A powerful orator and a natural charmer but does the Senator have it in the judgment stakes?
WHAT MORE appropriate day to consider the next presidency. I’ve been thinking about Senator David Norris’s interest in the job for quite a while and what I had been thinking was that nice and all as he is, I’m not sure he’s presidential material. But, what is presidential material?
In terms of time, the work seems to be split 45/45/10.
Forty-five per cent is the goodwill stuff – hosting or visiting community groups and charities and assuring everyone that they’re great. The Marys nailed this and since Senator Norris is a natural charmer, he would excel at this part of the job.
Then there’s the national ambassador bit; when the president is dispatched on State visits with the express purpose of making the country look good and promoting trade. Robinson definitely did that well. President McAleese is also excellent at this.
I happened to be working in Palo Alto last year during her visit to the US and was invited by Enterprise Ireland to a breakfast they had arranged for the President in Stanford University. The head of Stanford, John Hennessy, hosted the event and the attendees were of significant standing in the technology community so impressing them was important.
I find McAleese a bit syrupy at times, but she was totally professional at this gig. She delivered the right mix of historical sentiment about Irish-America and a modern, intelligent perspective of Ireland today. I was relieved and proud and thought: “It’s great to have someone like that to send out.”
When I first considered Norris in this role I was a bit worried that his tendency for comedy might not be appropriate. The Podge and Rodgeyears don't do him justice and for a potential president, it wasn't a smart move. But when I was a student in Trinity College and heard him speaking regularly at debates of the Phil (the University Philosophical Society) and the Hist (the College Historical Society), I loved him not because he made people laugh, which he did of course, but because he could make us cry too.
There were two particular debates that I recall. One was a Phil meeting where Norris spoke about his long-term relationship with Ezra Nawi. It was incredibly moving. I think it was the first time that I saw homosexuality presented in terms of human love rather than demands for rights, Aids awareness or pantomime. Another wonderful evening was in the old House of Lords in the Bank of Ireland. The subject of the debate was Charles Stewart Parnell.
Norris had me laughing and weeping as he conveyed through his own words and masterful readings from literature the great tragedy of Parnell and his impact on the people. He really is a gifted orator and if 90 per cent of the job is public speaking, he’s streets ahead of any other contenders.
However, there is that 10 per cent, which does give me pause. We can call it the 3am phone call issue – the time when a constitutional issue presents itself. All the tea-parties and State visits amount to nothing if the president shows lack of judgment at a crucial moment. Having the political or legal experience to act, or not act, is absolutely key. Patrick Hillery had the sense not to take the call. I think because Robinson and McAleese are Marys it was easy to forget they were both constitutional lawyers of immense experience and sobriety. I know all presidents can avail of the Council of State, but I like a president who can rely on their own judgment.
Norris does fall short here.
But none of the other contenders has that experience either. Bertie Ahern can’t seriously consider himself a candidate at this stage. MEPs Maireád McGuinness and Brian Crowley are both worthy of respect, but neither was in key ministerial or constitutional positions before. Fergus Finlay has political experience but was never elected and therefore never accountable. In any event he appears to be struggling to get the Labour nomination. Michael D was a minister but to be fair, arts and culture is fairly harmless.
Since the potential candidates have had no constitutionally relevant experience then Norris can’t be discounted on that basis. In fact, while his homosexuality neither qualifies nor disqualifies him for the role, his brave and lonely legal battle to decriminalise homosexuality means he has had a far bigger impact on Irish society – for the better – than any of the contenders.
He has controversial views on 1916 – he called the rebels “terrorists”. I’m inclined to agree with him on that point though many don’t. But perhaps many would agree that a little less slavishness to our official national narrative is appropriate as we struggle to find our feet again.
At the very least, he’s deserving of a nomination and I hope the county councils will facilitate him. In fact, given that no one in Fine Gael seems to particularly want the job and a Fianna Fáil candidate is probably unelectable, maybe they should agree to nominate him.