Why Are the Establishment so Scared of Aontú?

At the official launch of the recent Aontú party, Leader Peadar Tóibín outlined his thoughts on the subject of immigration:

“There is no doubt there is a growing unease and concern among many people in Ireland around the issue of immigration,” Mr Tóibín said.

“Our view is very simple, there needs to be sustainable levels of immigration in this country, it needs to be managed,” he told The Irish Times.

“There needs to be some link between the capacity of the country and the numbers of people coming in, if there’s not there’s going to be hardship for indigenous and newcomers alike,” he said.

There’s no reason these views should cause any alarm. When contrasted with the populist positions articulated by politicians in places like Hungary and Italy this was mild stuff. It more closely resembles the placatory rhetoric you might hear in from politicians in UK or France, on the occasions when they want to look like they’re doing something about populist concerns. It’s also notable that he was speaking off the cuff in response to a journalist’s question rather than on stage as part of the official platform launch for the party – so his words in any case carried less weight. Finally, what he said was couched in the language of sustainability, meaning economics rather than cultural life. What Tóibín highlighted as being worthy of debate was not how the movement of people effects Irish identity but Irish prosperity, such as it currently is – jobs, house prices, hospital beds, school places, that sort of thing.

Tóibín himself has a spotless record of saying all the right things about immigration, having either voted in favour of or expressed support for a number of issues that are kryptonite to any restrictionist. This includes Ireland’s participation in the UN Migration Pact, the reintroduction of birthright citizenship (recently removed via referendum), and family reunification as part of immigration policy. The official Aontú party platform doesn’t reference those specific issues (that I can see) but contains much the same stuff (see picture below). If he’s to be the person who introduce a hard right line on immigration line to the Irish political scene that would be a turnabout.

So why did people act like that’s what he did?

Despite the mainstream nature of his words and record, the cream of Irish politics and media leapt to install a cordon-sanitaire around Tóibín and his irresponsible calls for limited, respectful public conversation on matters of historic importance. Here’s a sample:

What’s important to remember here is that Ireland is a village. It has a limited number of people in positions of this prominence (a senator, a member of parliament, a columnist for Ireland’s best selling newspaper, and a veteran former minister – there were many others). We have no ongoing critical conversation about social change in general or immigration in particular. When someone speaks on this subject and they get smacked down in this way, by these people, it’s noticed and it matters.

In recent months several commentators observed that, in a number of jurisdictions, space exists in the political marketplace for a parties of the economic left and cultural right. It’s true that research appears to indicate the space is there, in Ireland as in other places. But it’s also true that a base willing to vote on issues is only one part of the equation, and possibly not even the largest part. In order to make the breakthrough into a major party politics you need not only a message that appeals, but a medium through which to make the appeal, and establishment sponsorship in the form of an existing prominent political party to latch on to or leverage, or a nationally prominent figure to advance your agenda. It’s unlikely a breakthrough will be made without the latter. Eric Kaufmann’s book Whiteshift explains it well (in the context of American debates about immigration):

It’s reasonable to assume that, given the lingering vestiges of Catholicism and the speed of change we have experienced in the last 30 years, the base for such a party exists in Ireland. Social and alternative media provide the avenue to express dissenting views. The single largest factor that has prevented it’s political expression is the lack of a prominent insider (such as an elected official) to advocate for it. Whether they understand it consciously, members of the cultural elite in Ireland sense this, and it puts their hysterical reaction towards Tóibín into perspective. The reaction is an attempt to squeeze the space for conversation about political issues, and warn off any politician interested in talking about the topic.

It’s one thing for Leo Varadkar to speak of a sustainable immigration policy – he has shown through his actions that whatever that means, it doesn’t mean restriction. Leo is reliable. But a new entrant to the political market, intending to run on platform of social conservatism? Even if they have shown no appetite to speak disparagingly of immigration they might find when they do, a deep and entirely untapped market for those opinions exists.

To an extent this was what happened with the Peter Casey incident. People were apparently so delighted at someone in a position of public prominence expressing a relatively normal sentiment usually deemed out of bounds by our moral betters that he went from 1% in the Presidential polls to 23% essentially overnight. Tóibín’s remarks are qualitatively different from Casey’s. Tóibín himself is not running for national office and therefore it’s hard to judge whether he will undergo a similar bounce to the one Casey experienced. But as a result of his broaching this issue there are people listening to Aontú, and willing to vote for them, that weren’t before. This is exactly what the reaction to his critics fear. The people in charge learned a lesson from Casey, if no one else did.

Is there anything else that explains the speed with which Tóibín was rebuked? There’s interesting question of whether the response to him was coordinated. Is it time to tweet #whofundsyou at Neale Richmond? Fun as that would be, it’s more likely that the cultural establishment are just desperate to show that they are willing soldiers in the war for all that’s good and proper, rather than that there is a sinister puppetmaster at work. Our cultural leaders have jettisoned our identity as the Most Pious nation in favour of Most Liberal, but it’s still just piety, and still comes with the insistence that our most retrograde members not embarrass us in front of the rest of the community. Sure aren’t we Europe’s star pupil? Their best boy? “And here you are showing us up in front of the whole church. I was mortified”, as your mother might have said. For all their modernity, the most vocal members of right-on Ireland are just the curtain-twitching Parish Priests of their day, hiding in the bushes to see who’s holding hands on the way home from the dance.

Regardless of how they are perceived by their enemies, do Aontú represent a genuine choice for the culturally conservative voter who is animated by something beyond abortion? Certainly Aontú’s official party platform and Tóibín’s pronouncements to date indicate not. But it may be the case that right-wing voters in Ireland will have overlook individual issues such a bad voting history when deciding whether a particular party is worth voting for. The current other choices for such voters include Irexit, Renua and The National Party. Aontú have an advantage over these because they have an already elected representative as leader, and therefore already meet in part the requirements for breaking through to the mainstream. Tóibín’s views on immigration may be abhorrent to some but are fairly middle of the road by Irish politician standards – he’s only saying what most other politicians in the country think. So from an immigration perspective he represents nothing more than a continuation of the status quo, rather than a deterioration of it. He’s no worse than what you’re getting with FF or FG. Basically, the choice for someone unsettled from the main parties as a result of cultural change is so slim that the time may have come to roll the dice on a party who can be turned to your way of thinking – either consciously because they’ll have seen there’s votes to be had, or unconsciously, via entryism. This is where we’re at, it seems.