PRESENT TENSE: WORD OF the week? Savage. The press anticipated a "savage" Budget, and when it was announced, it became every reporter's fallback adjective. They were not alone. Enda Kenny, the INTO, and human- rights groups all used the S word. It will only be retired once the weekend papers have flogged it to exhaustion.
But another word made an intriguing cameo this week. Unlike "savage", it was employed by the Government itself. This Budget, insisted Minister for Finance Brian Lenihan "is no less than a call to patriotic action".
A call to patriotic action. Interesting choice of sentence that. Incorrect too.
The Minister was presenting the Budget to the Dáil, so perhaps the rhetoric targeted only members of the Oireachtas. But the preceding sentences - asking us to "pull together and play our part according to our means" - suggest that it was aimed at the nation. In which case, to couch the Budget in "your country needs you" rhetoric is worse than disingenuous - it is insulting.
This Budget was not a "call" to action any more than any Government bill or legislation is such a call. It is an imposition. That the public will have to make some sacrifices in order to help steady the public finances is one thing, but let's not pretend that this is a voluntary endeavour. It is not "calling" on us to volunteer a percentage of our salaries, to reduce class sizes, to hand over medical cards, to pay more for childcare. It is compelling us. We might be in this fight together, but we are being conscripted into it.
As for "patriotic", because it became a blood-soaked sentiment, the word is still rarely aired in Ireland outside of a historical discussion or Wolfe Tone commemorations.
Bertie Ahern, though, dragged it out more than once during his time as taoiseach. His farewell speech used it twice, both times in reference to his party colleagues as opposed to the public. It has always been clear, however, that Fianna Fáil claims not just a purer, superior sense of patriotism compared to its rivals, but ownership of it.
Ahern used it to describe Charles Haughey ("a patriot to his fingertips"). I would not be the first to point out that it takes a certain kind of brazenness to associate patriotism with a man - and party - that epitomised an era during which a love for one's country was considered mutually compatible with swindling its coffers for personal gain.
Patriotism - or the appropriation of it - is certainly not globally endangered. It has been invoked countless times in the US presidential election. Joe Biden, in fact, said last month that it was "patriotic" for the wealthy to pay higher taxes. Last year, Barack Obama said he stopped wearing the stars and stripes flag pin when it became "a substitute for true patriotism", but this week the Republicans were still distributing leaflets that feature their pinless opponent and the line "it used to be easy to recognise patriotism".
Also this week, the North Koreans released pictures of Kim Jong-Il, explaining that "he watched the thick verdure formed by trees of various species . . . and praised the women soldiers for having tended even a single tree and a blade of grass of the country with ardent patriotism."
YOU CAN'T BE ANYTHING BUT suspicious of a sentiment that can be appropriated by anyone from our Minister for Finance to the Ministry in Charge of Pretending the Dear Leader Isn't Really Ill. And this is a problem with "patriotism". It is vague. It is diffuse. It can mean many things to many people. The Irish fans who stood for the national anthem on Wednesday night might mark it down as a moment of collective patriotism; the Italian fans who used fascist slogans and salutes at Bulgarian fans on Sunday, while burning their opponent's flag, probably felt patriotic too.
In a military context, it can be jingoistic. When relating to taxation, it can seem somewhat bathetic. It is supposed to unite, but can't help but exclude. For instance, does the Minister expect recent immigrants to be patriotic towards Ireland above their home countries, some of which might expect their people to do their patriotic duty and actually return home?
It was, ultimately, a risky word for Lenihan to use. Not because it was ever likely to ignite some latent nationalist fervour, or because it could have been construed as a subliminal hint to our immigrants to do their bit too. It was risky because it is ambiguous, and, in this context, misappropriated.
It was risky because the word, rightly, acted as a lightning rod for critics. Is it patriotic to call the people together in collective duty after the Government failed in its responsibilities? Is it patriotic that during the boom years we failed to fix the problems in education and health? Is it patriotic that the bankers who helped bring this country to its knees keep their jobs when their actions are causing many of others to lose theirs?
It's hard to believe that any answer would not be as confused as the sentiment.
