• It has come to our attention that some users may have been "banned" when they tried to change their passwords after the site was hacked due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software. This would have occurred around the end of February and does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you believe you were affected by this, please contact a staff member or use the Contact us link at the bottom of any forum page.

Irish/American comparisons


Fr. Hank Tree

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 1, 2007
Messages
5,907
If one looks at post-independent Ireland and post-independent United States, the simularities between the immediate political parties and ideologies of those parties are quite compelling.

For example, CnaG could be compared to the Federalist party. Both parties believed in strong national government and were anxious to restore law & order, the federalists being opposed to the French Revolution and CnaG opposed to extremist republicanism, during the civil war and after the murder of Kevin O'Higgins. Both parties paid little attention to grass roots organisation and worked from the top down.

The federalists "believed that rule by a well-educated elite would serve all interests, and appealed to merchants, bankers, lawyers, editors, landowners, and industrialists."

Did CnaG view government this way?

Conversely, Fianna Fáil could be compared to the Republicans and Jeffersonian democracy. Their support was greatest amongst the working classes, particularly the yeomanry in America and the Cottier or Labourer or small farmer in Ireland. They both held a common distrust of government, financiers, bankers and merchants. Whereas Federalists believed in government of the best and brightest, Republicans emphasised government by the people.

Your thoughts?
 

Respvblica

Active member
Joined
Oct 13, 2006
Messages
212
Fr. Hank Tree said:
If one looks at post-independent Ireland and post-independent United States, the simularities between the immediate political parties and ideologies of those parties are quite compelling.

For example, CnaG could be compared to the Federalist party. Both parties believed in strong national government and were anxious to restore law & order, the federalists being opposed to the French Revolution and CnaG opposed to extremist republicanism, during the civil war and after the murder of Kevin O'Higgins. Both parties paid little attention to grass roots organisation and worked from the top down.

The federalists "believed that rule by a well-educated elite would serve all interests, and appealed to merchants, bankers, lawyers, editors, landowners, and industrialists."

Did CnaG view government this way?

Conversely, Fianna Fáil could be compared to the Republicans and Jeffersonian democracy. Their support was greatest amongst the working classes, particularly the yeomanry in America and the Cottier or Labourer or small farmer in Ireland. They both held a common distrust of government, financiers, bankers and merchants. Whereas Federalists believed in government of the best and brightest, Republicans emphasised government by the people.

Your thoughts?
Its interesting because its a struggle that is repeated throughout history in other countries as well. I suppose many of the american founding fathers were conscious of the fact that they were founding the first true republic of the modern era and might have been conscious of the fact that populists courting the people may lead to a type of demagogary which in turn leads to a dictatorship(as had happened in ancient history). Then of course there was Plato's utopian model of philosopher kings that would have influenced some as well.
In Ireland, on the otherhand, CnG were I think more limited as they hadnt really achieved a fully autonomous republic as the americans had. That the state did not fall into complete anarchy and could pay its way was about all that could concern them. They inherited a class-ridden unequal system from the british and followed the path of least resistance as there probably wasnt enough energy to establish a fully formed Republic. All resources went into providing basic services.

In 2007 and despite Devs 1937 constitution, its still UNFINISHED business.
 

Destiny's Soldier

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 6, 2007
Messages
2,365
Thought provoking stuff Fr Hank.

The Bankers got control of the US. And the Federal Reserve loan money to the US GOvt for a profit. Which is quite shocking. The Fed however prints money and doesnt tell how much it prints in a year. As long as the US has control of the worlds Oil, its Dollar is worth something.

Kennedy wrote an executive order to shut down the fed and we know what happened to him.

In the US it is Constitutionally illegal to tax a persons labour but the IRS will put you in jail
if you challenge them on it.

What worth is the US constitution if it is just ignored.
But across the globe what is a political party anymore? A spin on policy and a media savy leader.
 

caulfield-the-yank

Active member
Joined
Jun 9, 2007
Messages
261
Yes, the resemblances you identify were there, but I would not take that too far. [As you will see, however, I gradually convinced myself that the comparison is better than I tought when I began this reply.]

In terms of policies, DeValera's protectionism during the Economic War, although perhaps only incidentally intended as a supposed means of fostering domestic industries, smacked of Federalist policy.

Another distinction: Jeffersonians were a party of laissez faire in their early days. I would not so characterize FF of the 1930s.

Further distinction: The Federalists and their progeny (National Republicans and Whigs) favored expensive public works programs (roads and railroads), while Jeffersonians and their progeny (the Jacksonians) opposed them.

Another distinction: Jeffersonians were party of both small and big farmers. The former, like FF, true. The latter, though, more like the Farmers Party and CnaG.

On the other hand, the Economic War (including protectionism) was meant to be "in your face" to the former colonial power, Britain. In that sense, it was very unlike the Federalists.

You know (I am really thinking out loud now), in support of your comparison, the US had the Jay Treaty in 1795. That was negotiated by the Federalists as a supposed solution for British meddling and lingering claims arising out of the former relationship, and was denounced by Jeffersonian Republicans as craven capitulation.

Distinction: Things such as the Jay Treaty never led to Civil War.

But comparison: Such unpopular measures did foster the mythology that such obvious patriots as Washington and Adams were somehow crypto-monarchists and Anglophiles.

