My husband has the earliest memory in our household of an American presidential visit to Ireland. He was in primary school in Timahoe, Co Kildare, when Richard Nixon visited. He remembers a wilderness of a graveyard being restored, and the grass being mown until it was as green and velvet as a golf course, writes Breda O'Brien
Up to that point, the only thing of interest to local children in the graveyard was a big, black dog with fiery eyes which was said to haunt it. Unlikely, given that only gentle Quakers lie there. In fact, the 300th anniversary of the graveyard is being celebrated this weekend by the Quaker community.
Aside from the supreme joy of a day off school, and of waving American flags that were of such high quality that they lasted for years afterwards, my husband remembers Nixon's big, tanned hands and imposing, almost scary presence.
Watergate burglars were two years in the future, and Irish people were more accepting of Republican presidents at the time of the visit than they ever have been since.
Ronald Reagan got a less ecstatic welcome. My memories of the protest marches are of a motley, disorganised crew. The only exception was the anarchists, who were all dressed alike in black and chains, and who marched in perfect time, chanting in unison "Disarm the police. Arm the people." Ah, more innocent days.
Of course, Reagan's recent death, and the obvious grief of Nancy Reagan, has softened public opinion somewhat.
Now we focus on his skills as a communicator, of his ability to run with ideas that gripped the public imagination. "Mr Gorbachev, tear down this wall."
The idea that he was just an amiable dope who specialised in soundbites has also undergone revision. On this side of the Atlantic, there was some well-founded criticism of Reagan's foreign policy, but also some knee-jerk dislike of American Republicans.
Most people could not understand why Americans loved Reagan so much. It was fairly simple, really. He was a warm and accessible man. Unfortunately, he had some ideas and policies that had disastrous consequences around the world.
In contrast, another warm and accessible man, Bill Clinton, received a hero's welcome when he visited Ireland.
Yes, he deserved credit for the work which he put into the peace process in the North, but he had also sanctioned bombings in Khartoum and in Afghanistan, in clear contravention of international law.
Does anyone remember that the factory destroyed in Sudan was supposed to be manufacturing chemical weapons, but they were actually manufacturing pharmaceuticals?
Does anyone remember that Sudan practically begged to hand over information about Osama bin Laden, but that the Clinton administration was not interested?
The botched bombings in Afghanistan may well have been a spur for the attacks on September 11th, 2001.
And yes, there was Monica Lewinsky. Clinton may not be the first American president to transgress in this way, but what was striking was his absolute refusal to tell the truth until forced into it.
I haven't read his book, which has been mostly panned in the United States.
I think I will wait until the mighty tome is remaindered. Much of the media attention has focused on what his philandering did to his relationship with Hillary. He apparently says now that his tawdry affair was a major moral mistake, that he did it because he could, which is the worst possible reason.
Fair enough, but it is a shame it took him so long to come to that realisation.
When he should have been dealing with issues like the mounting support for Osama bin Laden, he was fighting impeachment, and his energies were diverted.
His two presidencies were full of missed opportunities, including on the domestic front, the opportunity to provide comprehensive healthcare when the economy was booming.
Lest you think that makes me a George W. Bush fan, let me disabuse you of the notion. I am glad not to be an American citizen, because I could vote for neither candidate in the upcoming election. However, can we justify the visceral dislike that so many Irish people seem to have for Bush? We loved Clinton, who was venal, addicted to adoration and astonishingly immature.
Much is made of Bush's alleged intellectual deficiencies, but what use did Clinton make of his abundant brainpower?
He was deeply indecisive. Yes, he intervened in Kosovo, but in a way which maximised damage to the country and minimised the danger to American troops. He ignored the genocide in Rwanda.
There are important and necessary criticisms to be made of Bush's policy in Iraq. They are provided nightly by news footage of continuing carnage. Yet the security preparations for his visit are almost farcical. Cromwell might have been impressed by our armoured personnel carriers, but al-Qaeda are unlikely to be daunted.
However, those of us who march against Bush's policy in Iraq, have a big question to answer. What alternative do we have to offer? Would we have allowed Saddam to go on his merry way, torturing and butchering people, secure in our moral superiority that at least we had prevented America acting like an imperial power?
Granted, the American invasion has shown that you cannot impose Western democracy on a culture which has experienced the anarchic insecurity created by a savage dictator, and which before that was riven and divided by religious and ethnic conflicts.
Yet again, what viable alternatives can pacifists and those who accept violent intervention as a last resort suggest?
The world suffered because Clinton was unwilling to intervene when he should have, such as in Rwanda.
It suffers under Bush because he is all too willing to intervene. Yet we applauded one man and excoriate the other.
We are moving towards a more repressive world in many ways. This column was written before the full impact of Bush's visit is clear, but my guess is that any protests will be smothered by the heavy security presence.
The right to protest peacefully is essential in any democracy, and we suppress it at our peril. Nonetheless, the right to protest holds a responsibility, that of showing that we are not acting out of reflexive dislike, but a genuine desire to provide real alternatives to that against which we protest.
bobrien@irish-times.ie