Bothsidesism is a pox on the world. There is no atrocity, no glaring asymmetry, no lie so monstrous which will not be greeted by the vacuous response that the other side is just as bad. This is social media’s default setting.
It is Sabina Higgins’s misfortune that she is lumped into that category now by dint of her decision not to name the aggressor in a brutal invasion and then refuse to engage with the argument.
Social media was made for this, particularly the hot takes – aided by the bot swarms (with Irish names and risibly pro-Russian tweeting histories) – supporting Ms Higgins’s freedom-of-speech and her call for a ceasefire. While hardly her intention, the outcome was painfully predictable when she signed her letter “Sabina Coyne Higgins, Dublin 8”.
Dublin 8 is a densely populated, mixed area of the inner city embracing the Phoenix Park and the grand former Viceregal Lodge where the president and his spouse, a woman named Sabina, have cohabited for over a decade. It’s safe to assume that Sabina of Dublin 8 knew that anyone with half an eye on politics would have clocked her as the same Sabina.
[ Sabina Higgins ‘dismayed’ by criticism of her view on Ukraine peace talksOpens in new window ]
Still, when supporters and self-declared mavericks rushed to defend her status as a “private citizen”, accusing the other side of trying to trample on her freedom of speech, the vast majority of people agreed. That is because we can all agree that a spouse married to a more famous person has the same rights as any other citizen to live and speak freely. There are no restrictions of any kind on a president’s spouse expressing an opinion on a political matter.
The question is whether this is practicable. Is the wife of a president a private citizen in practice? The first test is whether the letter would have made it through the robust Irish Times filter had it been signed say, by Sabina O’Connor, Ballymagash. In content, it was just another well-intentioned, anti-war view placing a baffling faith in diplomacy, unsupported by evidence, context or constructive suggestion. As a letter to the editor it wasn’t very interesting or enlightening.
In short, it was the identity of the sender that made it interesting enough to be published. Yeah but she was still a private citizen, insisted her supporters.
The letter’s fleeting appearance on the President’s website swiftly put a dent in that. It’s safe to say that Ballymagash Sabina’s letter would not have been graced with the President’s public imprimatur.
Is it the media’s fault for publishing the not-very-interesting views of a private citizen? Or should we finally acknowledge that in the wider world, the presidential association carries heft – real or imagined?
“The President in Office” is the top page title on the official website of the President of Ireland and heralds the top three features: the President, “Vision for Presidency”, and Sabina Higgins. Here in a short bio, she is described as “working as a partner with Michael D in every campaign and in public life for over 20 years”. Featured photographs show her with Michael D welcoming the president of Fiji a on a courtesy call, co-hosting Áras events with him and performing official openings. The sole reference to personal interests is her continued involvement with theatre and community arts.
As a partner, name and personality, Sabina Higgins is as publicly embedded in this 12-year presidency as her husband.
So not just any old Sabina from Dublin 8 then. Not the First Lady either, as she has been referred to in some exchanges. There is no such official role here.
Does it matter? In 2016, she raised some eyebrows by saying it was an “outrage” against women that in the case of “foetal abnormality” a person should be “made carry” the baby. Though pre-referendum, this was virtually a settled view in 2016 and was directed at a domestic audience. What made it news was the fact that the president’s wife had said it.
[ Michael McDowell: Sabina Higgins was just wrong to write that letter ]
So is it the media’s fault for publishing the not-very-interesting views of a private citizen? Or should we finally acknowledge that in the wider world, the presidential association – “partner with Michael D in every campaign and in public life for over 20 years” – carries heft – real or imagined? And what might be the corollary of that?
Up to now, it was easy enough to bat it away and mutter that paper never refuses ink. We know now that it matters in terms of how this country relates to the world at an acutely sensitive time.
The letter became a public problem when Sabina Higgins and the presidential office failed to anticipate the genuine bafflement and hurt that would be raised by it, both within this country – and its tens of thousands of Ukrainian refugees – to devastated Ukraine itself, and well beyond it. To be cited approvingly by the Russian ambassador and his followers is not what was expected from anyone in Áras an Uachtaráin.
War is failure. Every student debater is aware that the west has committed foul deeds in the name of liberation. But anyone with eyes can see that a campaign of mass rape, destruction and murder designed to obliterate a country’s existence, history and culture – not to mention the attempt to starve the world’s poorest countries as leverage over the west – is not a simple, no-to-war, ceasefire issue.
That’s something we should all be able to agree on – is it not?