This made these Federalists very resentful, but the more they tried to deny it, the more they sounded defensive, the more ill-advised some of their remarks became, the more the charge seemed to stick, and the more popular the Jeffersonians became. (Hmmm...) This led to the eventual electoral dominance of the Jeffersonians, and the extinction (followed by regrouping) of the old Federalists.

The change of power did not sit well with the Old Guard. During Jefferson's Embargo (ha! yes, that WAS very much like Dev's Economic War, a sort of cutting off of the nose to spite one's face), then later when there actually was war against Britain (1812-1815), some Federalists, the same people who had previously called the Republicans Jacobins, actually spoke of disunion and extra-legal resistance (I wonder what kind of shirts the Essex Junto wore!). For years afterwards, even when the Federalists had regrouped (first as National Republicans, then as Whigs), the political heirs of Jefferson would throw "Essex Junto" in their face, as a form of invective.

You know, your comparison is sounding better to me.

(I wonder what pamphlet of the day has a title closest to "Do Federalists Hate America and Americans?")

Of course, there were also some Republicans who thought that when Jefferson took power from the Federalists, he eventually sold out Republican principles. If Jefferson is Dev, who is John Randolph of Roanoake?

You know, here is one big difference between early years of US and of Irish Free State that accounts for a lot:

Both parties believed that US independence dated from July 4, 1776, and was justified by specific grievances that began roughly 13 years before that. No one claimed, however, that until the American colonists chose to exercise their natural right to declare independence, they were other than colonists or other than British subjects. You thus did not have the almost theological disagreements about the ontology of the American Republic, of the kind that characterized events of 1921 and after in Ireland.
 

scotusone

Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2006
Messages
88
Destiny's Soldier said:
Thought provoking stuff Fr Hank.

The Bankers got control of the US. And the Federal Reserve loan money to the US GOvt for a profit. Which is quite shocking. The Fed however prints money and doesnt tell how much it prints in a year. As long as the US has control of the worlds Oil, its Dollar is worth something.

Kennedy wrote an executive order to shut down the fed and we know what happened to him.

In the US it is Constitutionally illegal to tax a persons labour but the IRS will put you in jail
if you challenge them on it.

What worth is the US constitution if it is just ignored.
But across the globe what is a political party anymore? A spin on policy and a media savy leader.


16th amendment introduced to allow for income tax
 

Insider2007

Active member
Joined
Apr 27, 2007
Messages
213
scotusone said:
Destiny's Soldier said:
Thought provoking stuff Fr Hank.

The Bankers got control of the US. And the Federal Reserve loan money to the US GOvt for a profit. Which is quite shocking. The Fed however prints money and doesnt tell how much it prints in a year. As long as the US has control of the worlds Oil, its Dollar is worth something.

Kennedy wrote an executive order to shut down the fed and we know what happened to him.

In the US it is Constitutionally illegal to tax a persons labour but the IRS will put you in jail
if you challenge them on it.

What worth is the US constitution if it is just ignored.
But across the globe what is a political party anymore? A spin on policy and a media savy leader.


16th amendment introduced to allow for income tax

:oops: You mean DS actually has his facts wrong? Well shock'n'horror!!! Given by the bizarre paranoia of his posts it is a miracle if he actually gets anything right. :p
 

Talk Back

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
5,749
If one looks at post-independent Ireland and post-independent United States, the simularities between the immediate political parties and ideologies of those parties are quite compelling.

For example, CnaG could be compared to the Federalist party. Both parties believed in strong national government and were anxious to restore law & order, the federalists being opposed to the French Revolution and CnaG opposed to extremist republicanism, during the civil war and after the murder of Kevin O'Higgins. Both parties paid little attention to grass roots organisation and worked from the top down.

The federalists "believed that rule by a well-educated elite would serve all interests, and appealed to merchants, bankers, lawyers, editors, landowners, and industrialists."

Did CnaG view government this way?

Conversely, Fianna Fáil could be compared to the Republicans and Jeffersonian democracy. Their support was greatest amongst the working classes, particularly the yeomanry in America and the Cottier or Labourer or small farmer in Ireland. They both held a common distrust of government, financiers, bankers and merchants. Whereas Federalists believed in government of the best and brightest, Republicans emphasised government by the people.

Your thoughts?
If one looks at post-independent Ireland (?) and post-independent United States
Jesus wept.
 

Jim Car

Well-known member
Joined
May 19, 2014
Messages
2,723
US had a much greater commitment to a philosophic idea then we in Ireland. That being the commitment to individual liberty and freedom as well as limited government. Very different to the Irish and European approach in general. It should be obvious but for some it seems like it needs to be said that the US is not Europe and most Europeans don't understand the philosophical underpinnings that brought about the development of the US, hence the reason you always have europeans and Irish (despite how well we have done over there) pontificating about what the US lacks and doesn't have but who don't actually understand the reason Americans want it that way. And who always seem to forget that when there is migration between Europe and the US it has only ever gone in one direction despite the US supposedly being such a bad place to live ect.
 
Last edited:

Jim Car

Well-known member
Joined
May 19, 2014
Messages
2,723
16th amendment introduced to allow for income tax
The fact they had to introduce a constitutional amendment to allow for taxation, shows how big a difference there is between us. Totally different philosophical approach to the idea of the functions and role of the state and government. In many ways america was the only true revolution. Others revolutions simple replaced absolute monarchy with absolute stateism, or replaced a Tsar with a red Tsar. The Americans saw government (what ever form it takes) as the problem and actually tried and successfully to a point managed to limit and bind it in a manner that few other countries have been able to replicate.
 
Top