What now for the Catholic Church? Obama’s reelection and schools among questions that need to be answered

Cardinal Timothy Dolan

When the Academy Award nominations are announced on January 10, Mea Maxima Culpa may or may not be one of the five films up for Best Documentary.

The film, about the sexual abuse horrors Wisconsin’s Reverend Lawrence Murphy is accused of, was on a shortlist of 15 top documentaries back in December.

Either way, the film directed by Alex Gibney has already made a troubling case not only against Murphy, but the Vatican as well.

With the New Year upon us, and a grueling election which grappled with tough religious questions behind us, it is probably time to ask -- what is the future of the Catholic Church in America?

Given the revelations in Mea Maxima Culpa, given the election results and the ongoing restructuring of Catholic schools across the U.S., it is surprising fewer people have not raised this question.

After President Obama’s reelection, for example, most commentators argued that it was time for the Republican Party to take a long look in the mirror.

But what about the church and the election? New York Cardinal Timothy Dolan was on the offensive much of the electoral season, denouncing the Obama administration on several fronts.

Read more: New York Times surprised over Cardinal Dolan's support for beatification of Dorothy Day

Irish Catholic pundits such as Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity, meanwhile, suggested the election was nothing short of a referendum on religious freedom.  A vote for Obama, many argued, was a vote against the Catholic Church.

Yet according to most polling data, Catholics supported Obama by a slim majority. (Though it appears that Irish and other white Catholics supported Mitt Romney.)

Either way, given the lengths vocal church leaders went to steer Catholics away from Obama -- Bishop Daniel Jenky of Peoria likened the Obama administration to those who mocked Jesus -- these numbers do not bode well.

And while it is tempting to say the church is engaged in spiritual rather than political matters, to pretend the church is an apolitical institution is to simply ignore reality.

But politics is only part of what church leaders need to be thinking about.

The true cost of the damage inflicted by the sex abuse scandal.  The purpose -- and  price -- of Catholic education. The dwindling number of priests.

The future of the church hinges on these and other messy, weighty questions.

Irish American scholar Patrick J. McCloskey offered some interesting thoughts this Monday in The New York Times. “Catholic parochial education is in crisis,” McCloskey, and his co-author Joseph Claude Harris, declared in an op-ed piece entitled “Catholic Education, In Need of Salvation.”

They note that Catholic schools have long played a key role for the Irish and other immigrants in America, but are no longer playing that role.

One reason?  Tuition has risen sharply, though not because church revenues have fallen off.

“Despite the sex-abuse scandals and two recessions, church revenue...grew to $11.9 billion in 2010, an inflation-adjusted increase of $2.2 billion from a  decade earlier,” they write.

“Yet educational subsidies have fallen; the church now pays at least 12.6 percent of parochial elementary school costs, down from  63 percent in 1965.”

One possible solution?  Given the falling numbers of priests, McCloskey suggests deacons be given more power.  This, however, would in all likelihood eventually  lead to a “married priesthood.”

“Celibacy should be a sacrifice offered freely, not an excuse for institutional  suicide,” McCloskey writes.

Good luck convincing Pope Benedict -- or, for that matter, Sean Hannity -- of that. But it’s pretty clear something has got to give.

Read more: Cardinal Dolan congratulates Bishop Dennis Sullivan on appointment as bishop of Camden

Something spiritual, yes, but also financial, educational and cultural.  It’s tempting to say it’s time for another Vatican Council, like those meetings held between 1962 and 1965, to take up these profound questions.

Rather than sit and wait for that, perhaps the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops need to confront this moment head on and hold some sort of council of their own. 

If for no other reason, then to shed light on the many good things the church still does. For all of its flaws, we would be a poorer nation without a vibrant, relevant Catholic Church. 

Right now, that does not seem to be what the future holds.

(Contact “Sidewalks” at tdeignan.blogspot.com or tomdeignan@earthlink.net.)

Prediction for the New Year - what the world can expect from the Republicans, Catholic Church and more in 2013

Rick Santorum

It's that time of year again.  Assuming all those folks were actually wrong about that Mayan end-of-the-world thing, a new year is upon us.

Let’s gaze into our crystal ball and see what 2013 might have in store for the Irish in America.

First off, we can expect the Republican Party to make some changes. We’ve already seen them make some overtures towards immigrants, in the hopes that their party won’t soon become - you know - extinct. So why not expect more in that direction? 

Next year, the Republican Party will move to banish the constitutional requirement that the president actually be born in the U.S.  (In their minds that was already broken by Barack Obama, right?)  The GOP will then look to nominate an undocumented immigrant for the White House in 2016.

If that seems far-fetched, keep in mind that some people right now actually believe that Republicans will give in when it comes to the gun nuts in this country.

Speaking of institutions facing extinction, what’s in store for the American Catholic Church in 2013? 

First, we can expect the hierarchy to get it over with and excommunicate every pesky nun currently serving in the U.S.  Those ladies have already caused far too much trouble with their yapping about following the example set by Jesus when it comes to love and tolerance. 

Odd how the nuns have also managed to avoid becoming embroiled in, like, even one single sex abuse case.

Rick Santorum, meanwhile, having failed to ride his impeccable Catholic cred to the White House, will announce his candidacy for Pope.  When Santorum hears papal policy regarding the impoverished and oppressed of the world, however, he will announce he is instead running for Pope of America.

No one opposes - or cares.

Finally, the church will stop announcing which Catholic schools are closing.  For simplicity’s sake, they will simply announce which schools will actually remain open.

In the world of showbiz, expect big things from legendary Boston Irish criminal Whitey Bulger in 2013.  Sure he’s disgraced and imprisoned now. 

But with movie stars like Matt Damon and Ben Affleck angling to make a movie about Bulger’s rise and fall, expect authorities to give the old guy a break so that he can serve as a “consultant” on the upcoming film.  (“What’s the guy ever done to prove we can’t trust him?” one FBI official will ask.)
Shockingly, after one day on the set, Bulger will disappear.  In the months that follow there will be
Whitey Bulger sightings from Denver to Dublin.

Ben Affleck, feeling guilty, will then attempt to shoot a fake movie, in the hopes of luring Bulger out of hiding.  It will be called Where Did Whitey Argo?

We couldn’t possibly go a whole column without mentioning Irish boy toy Niall Horan and the rest of the boys in One Direction.  Horan will shock the world in 2013 by calling a press conference and declaring: “Having just spent the last three months counting all of my money, I have decided to retire.  I don’t know what world these British twits are looking at, but in the world I come from these boy bands don’t last very long."

“Boyzone anybody?  Exactly!  I’m getting out of this now, before I start looking like a real weirdo.  I’ll be back when my fans all have children of their own and they have some real money to spend.”

Ex boy-bander Mark Wahlberg will then call up Horan to see if he is interested in playing a child role in the latest installment of the “Irish” Mickey Ward series of boxing films. The title? The Fighter 4: The Son Also Rises.

