In recent e-mails, readers have challenged me to explain why I, and the rest of the "media elite", have been so entirely out of touch with the people regarding the citizenship referendum.writes Breda O'Brien.
For starters, being considered to be part of the media elite is disconcerting. I am more used to filling the role of media outsider.
However, I usually have the comfort of knowing that my allegedly odd views are shared by swathes of the population whose beliefs are poorly represented in the media. No such comfort exists on this issue.
When pressed for their reasons, some Yes voters said there are too many immigrants and they have come here to exploit us. While I would vote No again tomorrow, there is obviously a great need to listen to the reasons why people believe immigrants to be such a threat.
Some years ago, Tom Hesketh wrote a book on the 1983 abortion referendum, called The Second Partitioning of Ireland. His thesis is that the divides that opened then had consequences as far-reaching as the original partitioning of Ireland, so deeply drawn were the battle-lines.
During the recent citizenship debate, it looked as if the third partitioning of Ireland was underway.
Who would have expected to see William Binchy and Ivana Bacik on the same side? Or Ruairí Quinn and William Binchy lacing into a discomfited Michael McDowell when it was all over? Why was the citizenship referendum passed so overwhelmingly?
One cannot resort to the easy answer of racism and xenophobia, although I believe that there are increasing numbers of both racists and xenophobes in this country.
However, the vast majority of people who voted Yes do not fit into either category. It is my belief that an essential national conversation on immigration and asylum-seekers has not yet happened.
It did not help that anyone who wished to restrict immigration was automatically branded racist by a powerful media and political elite.
Mind you, it did not help either that Michael McDowell also made a debate more difficult by pretending first that it was about maternity facilities, then about closing a backdoor to the EU, instead of admitting it was about assuaging fears about migration.There is also a certain hollowness to the claims of some liberals, who speak earnestly about diversity and pluralism.
Sadly, it is often clear that the kind of pluralism they wish for is one where everyone agrees with them.
There was a clear example of this during the European elections. Kathy Sinnott, as a lone parent and disability campaigner, was a media darling, feted for her courageous stand against an uncaring state. When it emerged that she had the "wrong" views on abortion and divorce, she was treated like a pariah. It was the most astonishing display of bigotry.
Whatever her views on other social issues, Kathy Sinnott's record of fighting for the rights of people with disabilities stands. Yet she was attacked venomously by people who often preach about the need for tolerance and diversity.
That kind of patronising arrogance is one of the reasons why some people are suspicious of arguments coming from the liberal/left. It is a foolish arrogance. Strong social solidarity is needed before a community is willing to be open to strangers.
If people despise one of the key components of that social glue, that is, the fact that many Irish people share a faith-based value system, and then do everything they can to undermine that value system, they should not be shocked if the result is greater individualism, not collectivism.
I would like to emphasise that it is only an element of the political and media world that acts in this way. Many people whom I admire for their commitment to unpopular causes, who are motivated entirely by a secular human rights perspective, have been generous in their praise of the work of religious orders on behalf of migrants and asylum-seekers.
They are willing to make common cause with people of faith, while retaining the right to amicably disagree on other issues.
However, they were very disappointed, as I was, by the failure of leadership on the part of the Catholic hierarchy. It was depressing to see the bishops fail to endorse a No vote.
Their belated and cautious entry into the debate meant that they had little impact, even in stimulating a constructive discussion.
Again, a useful national conversation that might have happened suffered a stillbirth.
In February of this year, there was a great deal of debate in Britain about the concept of multiculturalism, and how open societies should be to migration. Despite its obvious resonances for the Irish situation, it received little attention here.
It began when the Guardian reprinted a long essay by David Goodhart, the editor of Prospect magazine. He speculates that a large welfare state relies on a homogenous population.
Progressives advocate cultural diversity, but citizens do not want the welfare state to support people they do not identify with.
Interestingly, in an e-mail to me, one person made that very point, not so much about the welfare state, as about identifying with non-nationals made citizens by birth. "Baby Chen is blameless in this, but I still don't consider her to be my fellow-citizen."
Fianna Fáil backbenchers have been saying that the electorate wants the Government to present a more caring face. It is clear, though, that they want that caring face for harassed, commuting mortgage-slaves, and that many draw the line at outsiders.
David Goodhart makes the point that the language of universalist human rights is a thin one with which to make the case for welcoming the stranger.
He also wonders if the promotion of diversity has gone too far, and whether the concept of common values to which people must subscribe in order to foster a sense of identity should receive more attention. These are questions we must face here in Ireland.
Sr Stan's Immigrant Council has called for a national forum. That will only work if there is significant debate both in the media and the pubs about these crucial issues.
We have to start a respectful national conversation, if only because inward migration is a reality that will not go away. We have had enough partitions in Ireland. What we need now is a constructive engagement.