In Ireland, a change in global political trend?

By Phil Lawler (
biography –
articles– E-mail ) | March 21, 2024

Can we take another look at the stunning results of the Irish referendums held earlier this month? The resignation of Taoiseach (Prime Minister) Leo Vardkar, who admitted to having misjudged the public mood, emphasizes the importance of the votes.

In describing last week’s results I wrote:

The big lesson from the Irish referendums – a lesson that the ruling elites ignore at their peril – is that in a democracy the government does not tell the people what to think.

Forgive me for repeating myself, but I think the message bears repeating. Because the Irish referendums could well be seen by historians, in a few years’ time, as the moment when a great political tide will begin to turn.

Before I explain, let me put the voting results into context. The Irish people, fleeing their Catholic heritage, recently approved legal abortion and then same-sex marriage. Watching this year’s campaign from an ocean away, I fully expected the same kind of result. In my mind, I had begun to write the newsletter in which I would report on the success of the two proposed constitutional amendments.

These amendments, let us remember – one aimed at removing an approving mention of maternity in the Irish constitution, the other to say that families are not built solely on marriages but on “other lasting relationships” – were strongly supported by the government led by Vardakar. They were also supported by each major political party on the Irish political scene, by the mainstream media, by experts and professors, in short by fashionable opinion. (Irish Catholic bishops, who failed to derail the liberal locomotive in previous national polls, have not played a significant role this year – perhaps wisely, given their shattered credibility.)

Yet when the votes came, both proposed constitutional amendments were rejected – hard. Nearly three-quarters of voters chose to retain the Constitution’s provision that “mothers shall not be forced, by economic necessity, to work to the extent of neglecting their domestic duties.” By a majority of more than two-thirds, they accepted the assertion that the family – based on marriage and not on “other lasting relationships” – is the foundation of society. The Irish people dared to reject fashionable views.

For what? What happened? I claim no experience of Irish political leanings. (Most people who TO DO pundits claim their predictions about these votes were deeply flawed.) But I have a theory.

In recent years, an increasingly arrogant class of technocratic leaders has asked ordinary citizens of the Western world to accept a number of unsympathetic beliefs:

• that the economy is booming and inflation is not a major problem, even though their household budgets are getting tighter every month;
• that their societies can accommodate a flood of immigrants without any disruption;
• that a man can become a woman and vice versa – and the countless generations of midwives who held up a newborn and said, “It’s a boy!” or “It’s a girl!” were ignorant;
• that farmers and truckers need to stop using diesel fuel – no matter what impact it will have on food prices – and that cow flatulence is a bigger problem than world hunger;
• that electric cars will eliminate pollution, even as they strain an electricity grid powered by plants burning fossil fuels;
• that trusting science means suppressing unpopular facts and theories and relying entirely on expert opinion.

The people who promote these beliefs have, to a remarkable extent, insulated themselves from the negative consequences of their ideology. They are generally rich and educated. They are quite sure that they are right and may sometimes refer to those who disagree with them as “deplorables.” Their campaign slogan, reduced to the essentials, would be: “Vote for us; we are better than you.

Sometimes the “deplorables” came together in dramatic public demonstrations – truckers on Canada’s clogged streets, farmers circling their tractors around the European Parliament. But the ruling elites ignored them – or worse, denounced them as threats to national security – while the mainstream media chose to downplay the protests. They represented minorities; their protests did not threaten the public consensus.

Or did they? In Ireland, without warning, voters roundly rejected the fashionable opinion rule. If my theory is correct and the vote in Ireland represents a shift in world opinion, Varadkar will not be the last head of government to lose his seat.

Phil Lawler has been a Catholic journalist for more than 30 years. He edited several Catholic magazines and wrote eight books. Founder of Catholic World News, he is news director and senior analyst for CatholicCulture.org. See full biography.