Also in 2013, Liam Neeson may actually pass on a movie role.  And Daniel Day-Lewis, having wowed audiences as Lincoln, grows pork-chop sideburns to play seventh President Andrew Jackson, whose parents were born Carrickfergus, Co. Antrim.

The expletive-laden script (written by Irish playwright Martin McDonagh) explores Jackson’s bloody rise to power. However, violence breaks out on the set when the notoriously-intense Day-Lewis refuses to break character.  McDonagh becomes frustrated when Day-Lewis requests a particularly ornate horse and buggy carriage to carry him to and from the set.

“It’s f***ing 2013 you weirdo!” McDonagh howls before socking Day-Lewis.

Happy New Year!

Contact “Sidewalks” at tdeignan.blogspot.com or tomdeignan@earthlink.net.

Immigration advice for Republicans - post election talk of reform seems superficial and desperate

Senator Linsdey Graham

Well, Republicans, here’s the bad news. Your attempts to suddenly seem immigrant-friendly are awkward at best, and - to put it more bluntly - seem hypocritical, superficial and desperate.
 
On the other hand, there is good news. There is no reason to believe Mitt Romney’s loss to Barack Obama truly represents some kind of final nail in the coffin of the Republican Party. Republicans might actually look at immigration someday as something that benefits them.
 
All you have to do is look at Irish American history.
 
Last week, Republican lawmakers were suddenly busy working to reform America’s immigration policies. That’s not to suggest Republicans have been ignoring immigration.
 
Quite the contrary, as prominent members of the Republican Party have made names for themselves by suggesting that America would be better off sealing up its borders, building walls, or otherwise parroting anti-immigrant nativists from the 19th century.
 
Well, now, Republicans in the House of Representatives have gone and passed a bill which would lure highly educated immigrants to the U.S. GOP members of the Senate, meanwhile, have come up with their own version of the so-called Dream Act, which would help younger immigrants work legally in the U.S.
 
There’s no secret to why Republicans are suddenly embracing immigrants. They see their party going in one direction, and America going in the other direction.
 
Speaking on the TV news show Face the Nation, South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham said, 
“[Hispanics are] the fastest-growing demographic in the country, and we're losing votes every election cycle. And it has to stop. It's one thing to shoot yourself in the foot. Just don't reload the gun.”
 
He added, “I intend to tear this wall down and pass an immigration reform bill that's an American solution to an American problem.”

Read more news on Irish immigration issues here
 
Here’s the problem. This is not exactly the way to sway large numbers of Hispanic Americans to vote Republican. That’s because Hispanic voters - like all voters - walk into the voting booth caring about many issues, rather than just one.
 
The biggest problem the Republican Party is facing is not Hispanic voters, but instead where they live.
 
The Republicans continue to get absolutely trounced in urban areas. You know why? Because their policies are profoundly anti-urban.
 
Like it or not, government services - funded by dreaded taxes - play a very important role in the lives of city residents. They understand that without taxes there are no schools for their children, no cops for their streets and no buses or subways to move them around. The Republican obsession with anti-tax, anti-government rhetoric is profoundly out of touch with urban voters.
 
Given his infamous comments about the freeloading 47 percent, the amazing thing about Romney is that he did as well as he actually did in the election.
 
But now there is a feeling among Republicans that if they simply don’t seem quite so hostile on immigration, Hispanics may start voting for them.
 
It is understandable why some Republicans believe Hispanics should be voting for the GOP in greater numbers. They have deep religious and entrepreneurial traditions in America.
 
And yet, shockingly, the GOP’s obsession with abortion and lower taxes for the wealthy has yet to resonate with Mexicans and Dominicans and Puerto Ricans living in and around America’s great cities.
 
Indeed, other than moderating its overall message, if the GOP wants to succeed with these voters, there best tactic may well be to do nothing at all.
 
After all, ethnic Americans living in and around American cities from the 1930s to the 1960 rarely voted for Republicans. Few ever thought they would see the day when large numbers of Irish Catholics voted for Republicans.
 
But once they assimilated more deeply into the American mainstream middle class, they were willing to vote for the likes of Richard Nixon, and, of course, Ronald Reagan. It didn’t hurt that the latter was one of their own.
 
As the saying goes, some Irish Americans turned conservative once they had something to conserve.
 
So, Republicans, the good news is you do have a shot at the Hispanic vote.
 
The bad news? You may have to wait another 30 years or so.

(Contact “Sidewalks” at tdeignan.blogspot.com or tomdeignan@earthlink.net)

The most tragic Irish American Joseph Patrick Kennedy - for better or worse a product of the immigrant experience

Joseph Patrick Kennedy

It is understandable why many people believe John Fitzgerald Kennedy was the most important Irish American.  He was the first Catholic president, a trailblazer who visited his family’s ancestral home in Ireland just months before he was fatally shot in Dallas on November 22, 1963.

But there would have been no JFK without JPK - his father, Joseph Patrick Kennedy of East Boston.
Esteemed historian David Nasaw has just released a 900-page biography of the old man entitled The Patriarch: The Remarkable Life and Turbulent Times of Joseph P. Kennedy.

Yet another Kennedy book, you say?  More hazy malarkey about Camelot?

Or another rehashing of the extramarital affairs or the assassinations, proof of the existence of some “Kennedy curse”?

Such a reaction is understandable.  And yet the heft of this book is without question justified. 

Joseph Kennedy is not only the most important Irish American.  He is arguably the most important figure in American ethnic history, a symbol of the profound success which can be achieved through ambition and hard work, as well as the tragedy and damage which result from the blind drive to become “an insider.”

Not Eugene O’Neill, not Shakespeare, could have written a life story as complex and tragic as Joseph P. Kennedy’s.  Perhaps the Greeks came closest, particularly in the tale of Icarus, who flew too close to the sun and fell to his death. 

Along the same lines, consider that no fewer than three members of the Kennedy clan - Joseph Jr., his sister Kathleen (known as “Kick”) and JFK Jr. -- fell from the sky, dying in airplanes.

Joseph Kennedy belonged to the first generation of Kennedys born in America who did not live in poverty.  Joe Kennedy’s father, P.J., lost a brother as well his own father, to cholera. 

P.J. left school at 14 to work and help support the family, and he managed to gain a foothold in Boston, running saloons and making friends in political circles.

P.J. was able to send his son, Joe, to Boston Latin School and then Harvard, and there is your first hallmark of immigrant life -- the strive to move up the economic ladder.

But Joe Kennedy’s ladder never seemed to end.  He climbed and climbed - in part because he was maniacally ambitious, in part because American society viewed him and his kind with contempt.

Indeed, while it’s hard to view a Harvard graduate millionaire who was a close advisor to presidents as any kind of victim, the fact is that Joseph P. Kennedy endured subtle, imagined and blatant bigotry throughout his entire career.  Here is another hallmark of the immigrant experience -- disdain from the powers that be.

And this leads us to the most difficult part of all, when that ambition mixes with resentment and produces an emotional volatility that manifests itself in some of the most deplorable behavior in the
American psyche -- paranoia, rage, anti-Semitism. 

The dark side of the American ethnic experience, rarely discussed because it runs counter to our belief that we are a benevolent beacon of hope for immigrants, is that nativist hostility and the drive to succeed take a massive toll on first and second generation Americans. 

Crime, alcoholism, family dysfunction.  These and more scarred Irish American and other ethnic families from New York to San Francisco. 

Kennedy dabbled in all of these - mingling with gangsters, possibly bootlegging, cheating on his wife relentlessly, believing Jews to be the cause of so many phantom problems - as he paved a path to the White House. 

Kennedy himself was going to run for president in 1940, even though he doubted Americans would vote for a Catholic.  FDR’s decision to seek a third term made this a moot point. 

Then it was going to be Joseph Jr., but he was killed in World War II.  And so it was JFK. 

And the old man was able to witness it, even though his powers were diminished by strokes.

This meant he also had to stand by powerlessly as Jack and Bobby were killed.

In the end, Joseph P. Kennedy was admirable and loathsome.  But he most definitely was - for better or worse - a product of the American immigrant experience.

(Contact “Sidewalks” at tdeignan@blogspot.com or tomdeignan@earthlink.net)

No love lost among Irish immigrants for honest Abraham Lincoln - VIDEO

Daniel Day-Lewis as Abraham Lincoln

Bill the Butcher is now Honest Abe?

Daniel Day-Lewis has made several trips to the Academy Awards playing Irish characters in films such as In the Name of the Father and The Boxer.  In 2002 he even nabbed an Oscar nomination for playing the notorious anti-Irish bigot  Bill “The Butcher” Poole in Gangs of New York.

Once again Hollywood is abuzz with Oscar talk for Day-Lewis, who is earning  raves playing the 16th president in Steven Spielberg’s latest historical epic Lincoln. 

The film, set in the waning days of the U.S. Civil War, closely looks at the legislative battle Lincoln and his fellow Republicans waged as they tried to pass a series of Constitutional amendments designed to ensure full citizenship for freed slaves after the war.

Not surprisingly, most critics have noted that Spielberg’s film depicts Lincoln  as a near-God.  Even before the release of this movie, Lincoln was widely regarded as the greatest U.S. president in history and has been the focus of countless fawning biographies. 

The film further solidifies Lincoln’s standing as arguably the most noble American ever, who managed to maintain the union yet was unable to preside over its healing because of that Southern-sympathizing scoundrel John Wilkes Booth, who shot Lincoln in Ford’s Theater on the evening on April 14, 1865.

Given Lincoln’s stature in American history, it’s easy to forget that not everybody loved Honest Abe.  Southerners, for one, believed he was responsible for tearing down their beloved way of life.

And then there was the Irish.  After Southerners, Irish immigrants in the U.S. may well have been the group that most despised Lincoln.

Why?  First, there was politics.  Lincoln ran for president as the nominee of a fairly new group called the Republican Party. 

The Irish, of course, were fierce Democrats.  In cities such as New York and Boston, Democratic machines such as Tammany Hall helped the Irish find food and shelter in the New World.  The machines were corrupt but also effective. 

Many Irish immigrants believed that anything which threatened the Democratic Party – such as Lincoln – was a threat  to their tenuous way of life.

In fact, New York City as a whole was so heavily Democratic and suspicious of Lincoln that there was talk of the city itself seceding from the union.

Then there was the war.  Yes, of course, many Irish immigrants fought nobly for  the Union cause in the Civil War, including the famous Irish Brigade.  And yet, many other immigrants new to America had no interest in going off to fight in a war they knew very little about. 

Consider the bitter lyrics of the ballad “Paddy’s Lament”: “When we got to Yankee land, they shoved a gun into our hands, saying Paddy, you must go and fight for Lincoln.”

The most infamous illustration of immigrant opposition to the war was the 1863 New York City Draft Riots which were depicted so vividly in Gangs of New York.

Anti-Irish bigotry in the Republican Party also fueled Irish disdain for Lincoln. The party during Lincoln’s time was a coalition of different interest groups, among them nativist and anti-Catholic ones such as the so-called Know Nothings. 

Lincoln himself may not have been anti immigrant or anti-Catholic, but many of his supporters were.  In fact, following Lincoln’s assassination and for many years after, conspiracy theories abound that the Vatican or other elements within the Catholic Church played a role in Lincoln’s murder.

Given all of this, you might say that Day-Lewis has portrayed two of the most vilified characters in Irish American history. 

Bill the Butcher was a street level bigot, the kind of guy who threw rocks at immigrants and made it hard for them to obtain work. 

Lincoln, meanwhile, was a great man of power, a symbol of an elite that wanted them in this country only if they were willing to feed the war machine.

Paddy had much to lament, after all.

(Contact “Sidewalks” at tdeignan.blogspot.com or tomdeignan@earthlink.net)

Watch the trailer for Lincoln here:

When Northern Irish civil rights activist Bernadette Devlin came to America - VIDEO

Bernadette Devlin

Earlier this month, the Irish Film New York festival showcased a series of provocative films from Ireland, including Bernadette: Notes on a Political Journey. 

The 90-minute documentary explores the rise and evolution of Northern Ireland firebrand Bernadette Devlin, who famously rose to prominence in 1969 after the Battle of the Bogside in August which brought The Troubles to the attention of the international community.

Devlin is best known for being elected to Parliament at the ripe old age of 21 and for her ceaseless commitment to justice in the North. 

What is often forgotten is that Devlin made an eventful trip to America back in 1969.  She was hoping to drum up support for the cause of civil rights in Northern Ireland, just as Eamon de Valera and John Devoy had done on earlier trips to the U.S. 

Instead, Devlin exposed deep rifts between Irish Catholics in America and in Ireland.

It seemed a match made in heaven.  Devlin was passionate and articulate.  She was a telegenic lass from the “old country” with an accent that surely charmed every third generation Irish American who heard it.

But this was 1969, arguably one of the craziest years in American history.  It was a time for choosing sides. 

And it turned out that Devlin and Irish Americans, more often than not, found themselves on opposite sides of the issues of the day.

Irish Americans wanted to hear about the dirty Brits and how the Protestants in the North were oppressing Irish Catholics in Belfast and Derry.  Devlin, of course, was more than willing to talk about this as she visited pubs, AOH centers and Knights of Columbus halls from New York to San Francisco.

But things got complicated when Devlin broadened her definition of injustice. When she began talking about how the struggle for civil rights for African Americans in the U.S. was just as important as the fight for Catholic civil rights in the North … well, Devlin found herself on the receiving end of some cold, hard stares.

Devlin ended up criticizing Irish American kingmaker Chicago Mayor Richard Daley. Those who had initially raised money for Devlin, once they heard her controversial views, gave the money to American charities instead.

By 1969, many Irish Americans had begun questioning their centuries-old alliance with the Democratic Party.  Many viewed late sixties developments from hippie culture to skyrocketing crime rates as signs of American decline. 

Many Irish Americans grew increasingly conservative.  They blasted liberals such as New York City Mayor John Lindsay, and some even supported segregationist George Wallace for president.

This, even as they supported radicals like Devlin in Northern Ireland.

The result?

“People who were wearing ‘Dump Lindsay’ buttons and who...had supported George Wallace for president” came out to support the radical socialist Devlin.

This description (of a Devlin fundraiser in Bay Ridge, Brooklyn) comes from one of the more fascinating reports on Devlin’s U.S. trip - a 12-page article which appeared in the January 1970 issue of Harper’s, written by Sara Davidson.

Davidson followed Devlin across America and along the way offers interesting insights, even as she unintentionally manages to offend all involved.  (Was it really necessary to highlight the speech of Brooklyn Irish Americans watching Devlin’s car pass by, who comment, “Why you gotta pick dis street to come down?”)

The article culminates with a Los Angeles rally before a “schizophrenic crowd” consisting of demure white-haired Irish Americans and hippies and radicals who’d come to see the revolutionary from Ireland.

Hey, it was 1969.

Facing questions about whether or not the money she was raising would be used to fund the armed struggle, Devlin cut her American trip short in early September.

Exhausted and frustrated, Devlin apparently found that war-torn Northern Ireland was easier to handle than 1960s America.

CORRECTION: As I noted in last week’s column, Democratic Party officials initially did not accept Timothy Cardinal Dolan’s offer to say a prayer at their convention back in August.  However, as numerous readers noted, Dolan eventually did visit the convention and offer a prayer. My apologies for not mentioning this.

(Contact “Sidewalks” at tdeignan.blogspot.com or tomdeignan@earthlink.net)

Here, listen to 'Barricade' from Bernadette: Notes on a Political Journey:

The yuk of the Irish - Barack Obama and Mitt Romney to party with Al Smith and Cardinal Dolan in New York

Mitt Romney and Barack Obama will once again meet 
at the Al Smith dinner in New York next week.

Next Thursday, October 18, Mitt Romney and Barack Obama will call a brief cease-fire in their war for the White House.  They will make their way to New York for the annual Al Smith dinner and yuk it up with Timothy Cardinal Dolan.

The dinner is technically a fundraiser for Catholic Charities, and the 2008 dinner raised nearly $4 million.

Or, as Romney refers to $4 million, “Tip money.”

That’s right, you can expect all sorts of jokes aimed at Romney and Obama that night.

Traditionally, the candidates for president have appeared at the dinner right before the election.  This is a fine opportunity to remind people what a trailblazer Al Smith was, and the obstacles he faced as the first Irish American and Roman Catholic from a major party to run for the White House in 1928.

It’s also a convenient reminder that the Archbishop of New York is one of the few people in America who can invite the two presidential candidates to dinner and expect them to show up.

But mainly, this is an opportunity for the candidates to flex their funny bones.

Given the state of America, however, one can imagine nervous speechwriters chewing on pencils, trying to strike the right balance between funny and wildly inappropriate.

For example, imagine Romney standing up and at the podium, offering a standard greeting, before adding, “And if anyone in the room needs an abortion, please speak to the president before you leave tonight.”

Yes, it’s going to be hard to avoid tensions between the Democratic Party and the Catholic Church.  For example, Dolan made it clear he was willing to go to both the Republican and Democratic conventions back in the summer, but only the Republicans took Dolan up on the offer.

Which might lead Dolan to quip, “Nice to see you, Mr. President.  Would you like me to leave now?”

Or,“Mr. President, tonight I kind of wish I was speaking to an empty chair.”

Or, “If anyone needs a gay marriage ceremony, please speak to the president.”

In 1996 and 2004 the candidates were not invited to the dinner, and most people believe these non-invites were spurred largely by Democratic support for abortion and other social issues.

And you can bet this year’s dinner will have an awkward moment or two.  The New York Archdiocese, after all, is one of many organizations currently suing the Obama administration in a fight over whether or not contraception should be made available to employees through health plans.

Obama, of course, could ease this awkward moment.  With sight gags, for example.

Blow up a condom like a balloon.  Or toss birth control pills at the crowd.

But even then some people probably wouldn’t laugh.  As it is, over 2,000 people have signed a petition at alsmithscandal.org to voice their opposition to Obama’s presence.

Catholics, according to the protest organizer, “felt betrayed” by the invitation to Obama. “They felt like the cardinal placed a knife in their back. They felt let down and disappointed over this apparent show of weak leadership.”

Not that Romney is going to be let off easy. Dolan may introduce the Republican candidate by saying, “Now let’s make sure we make Mitt Romney feel welcome.  After all, he is a member of a strange religious cult.  And I don’t mean go-into-a-box-and-whisper-to-a-priest-to-forgive-all-your-sins crazy.  Or look-the-other-way-when-priests-sexually-abuse-boys crazy.  I mean real crazy!”

Then there’s the uncomfortable fact that the whole point of fundraising for charity might be a little lost on Romney.

“Why in God’s name are we raising money for poor people?” Romney may ask.  “I thought that fine Irish writer Jonathan Swift solved the whole poor people problem two centuries ago when he wrote A Modest Proposal.  You can be sure that in a Romney administration I will take that proposal and it will be a whole lot more than modest!”

Yes, given the state of the world, it will be good to laugh for an evening.  It might make us feel better when we break down in tears and realize the joke’s on us.

(Contact “Sidewalks” at tdeignan.blogspot.com or tomdeignan@earthlink.net)

Tell it to the Irish Catholic nuns, Mitt Romney - Government funds vital to helping American people

Sister Mary Rose McGeady

Earlier this month, Sister Mary Rose McGeady died at the age of 84. 

Back in 1990, Sister Mary Rose bravely stepped into what had been a media firestorm. 

Sister Mary Rose was selected to run Covenant House, a highly respected charity which offered shelter to homeless youth.  Covenant House’s original founder,

Father Bruce Ritter, had been hailed as a visionary.  He started Covenant House in the late 1960s, offering little more than two cold-water apartments to those who needed a roof over their heads. 

By 1990, however, Covenant House was serving as many as 30,000 youths in 11 cities across America, as well as in Latin America.  Annual donations were estimated at $80 million.

Then came the sex abuse allegations against Ritter.

It may seem hard to imagine now, but there was a time when such allegations still had the ability to shock.  That, of course, has changed thanks to the avalanche of sexual abuse scandals that have rocked the Catholic Church in Ireland, America and elsewhere since the late 1990s and 2000s.

No charges were ever filed against Ritter, who adamantly denied the allegations. But, as The New York Times noted, an independent investigation commissioned by Covenant House “found that although none of the sexual allegations could be proved, enough evidence existed, including evidence of financial irregularities, to warrant Father Ritter’s dismissal.”

Enter Sister Mary Rose, who picked the organization up off of the floor and made it into a miracle once again. 

She retired in 2003, and Covenant House is now said to be serving 50,000 people in over 20 cities, with annual donations of well over $100 million.

This Irish American Catholic nun’s heroic effort was worth thinking about in the wake of Mitt Romney’s now infamous comments that roughly half of the American population (47 percent) expects handouts from the government. 

It’s not even worth distorting the comments.  Romney did not call people “moochers” or  “freeloaders.” 

His own words need not be twisted.  For they are damning enough. 

We should actually give Romney credit.  We want our politicians to be honest? 

Well, it seems to me Romney was simply being honest. 

Many Republicans are not merely opposed to handing out welfare checks so that drug addicts can get their fix.  Many of them are also opposed to financial aid for college students.  And unemployment insurance. And aid for the elderly. And so on and so forth.

This even as they want to boost military spending, not to get soldiers the kind of medical assistance they deserve, but to purchase a lot of high-tech gizmos which just so happen to be manufactured by corporations that make hefty donations.

Again, give Romney credit.  He simply explained where the Republican Party stands. 

Now voters have to ask themselves – do I know anyone who benefits from financial aid? Unemployment? Medicaid or Medicare?

Where does Sister Mary Rose fit into all this? 

Well, don’t forget, the Republicans were happy a few weeks back when Timothy Cardinal Dolan made an appearance at the Republican convention.  It reinforced the notion that the GOP is the party of God, while the Democrats are Godless. 

As usual, the Democrats did themselves no favors by not welcoming Dolan, and then by leaving God out of their platform.

But if the Republicans are so happy to tout themselves as the party of God, they should have some long conversations with the likes of Sister Mary Rose McGeady, and the thousands of religious people like her toiling to make the lives of the miserable and wretched slightly more bearable. 

In the Republican universe, Covenant House is an exemplary organization.  It is a religious charity that raises its own money, meaning tax money is not required. (Irish American Kevin M. Ryan now runs the organization.)

But Romney, and all the other Christian GOPers, should actually talk to some nuns.  Don’t just prop them up and say, “Look, we actually like Catholics now.” 

For if you actually talk to those toiling with the impoverished and needy, they will tell you government funds remain vital to helping out not just the poor, but working and middle class Americans.

That might even add up to more than 47 percent, Mitt.

(Contact Sidewalks at tdeignan.blogspot.com or tomdeignan@earthlink.net)

The high price of free speech - Muslim and Irish protests against hate

Anti-U.S. protests in Ankara, Turkey last week (AP)

In 1849, Irish immigrants were a key participant in what came to be known as the Astor Place Riots. At least two dozen people were killed. 

Why?  The participants were battling over which Shakespearean actor was the era’s best -- England-born William Charles Macready (despised by the Irish) or American-born Edwin Forrest. 

Twenty five years later, Irish American anger at newspaper cartoonist (and anti-Irish bigot) Thomas Nast was so high police officers had to be posted outside of Nast’s home.

So as we watch predominately-Muslim countries explode into violence over an idiotic film, perhaps we should not be surprised.  At one time or another, people of divergent background have reacted violently to books or art or plays or movies.

But it’s not the 1800s anymore.  And just because people have always done this does not make it right. 

The fact that four people had to die because some nincompoop named Nakoula Basseley Nakoula chose to make a bad movie about the prophet Mohammed is a tragedy.  The fact that large numbers of people in countries from Tunisia to Afghanistan believe this violence is justifiable -- and that artists
can be bullied into silence -- is a long-term problem for America.

And here’s another unfortunate thing. European nations, including Ireland, also believe that controversial religious material is best not discussed.  The implied message here seems to be that saying naughty things about another person’s religion is simply too much trouble.  It can, obviously, lead to violence. 

But rather than focus on the fact that a very small but very vocal minority of religious people seem to want to live as if it is still the seventh century, activists and lawmakers from Dublin to Cairo feel it is best to simply not talk about certain subjects.

“We don’t think that depictions of the prophets are freedom of expression. We think it is an offense against our rights,” Ismail Mohamed, a religious scholar, told The New York Times. 

“We want these countries to understand that they need to take into consideration the people … the West has to understand the ideology of the people.”

Mohamed was basically attempting to explain why anger in the Islamic world has boiled over.  He was also arguing that freedom of expression - so cherished and prized in the United States - is an inadequate defense of a movie which depicts the Prophet Mohammed as a womanizer and buffoon.

But here’s the thing -- much of “The West” already agrees with this.  America is pretty much the only country left where freedom of speech generally covers controversial religious material. 

Lest we forget, Ireland itself passed a controversial blasphemy law in 2009.  You may not agree with famed atheist

Richard Dawkins, who said that Ireland’s law would send the nation spiraling back into the Middle Ages.

However, this law - like similar laws passed by other European nations - does send a message to devoutly religious people that their rights are more important than the rights of anyone who might want to criticize certain aspects of any given religion.

From there, it’s not a great leap to simply taking the law into your own hands -- launch a rocket, storm an embassy.  Why not?  It’s my duty to my God.

I have long argued that people should be reverent and respectful about religion.  But part of living in a big, modern world is understanding that people inevitably disagree with you. 

Ultimately, as ugly as those disagreements can get, people must have a protected right to express those disagreements. 

The trouble is, those rights are fading.  Books such as Jeremy Waldron’s The Harm in Hate Speech argue that more - not fewer - restrictions on expression must be passed.  And many countries are doing just that.

Even U.S. authorities, for some reason, felt they had to detain Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, a sight nearly as chilling as the angry protests inspired by his dumb movie.

The proper response to anything that can be called “hate speech” is more speech.  Passionate debate.  The organization of peaceful protests. 

Yes, this forces us to condone the speech of bigots and idiots.  To paraphrase Winston Churchill, this is the worst system - except for every other one.

(Contact “Sidewalks” at tdeignan.blogspot.com or tomdeignan@earthlink.net)

Mitt Romney’s secret Irish Catholic Weapon - Senior Adviser Peter Flaherty

Peter Flaherty

Mitt Romney has a secret, Irish Catholic weapon in Tampa this week, one that  experts say is key to him stealing away the Catholic vote from Barack Obama.  

Timothy Cardinal Dolan?  Nope.  Paul Ryan?  Nope.

His name is Peter Flaherty and he is a senior adviser to Romney, and prefers to  keep himself out of the spotlight. Which is a little odd given that Flaherty has worked in both national politics  as well as Hollywood. 

Nevertheless, Flaherty is described as one of Romney’s closest aides.  His main job?  Persuading Irish Americans and other Roman Catholics that Romney is the man they should vote for.

Much attention was paid when it was announced that Dolan would say the closing prayer at this week’s Republican Convention. “The move is perhaps the clearest sign of a more aggressive push by Republicans to win over Roman Catholic voters this election cycle,” according to The New  York Times.

But Romney’s close relationship to Flaherty is arguably more important. 

When Romney served as Massachusetts governor Flaherty was his liaison to Catholics, including Boston’s Sean Cardinal O’Malley.

While much has been made about Romney’s “invitation” (as the Times put it) to  Dolan, the New York Catholic leader also made it clear he would do the same  thing for the Democrats. Rather stupidly, the Democrats have apparently declined Dolan’s offer. 

Yes, there are major differences between the church and the Democratic Party - on gays and abortion among other things.

However, it would seem that President Obama would want to stress common ground, especially when every Catholic vote counts in battleground states like Pennsylvania, Ohio and Wisconsin.

Meanwhile, Romney’s Catholic running mate Ryan has been lauded for his  budget-cutting proposals, but guess what organization slammed Ryan for slashing social services and even misunderstanding the Catholic doctrine of “subsidiarity”? 

None other than the U.S. Conference of Catholic bishops.  And who leads that organization?  You guessed it, Timothy Cardinal Dolan.

No, if you really want to get a sense of how the Republicans are going to try  and sway Catholics away from Obama you’ve got to listen to Flaherty, who told the Times, “We’re going to have outreach to Catholics in a coordinated, organized effort — state by state, diocese by diocese, parish by parish and pew by pew.”

Flaherty grew up in Arlington, Massachusetts and graduated from the College of the Holy Cross, majoring in economics.  An Irish American aunt named Eileen Gill was murdered in Boston when Flaherty was young, and he has long said that terrible crime spurred him to fight the bad guys.

Flaherty became an assistant district attorney in Suffolk County before going to work for his brother, Michael, who runs Walden Media in Hollywood.

Flaherty returned east and began volunteering for Romney, and has been with the GOP candidate ever since. 

Inevitably, the question arises of whether or not there really is a “Catholic vote” in America. 

Obviously, the days of Roman Catholics voting largely for the party of JFK are over.  Irish and other white ethnic Catholics are much more willing to vote Republican these days, while Hispanic Catholics are generally Democratic. 

Nevertheless, it would be silly for either Romney or Obama to dismiss 25 percent of the voting population who - for all of their differences - share important key factors.

First and foremost, they are clustered in key battleground states.  Also, while polls show that a majority of American Catholics are generally not opposed to birth control and abortion, they are also reverent and respectful towards religion in a way that Republicans can take advantage of.  That’s why it seems such a blunder for the Democrats to not accept Cardinal Dolan’s offer to pray at their convention.  It is the type of small thing someone like Peter Flaherty could make a big deal out of. 

(Contact “Sidewalks” at tomdeignan@earthlink.net or tdeignan.blogspot.com)

Are the Irish liberal or conservative? GOP’s Paul Ryan meet Sister Megan Gillespie Rice

Sister Megan Gillespie Rice

Vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan, meet fellow Irish American Megan Gillespie Rice.

As the political world debated Romney’s pick – which means that for the first time, two Irish Catholics will be vying for the vice presidency –Gillespie Rice was doing some political work of her own.
Sister Megan, as she is known, is a Manhattan native and activist nun who has been arrested over 40 times throughout her busy career. 

Now 82, her most recent action landed her on the front page of The New York Times this past Saturday. 

Earlier this summer, Sister Megan and two accomplices carried out what the Times called “the biggest security breach in the history of (America’s) atomic complex,” breaking into the Oak Ridge nuclear reservation in Tennessee.

Sister Megan, in short, is a left-wing Irish Catholic activist, a label she would surely wear proudly, just as the anti-war Berrigan brothers did in the 1960s, as many members of the Catholic Worker movement did, and as activist groups such as the Catholic Radial Alliance did back in the 1930s (which was founded, incidentally, by one priest named O’Toole and another named – you guessed it – Rice).

Anyway, the next day, another Irish Catholic was in the news, this one named Paul Ryan, a darling of the American conservative movement.

Which begs the question -- who represents Irish American politics better, Ryan or Sister Megan?

A few weeks back I wrote a column about Irish America’s tense relationships with African Americans and racism.  Over 100 folks commented on the story on irishcenteral.com and I received loads of e-mails, some thoughtful, others not so much.

And by the way, the debate rages on.  In this Sunday’s New York Times Book Review, an article about race riots in Chicago specifically referred to problems caused by the “mostly Irish police force.”

But at the heart of the question of Irish Americans and race is the bigger question of Irish American liberalism and conservativism. Who is the face of Irish American politics -- Kennedy or Reagan? 

More and more, as people like Ryan rise to prominence, it seems to be Reagan.  Conservative Republican Irish Americans are very easy to spot these days.  Look at the podium during the GOP convention later this month when the keynote speech is given and you will see Ryan’s fellow Irish American, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie.

Quite a few people have traced how the Irish evolved from loyal Democrats until the 1950s and 1960s, when they started trickling, then flooding, to the Republican or independent lines. 
What people have talked about less is whether or not Irish Catholics (voters as well as politicians) have specific responsibilities based on their backgrounds. 

After all, people love flaunting their Irish Catholic roots. On St. Patrick’s Day, Republicans and Democrats love talking about where their grandparents came from in Ireland. 

But doesn’t that also mean you should have sympathy for 21st century immigrants?  

Kissing babies after Mass makes a great photo-op.  But does that also mean you should obey the church’s teaching on gays, poverty, abortion and the death penalty?  Or confront the church over these contentious issues?

Ryan himself waded into this by claiming that his ultra-conservative budget plan was actually in line with Catholic social teaching.

This prompted criticism from, among others, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops because, as Gerald Beyer recently noted in America magazine, “Official Catholic social teaching has long accorded a positive role for the government in protecting the economic rights and well-being of people.”

The sad truth is that most Irish Americans are not true to their Irish or Catholic roots. 
Republicans too often bash immigrants and the poor.  Democrats too often are condescending towards religion. 

So, who is the true face of Irish American politics?

Right now?  Nobody.

(Contact “Sidewalks” at tomdeignan@earthlink.net or tdeignan.blogspot.com)

Will the real GOP stand up? Republican’s stance on immigration is vexing

Republican Peggy Noonan

A few weeks back, when an Irish-born journalist (and we use that term loosely) named Neil Munro heckled President Obama’s immigration policy during a press conference, many people pointed out the obvious irony. Here was an immigrant suggesting that the president get tough with immigrants.

To most people, this made Munro a hypocrite. But at least it was clear where he stood.

And now that President Obama has offered a path to citizenship for certain children of illegal immigrants, his position is fairly clear also.

As for the other side, that’s a lot more complicated.

Some Republicans grasp that immigration is a boon to at least some state economies. Some sentimentalize immigrants, while others (I’m thinking Mitt Romney here) are flummoxed to the point of silence.

Which is at least better than echoing the hard-right, anti-immigrant Republican line which was present at the party’s founding.

After all, the party of Lincoln was also the party of anti-Catholic, anti-Irish sentiment in the mid-19th Century.

I’m not demonizing conservatives here. Former Reagan White House operative and Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan – whose name is as Hibernian as it gets - penned a fine column celebrating the immigrant spirit to mark Independence Day last week.

“The old hatreds,” Noonan wrote. “They dissipate here. In Ireland, Catholics and Protestants could be at each other’s throats for centuries, but the minute they moved here they were in the Kiwanis Club together.”

Again, kudos to Noonan for celebrating America’s immigrant heritage, and perhaps upsetting some fellow conservatives. But really?

“The minute” Irish Catholics and Protestants came to America things were just awesome and cool? I’m not Peggy Noonan for a scholarly dissertation on, say, the hanging of Irish Catholics such as Goody Glover in the 17th century colonies, or the 1870s riots that lefts dozens of Catholics and Protestants dead on the streets of New York.

But a little realism never hurt anybody, even on the Fourth of July.

Noonan’s sentimental approach to immigration is something to which Irish Americans are particularly prone. There is so much emphasis put on the contribution of the well-behaved immigrants of the past, there is an implication that today’s immigrants are, well, different.

Prior to 9/11, it was believed by some that today’s immigrants were simply not as hard-working, or as patriotic, or were gang members, or came here for the welfare benefits. And even if they were hard-working, that was a problem because they were taking jobs, or were simply illegal, which is a fairly unambiguous term.

All the more so in a post-9/11 world where illegal immigrants can be out to kill us all. Nevertheless, there remains a deep, scary and downright un-American strain of nativism out there in America.

And being sentimental or selective about immigration is not much better than being outright hostile to it. Back in 2006, none other than Noonan wrote this, “There are a variety of things driving American anxiety about illegal immigration and we all know them -- economic arguments, the danger of porous borders in the age of terrorism, with anyone able to come in. But there's another thing.

“(We) are not assimilating our immigrants patriotically. And if you don't do that, you'll lose it all. We used to do it. We loved our country with full-throated love, we had no ambivalence.”

Does it really need to be pointed out that, back in the good old days, there was massive ambivalence on the sides of both native-born Americans and immigrants?

We fought not one but two wars against a nation which gave us millions of immigrants (Germany) and we held members of two large immigrant groups (Japanese and Italians) in detention camps during World War II. Meanwhile, how do you think a lot of Americans felt about Ireland being diplomatically neutral during World War II?

All of this is simply meant to point out that immigration has always been vexing.

For now, we know where Obama and the Democrats stand. And even if they’re just after votes, isn’t that partly what our system is all about?

Currently, the Republican Party is made up of historical revisionist sentimentalists like Noonan, neo-nativists like Munro, and confused bumblers like Romney.

By November, will the real GOP stand up?

(Contact “Sidewalks” at tomdeignan@earthlink.net or facebook.com/tomdeignan)

Tough time to be a patriot - musing on the belief 'from many one'

Congressman Richie Neal

I hate to say I told you so, but…

Last week, I wrote about ongoing tensions at the 9/11 Memorial in downtown Manhattan.  I suggested that factions had to come together because, to many younger New Yorkers, the events of September 11 are as hazy as the events of

Pearl Harbor or Guadalcanal or Lexington and Concord.

If the process for planning the memorial drags on, or does not tell the story of 9/11 accurately and vividly, future generations might not grasp the magnitude of that terrible day.

Lo and behold, what happened this week? A bunch of middle school kids took a field trip to the 9/11 Memorial and trashed the place.

But what’s the answer?  More museums?  Better memorials? More severe punishments for misbehaving kids?

With the Fourth of July once again upon us, it is a fair time to raise these questions.  If the loutish behavior of these kids at the 9/11 Memorial proves that some don’t know what it means to be a real New Yorker, it’s also pretty clear we still don’t know what it means to be a real American.

Every Fourth of July, for example, we hear about a ceremony in which 100 or 1,000 immigrants are officially declared U.S. citizens.  This will be comforting, in part because the U.S. Supreme Court on

Monday upheld a key provision of an Arizona law allowing local police officers to investigate the immigration status of suspects detained for other alleged crimes.

Do you have your papers?  Great!  Happy Fourth of July to you, too!

Of course, it’s silly to believe anything so staid and quaint as a museum will douse the longstanding suspicions many Americans have about immigration.  Still, such institutions do play an important role. 

At their best, they remind us of the ideal contained in the immortal phrase E Pluribus Unum.  That motto (“from many..one”) might as well be the alternative name for the

National Museum for the American People, a proposed Washington D.C. museum that would attempt to tell the stories of all immigrant groups (among other groups). 

This might ultimately help visitors see just how “American” so many of these stories really are.

Congressman Richard Neal and the Congressional Friends of Ireland Caucus have already signed on as supporters of the National Museum of the American People.

“The genesis for the idea to build a new national museum occurred more than 10 years ago as I walked by the Agriculture Department headquarters building along the National Mall in Washington,” Sam Eskenazi has explained. 

Eskenazi is spearheading the effort to construct the National Museum of the American People.

“I asked myself, ‘If this were a museum, what kind of museum could it be?’ The answer -- a museum that would tell the stories of all of the peoples coming to this land.

“I came up with a name for the museum on the spot. It is a testament to the need for the museum that many people, when told about the proposal, were surprised that such a museum doesn't already exist.”

Such a proposed museum would serve as a testament to both the unique stories of all immigrant communities, as well as their common obstacles and goals.

Some have even dubbed Eskenazi’s proposal the National Immigration Museum or the “Melting Pot” Museum.

Of course, things are not so simple. 

For example, there is currently a proposal to build a separate Irish American museum in Washington D.C. Indeed, many ethnic groups already have their own, or want to build their own, museums.

And let’s not forget the bumpy road of the American Catholic Museum, which finally closed in 2012.

Several Hispanic heritage groups have also chosen not to support the National Museum concept.  They and others understandably feel their stories are so unique and powerful they need to be told individually, rather than as part of a broader narrative.

Eskenazi has years of experience working at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, not to mention leading a U.S. Army platoon in Vietnam.  He looks like the right man to lead the cause of the National Museum of the American People.

But, for now, we remain a nation split between the “pluribus” and the “unum.” Happy Fourth of July!

Contact “Sidewalks” at tomdeignan@earthlink.net or facebook.com/tomdeignan.

Don’t forget the Irish rabble rousers - 'Activist New York'

Activist New York  exhibition opens at Museum of the City of New York    

The year was 1981.  It was early May, the weather was turning warm, and the New York Yankees were on their way to another World Series – though not before Major League Baseball players went on strike, resulting in a short, strange season.

On May 5, 1981, Irish New Yorkers poured out into the streets when news came out of Belfast that Republican hunger striker Bobby Sands had died. An estimated 10,000 people closed off several blocks in Manhattan near the British consulate. 

On the waterfront, longshoremen called for a one day boycott of British shipping, while others proposed a national boycott of British Airways. Finally, Transit Workers Union head John Lawe called for members to drive with headlights on all day to acknowledge Sands' death.

In these days of Occupy Wall Street and gay marriage, protest and the change it spurs is very much in the news.  So much so that the Museum of the City of New York recently opened a new exhibit called “Activist New York.” 

The exhibit, according to organizers, “explores the drama of social activism in New York City from the 17th century right up to the present. In a town renowned for its in-your-face persona, citizens of the city have banded together on issues as diverse as historic preservation, civil rights, wages, sexual orientation and religious freedom.”

The issues the exhibit explores are undoubtedly important. But it would have certainly added an interesting dynamic to the exhibit if it also explored the way various immigrants have championed their national causes and the way ethnic enclaves around New York responded.

Needless to say, Irish New York rabble rousers have had their share of moments in the “Activist New York” spotlight.

There was, of course, the moment when Sands’ death shed light on the problem of The Troubles in the North.  That was at the start of the 1980s. 

By the end of that turbulent decade, a Belfast fellow named Joseph Patrick Thomas Doherty -- and his many supporters --made Northern Ireland an important issue in the 1989 race to be New York City mayor.

Doherty was arrested while working at a Manhattan bar, accused of serving as an active IRA soldier.
The British wanted him returned to the U.K., and while serving as U.S. attorney in charge of the case, Rudy Giuliani earned many enemies in the Irish community.

That Northern Ireland would become a flashpoint in the 1989 race for New York mayor was unlikely, to say the least.  That year, crime and racial tension were spiraling out of control. 

David Dinkins was aiming to become New York’s first African American mayor.  And yet, both Dinkins and his opponent Giuliani were forced to have “full-fledged policies about the former Irish Republican Army guerrilla,” The New York Times reported at the time, adding that “the 'Doherty issue’ … could sway votes in the mayoral election.”

This, of course, was a testament to Irish organizers harnessing the network of Irish American support across the five boroughs.

Then again, perhaps this should be no surprise because the Irish have been loud and proud members of “Activist New York” for decades.

Many Irish New Yorkers were fierce in their support for the 1916 Easter Rising, and nationalist rallies in venues such as Madison Square Garden attracted upwards of 20,000 Irish American supporters.

Visits by the likes of Eamon de Valera were also popular – and controversial. 

After all, during the World War I era, many criticized the notion of “hyphenated Americans” who could feel loyalty for both Ireland and the U.S.

After World War I, Irish-born activists in New York used their political skills to found the Transit Workers Union. 

The Irish are a particularly interesting study in activism because subsequent visits by nationalist leaders – think Bernadette Devlin in the late 1960s – rallied support in some parts of the Irish American community, but also alienated many others.

So, if you go to visit “Activist New York” at the Museum of the City of New York, realize that it tells a good story. But it is only part of the story.

(Contact “Sidewalks” at tomdeignan@earthlink.net or facebook.com/tomdeignan)

Rockers and politics out of tune - Republican Jeff Fitzgerald versus Dropkick Murphy’s 'Shipping up to Boston' - VIDEO

Dropkick Murphys

When will they ever learn?

When will politicians figure out that they should never mix rock ‘n’ roll with their campaigns?

Sure, it makes them seem cool at first. But ultimately, it makes them look clueless.

The latest example is an Irish vs. Irish affair involving Wisconsin Republican big wig Jeff Fitzgerald and rabble rousing, left-leaning Irish punk band the Dropkick Murphys.

The band is best known for its rollicking tune “Shipping Up to Boston,” which was used in the Martin Scorsese movie The Departed.

Fitzgerald took a liking to the song and started using it at campaign events.

As the Wisconsin State Journal eventually noted, “After the Irish American punk band from Massachusetts heard about Fitzgerald's song choice, the rockers promptly posted a scathing statement on the band's Facebook page.”

The posting read, "We just got word that Wisconsin State Rep. and Speaker of the State Assembly Jeff Fitzgerald used 'Shipping Up to Boston' as his walk-on song at the Wisconsin GOP convention in Green Bay. The stupidity and irony of this is laughable.

“A Wisconsin Republican U.S. Senate candidate -- and crony of anti-union Gov. Scott Walker -- using a Dropkick Murphys song as an intro is like a white supremacist coming out to gangsta rap! Fitzgerald: if you and your staff can't even figure out your music you might wanna give up on the politics!!!!! We stand beside our union and labor brothers and sisters and their families in Wisconsin and all over the U.S!"

Fitzgerald, to his credit, later said he would stop using the song. Of course, he’s not doing that because he’s a nice guy.

The last thing Fitzgerald needs is his Republican pals taking a closer look at some of the more radical lyrics by Dropkick Murphys. If they did, they might dropkick Fitzgerald out of the state and out of the Republican Party.

The most famous example of an Irish American politician being out of tune with a famous musician, of course, was Ronald Reagan. Back when the Gipper was running things, he tried to harness the popularity of a certain crooner from New Jersey named Bruce Springsteen.

As you might recall, Springsteen released a mega-smash album during the Regan years entitled Born in the U.S.A. The title track is a rousing anthem, one that certainly compels the listener to feel a certain kind of patriotism. Just not the patriotism Reagan had in mind.

“Born down in a dead man’s town / the first kick I took was when I hit the ground / End up like a dog that’s been beat too much / Til you spend half your life just to cover it up.”

And that’s just the first few lines of the Springsteen song. Not exactly “Morning in America,” the sunny vision Reagan was selling at the time.

Look, this stuff is complicated. I vividly remember hearing that Springsteen song when it was first released and welling up with feelings of patriotism. The chorus is a thunderclap and was made to be shouted, chanted, bellowed.

Here’s the thing -- I was 13 years old when I felt that way. It wasn’t long before I was old enough to see that the song is a lot more complex.

Which is not to say it is unpatriotic. Far from it.

But it just asks us to take an honest look at some hard problems. That, generally, is not the game politicians are into, whether we are talking about Ronald Reagan or Jeff Fitzgerald.

There is, of course, a broader issue here about the Irish in America.

Generally, this kind of conflict occurs between a right wing politician and left leaning artist.

This simply reflects an ongoing split amongst the Irish in America. There are those who believe the Irish have survived great trauma in the U.S. and should be allowed to revel in their hard-earned middle-class status. These folks are generally Republican, Catholic, law-and-order types.

And then there are those who believe the only way the Irish obtained that status was by comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable. So they continue a more radical strain of Irish activism.

Surely, this debate will continue. And, yes, it can get ugly.

But, if nothing else, we’ve learned one thing over the centuries: Politicians – stay away from rock ‘n’ roll!

(Contact “Sidewalks” at tomdeignan@earthlink.net or facebook.com/tomdeignan)

The Dropkick Murphys' 'Shipping Up To Boston':