922 to 1932 and established a strong democracy that has not since faltered. Cosgrave and his government shaped the state from its very founding.
Lemass was the man whose government brought us from an archaic backwater to the thriving modern state we are today.
Cosgrave shaped the state and Lemass allowed it to modernise.
DeValera achieved nothing concrete in comparison and yes, I read the OP post and yes, I am a student of History. De Valera could talk the talk but got little of any substance done. Sure wasn't it Fine Gael's Costello who declared an actual Republic and pulled us out of the Commonwealth?
Economic Left/Right: 0.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 0.67
The republic means less & less to ordinary people if its property & resources are carved up by banks
Its amusing to read the various Blueshirts trying to convince themselves that either (a) Dev achieved nothing, or (b) Dev achieved loads but it was all bad. Make up your minds at least.
Like any man, Dev had his failings, but he contributed a huge amount to Ireland. If nothing else, he gave us the 1937 constitution, an excellent document that is still relevant today.
One thing that annoys me about the criticism of Dev is the suggestion that he somehow single-handedly imposed conservative Catholicism on Ireland, and that were it not for him we would have lived in a secular liberal paradise. It's ridiculous. Ireland was a conservative society, Dev was manifestation of that. Indeed, he often defended democracy against the more right-wing elements of Catholicism. There may have been a small liberal element in Dublin, but most of the country was happy to embrace the church. Certainly, FG were no less committed to bowing the knee to the hierarchy than FF, and arguably more so.
Finally, anti-FF types quite rightly criticise the current FF party for its greedy attachment to business. Yet frequently they mock Dev for his asceticism. Whatever you may think of Dev and his era FF, he was a man, and it was a party, of principles. To be honest, FF and the country could do with a bit more Dev morality, and a little less Lemass-style pragmatism
That simply is not the case. I certainly hope that your comments here are simply based on complete ignorance of the War of Independance, the Civil War and the founding of the Irish State.
I'm not going to get anywhere with a bunch of brainwashed people on an internet forum but I would plead anyone who agrees with Borntorum's view of DeV to read some history. Even "Judging DeV", which is written by a De Valera apologist, would give you a more sensible view of the man.
Economic Left/Right: 0.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 0.67
Go to hell with your smarmy 'brainwashed' bullsh1t. Personally, I think much of the criticism of Dev is unreasoned right-on groupthink, but I accept that there are plenty of negatives to his history. Most people would agree that his behaviour in the early 20s was not to his credit at all. If he had died at the same time as Collins, there is no doubt that his record would be negative. But he contributed much to the state in bringing the vast majority of republicans into the democratic fold, and in his actions as Taoiseach
The argument is too often partisan ('I didn't like what he did therefore he isn't important'), acknowledging a person's impact is not tacit endorsement.
There is no argument, not even the beginnings of one. De Valera was the towering figure of 20th Century Irish politics, he virtually was Ireland to the outside world for a large section of it. Arguments about the executions and internment of the 1940s, the role in the civil war, the economy, the Irish Press, whatever, don't dent that.
If you're going to then go with who came second, I'd personally choose from a list including Collins and Griffith, for their role in creating and consolidating the 26 county state, Cosgrave for a pretty herculean task in ensuring its survival and in not succumbing to the temptation to oppose de Valera's succession, or James Craig (yes, they exist you know) for his role in the creation and maintenance of the six county statelet. The case for Lemass is overstated, the one for Reynolds is simply laughable (Haughey comes a long way before him).
WT Cosgrave has to come second, in my opinion. He was a very conservative politician, and often that can be a bad thing, but it was exactly what the country needed in 1922. Too often newly independent countries have descended into despotism and chaos. There was no reason why that couldnt have happened here. Cosgrave was sensible and level-headed enough to transpose the structures of British democracy into an Irish system, without attempting to rip everything to pieces and dream it up all over again (as another, more megalomaniacal Irishman put it some years later).
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote