Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
JEEZ, WHAT A night.
That was my heartfelt and somewhat breathless reaction as I exited the RTÉ television studio early on Wednesday morning after hours of analysing the results long awaited by political watchers and anyone with an interest in or affinity for the United States.
Crunching the raw numbers as vote totals emerged, it swiftly became apparent that there would be no early “blue wave” carrying Joe Biden and his fellow Democrats to resounding victories around the country. The contest between the former vice president and President Donald Trump would be a dogfight.
Notwithstanding the denials of some partisans on the left and others who disputed the methodologies utilised by certain pollsters, things were tightening. That Joe Biden, a native of Pennsylvania, spent most waking hours in the last days there, was indicative that his campaign was aware of a Trump surge.
To the president’s credit, following a disastrous performance in the first debate, his messaging improved.
He sought to make the election about anything except for his administration’s mishandling of the pandemic.
Opinion surveys showed that his cavalier and rambling dismissals of Covid-19’s severity, coupled with more than one ludicrous and offensive statement about how it should be dealt with, damaged his standing, especially with older voters.
In the final weeks, the central theme was that Biden might be the candidate, but that hard left-wingers in his party, like Bernie Sanders and AOC, would actually call the shots.
His lines of critique were foreboding and deliberately designed to exploit fears and prejudices.
To his intended audience, though, their meaning was crystal clear.
A Biden triumph would lead to outrageously high taxes and related socialist initiatives, a government takeover of private health insurance plans, legalised abortion until the moment of birth, the eroding of the right to own guns and the unleashing of inner-city violence in the suburbs. They featured at rallies and on Twitter.
This tactic helped convince “soft Trump” and persuadable voters to return to the fold and back the president’s quest for a second term.
Simultaneously, his focusing of hearts and minds elsewhere fostered the growth of sentiment to the effect that the president hadn’t done that bad a job in combatting the coronavirus, a global plague that he repeatedly and advantageously blamed on the Chinese government.
On the flip side, and by comparison to Trump, Team Biden executed a rather low-octane operation, with physically distanced gatherings to depict the 77-year-old as the responsible adult in the room.
The lack of energy and enthusiasm, however, and what they portrayed not alone to attendees, but most importantly to those who saw and heard them broadcast, was underwhelming as against the pageantry and fervour manifest at every Trump rally.
The word unprecedented has been employed excessively about this race, yet it also applies to the outcome.
At the time of writing, it seems extremely likely that Joe Biden will be inaugurated as the next President of the United States in January. He has a very good chance of reaching the required 270 Electoral College votes without Pennsylvania. If so, Trump and the GOP’s legal avenues are limited to recounts and other dubious claims.
In this event, countless Americans and concerned observers around the world will breathe a sigh of relief and rejoice that what they would call a nightmare is finally over. But the probable conclusion of this fraught chapter in history sits beside two other truisms: “Trumpism” is alive and well and the Democratic Party must do some serious soul searching.
What should encourage us all, and rebuts overwrought critics of democratic processes in the US, is the record turnout of voters – in particular the young and people of colour. Ample opportunities to vote early increased participation; these should be available long after the scourge of coronavirus is banished.
Indeed, much of the rest of the world could learn something from the country of my birth on that score.
Conventional wisdom has always been that the more Americans who cast ballots, the better it is for the Democratic Party. Not on this occasion. Donald Trump garnered millions more votes than he received in 2016.
His tallies among women, millennials, blacks and Latinos were all better. His brand of politics and his persona still resonates. November 3rd did not deliver the repudiation hoped for by so many. Far from it.
While evaluating why Trump remains so popular, one must examine what is on offer from his foes. Ahead of this week, Democrats and their allies in the media were buoyant and quietly preparing to celebrate.
Trump would be defeated; they would regain control of the US Senate; and they would have a bigger majority in the US House of Representatives. The party look to have narrowly won the White House, but look to have fallen short on the other two.
Two realities account for this failure.
First, the Democrats have lost touch with the regular working men and women who used to constitute their base. Prioritising the cultural agenda of wealthy donors on the coasts may fill the coffers, but it has engendered a perception that they are indifferent to the plight of those who have suffered most from the furious march of globalisation and technology and consequent displacement and extraordinary income inequality.
Democrats can retort that they are unambiguously on the side of these Americans, but their endorsement of so-called free trade deals, advocacy for abandoning fossil fuels without adequately addressing the worries of those whose livelihoods are dependent upon associated industries and widespread intolerance of social conservatives tell a contrary tale.
Perhaps even more detrimental has been the sneering, condescending, preachy manner in which some prominent figures have frequently articulated this change in emphasis and direction.
Second, they have taken the Latino community’s support for granted and spectacularly misread what animates them. The assumption had been that they would be just like African Americans: virtually homogenous in their preference for the Democratic Party.
When Joe Biden recently let down his guard and said, “if you don’t vote for me, you ain’t black”, it revealed a prevalent mind-set in the hierarchy.
Engagement with Latinos is an imperative.
That a proponent of building a wall across the border with Mexico to keep people from South and Central America out has obtained more than one-third of the Latino vote is illustrative of the depth of the problem.
They are the fastest growing bloc in the US.
Many abhor socialism, own small businesses and prefer the Republican low-tax, light-touch regulation model and are people of strong religious faith and conviction. A political pivot may be in order to attract their hearts and minds.
Above all, the complicated result is a natural by-product of a divided America.
When and if Joe Biden is deemed the winner, the immense, thankless and all but impossible task of reconciling profound differences will immediately confront him. At the very least, he must strive to re-introduce civil discourse in a wounded polity.
There have been many low points in the tenure of Donald Trump.
His appalling post-election speech – in which he made a series of bizarre and incoherent allegations of fraud before declaring falsely that he had prevailed and would seek ultimate vindication from a Supreme Court he implied is now a wholly owned subsidiary of Trump, Inc. – was the nadir.
For me, the enduring image of this wretched year is a crowd of ostensibly patriotic Americans hooting and applauding wildly in response to the president’s verbal defecation on our grandest ideals, traditions and institutions. Truth is stranger than fiction.
Larry Donnelly is a Boston attorney, a Law Lecturer at NUI Galway and a political columnist with TheJournal.ie.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
The first issue is the strongest possible,
They should never have been allowed make it happen without the parents consent. After all he was their son.this is making the re-live the pain without there input.
If a movie was going to be made at least they could have considered the emotional impact on the family and their support network.
My thoughts and prayers are with the family.
@Eddie Mc Keown: Raising the question of the consent of Mrs Bulger (now Mrs Fergus) is disingenuous. We know she would have objected to it being made at all. Few if any searching documentaries would get made, and we would lose the important insights they can provide, if everyone involved had a veto on the grounds they might find the subject matter distasteful or hurtful. This documentary doesn’t deal with the lurid aspects of this crime – they are anyhow notorious, and any brief trawl on the internet will provide you with all the gory details, sensationalism, speculation, and voyeuristic amateur psychology in relation to this crime you could ever want if your tastes are that way inclined.
On the other hand, this documentary deals in a low-key and unsensational way with a matter of important public interest: the interaction between the criminal justice system and young children who have done a terrible thing. Mrs Fergus might have her objections, but it is more important that documentaries like this get made. (Incidentally, Mrs Fergus has been no slouch at giving interviews to tabloid journalists for money)
@Peter O’Muiri: I don’t think there are that many searching documentaries that deal with the murder of a baby though, are there? This didn’t need to be made, not least of all because the details of it are freely available. There is no great mystery to be solved from it. His mother’s consent is something any decent person would have obtained. It’s irrelevant how many interviews she has given, for how much, or to whom. Few of us know, and god willing never will know, what she goes through on a daily basis. There is nothing to be served other than voyeurism by making this film. But we shouldn’t stand in the way of Mr Lambe’s Oscar bid, right?
His parents named him James and never used Jamie. It was the tabloids which started that. Much the same way the same tabloids used Maddie.
It isn’t right that journalists can change names to seem more “cute” or personable
@Michael McLoughlin: they repeatedly say they never called him Jamie.
@Michael McLoughlin: sorry to hijack your post. My attempted comment was not allowed. You are correct. The journalist here refers to the poor child as “Bulger’” initially then Jamie and then James. Sad to see him refer to an innocent child by his surname.
I saw the short film, it was very gripping. Evil little monsters in my opinion. I don’t care what was done to them I have no sympathy at all for the two little toe rags. I think films like this should be shown it’s reminds parents to be vigilant around everyone not just adults. I was only 11 or 12 when this happened to Jamie Bulger and I’ll never forget it, it numbed me to the bone.
@Anna Forde: I was around that age too. Shook me to the bones. I still can’t wrap my head around the mentality of it. No matter how I look or read into it.
The headline needs to change 1. It was murder so not death. 2. James not Jamie.
No one cares to hear the story about those two monsters. It shouldn’t have been made without permission from James Bulgers mother Denise. Absolute disgrace. Should be pulled from Oscars.
@Helen: They were 10 year old children, not monsters.
@Lar Meyler: At 10 years old, you’re responsible for your own actions. If they’d had the death penalty, they should’ve been given that.
@Keith McDonagh: They were children shaped by others and their life experiences. The fact that Robert Thompson has made a success of his life since, is testament to this.
There was also more than one set of parents devastated by what happened.
And this was 25 years ago. Get over it. It is time for society to learn and move on….
@Lar Meyler: And what about Venables? Back in jail for sharing violent child porn with paedophile groups, he’s environment in rehab didn’t seem to work on him. Just because you haven’t heard anything from Thompson wouldn’t convince me that he’s a fine upstanding citizen, Thompson was far more cunning and far less empathetic,manipulated care workers during his detention etc, better at keeping his head down but doesn’t necessarily mean he’s turned into a grand old chap,certainly wouldn’t want him as my next door neighbor. Well written article btw.
@Jimjamjim: I suspect Thompson is content with his lot. Venables appears to have being long term impacted by what happened.
End of the day, they were 10 YEAR OLD CHILDREN. We need to understand totally what happened to prevent it happening again. That is ALL that mattsr at this point. Only monsters condemn children. Only exception would be those close to James who were emotionally impacted..
@Lar Meyler: Being shaped by others & their own life experences isn’t an excuse & shouldn’t be used as one because it’s a load of bollox.
@Keith McDonagh: What part of THEY WERE 10 YEAR OLD CHILDREN do you not get?
@Lar Meyler: “THEY WERE 10 YEAR OLD CHILDREN” Well then they should’ve known better shouldn’t they? This whole thing was nobodies fault but their own & anyone who says otherwise is just being naive.
@Lar Meyler: How do you know Thompson made a success of his life. Do you know him personally?
@Keith McDonagh: You mean that they should have acted like adults? They were 10 YEAR OLD KIDS! End of…
@Damo.f: It is reported as such. He is engaged in a long term relationship and has not come to the attention of police.
@Lar Meyler: And his partner is fully aware of his past.
@Lar Meyler: not all 10 year old kids are warped with evil tendencies.
@Lar Meyler: Ya. But who really knows. All that is is hear say. Nothing official has ever been released about him.
@Lar Meyler: and do you think we will understand it by watching a 30 min film? No, don’t think so.
Also I wonder if you could look at that mother and tell her it was 25 years ago, get over it!
@Donal Kebab: They are still 10 YEAR OLD CHILDREN. I can reappear this forever…
Ye are adults, you are suppose to be smarter…
@Damo.f: Yet there is one undeniable fact: He has not come to the attention of police since. That is a far better record that a non minor subset of society..
@Lar Meyler: Personally i think its disgusting that he can now lead a normal life under anonyimity. Hundreds of thousands have been wasted protecting those 2 bas$/%ds. They should have been released under their original identities and left to fend for themselves.
@Rosa Lopez: All I ask is I get to view it and make my own mind up. Only the Gestapo would.prevent people from doing so…
Like.I said, she was emotionally impacted. The rest of us have no excuse for not getting over it…
@Damo.f: You sound like a vigilante. A primitive standpoint.
@Damo.f: Agreed, there have been zero official reports on Thompson since his release,he has been a ghost,it doesn’t surprise me actually,he was observed in care as being highly intelligent,manipulative and observed as acting as if the crime didn’t effect him, he didn’t appear to be upset about it,he also incessantly watched news reports on the case during his time in care as if he was watching a movie,there is a term for individuals like that,again nobody knows what the hell he’s been up to and just because you haven’t heard anything about him doesn’t necessarily mean he’s turned into a saint,some traits can’t be erased through rehab/talk therapy etc.
@Lar Meyler: it’s call emphaty, I don’t need to have my 2 yo child beaten to death to emphasize with this mother.
If you want to understand I suggest you watch the documentary with the kids police interviews and trial. You listen to their real voices, their accents, their voices inflection, their backgrounds…a much better way to understand that looking at two young actors in a 30 min film. Also, read studies done on violent criminals, professional with equipment to study human brain, genetics and thousands of specialists in different fields studying human behavior. After years of reading maybe you will be more accurately capable of making your mind up…or maybe not, professionals are still on it.
@Rosa Lopez: All I ask is all material is available to review including this film. No. censorship. Society will make its own mind up on what exactly happened, in the long term
@Keith McDonagh: And perhaps you would have liked to be the one to administer it. Do you ‘get off’ on imagining things like that, Keith?
@Lar Meyler: There’s not censorship, all the materials to review this case are there. There is nothing new in the film, therefore nothing necessary for reviewing.
@Rosa Lopez: and society at large can not make their mind of what really happening based on a 30 min film. People won’t be graduating in criminology, sociology, psychiatry, criminal law, etc. by watching a 30 min film. It’s misleading and it’s irresponsible.
This is just the morbid curiosity we all feel with crime and specially with what we perceived as atypical crime, that’s all. In this case the suffering of the parents should be more important that our own preference though
@Lar Meyler: I wish you would stop trying to make an excuse for them by continually saying “they were 10 year old children”. I certainly knew the difference between right and wrong at 10 years of age. As I’m sure did the vast majority of people on here at that age.
If they were 5 or 6, or both had learning disabilities, then there might have been mitigating circumstances.
But not at 10. No way, I’m not having that.
People love to make excuses for other, sometimes one has to accept that they’re staring at pure evil in the flesh.
Venables and Thompson were and will continue to remain pure evil.
@Colm O’Sullivan: science might differ, or at least it will be able to explain the brain mechanism of that evil and the relation with environment.
It raises many questions, but same question as any other violent crime, specially in minors. Same questions as the fiasco with juvenile program, the infamous “bad/difficult background” in dozens of sentences, the rehabilitation vs. Punishment, the nature vs nurture. Lots, but it’s plain clear a 30′ movie won’t lead to an informed and in depth social debate. That’s a poor and patronizing excuse to justify something that is morally wrong.
@Lar Meyler: 10 yr old children who deliberately and callously abducted a 2 YR OLD child , subjected him to torture and horrific beatings and sexual assault , tried to stone him to death , and discarded his body on a railway track to cover up their crime . they had at least 3 chances to hand that child over before they got to the railway – twice in the shopping precinct and once around 1/2 a mile from the railway , when stopped and questioned by 3 people as to why james was distressed and crying they told them – “he’s me brother and he’s crying and upset because he can’t have any sweets ” they told a 2nd person they had ‘found the boy wondering round the precinct and were taking him to the police station” (200 yrd from the precinct) and a third person who saw them dragging james along by the arms that ” he’s just being ‘mardy’ ( moody) because he wants to get sweets and he cant ” . they had planned this abduction and murder and they carried it out without hesitation or remorse , they continued to lie to the police and their own parents – as for them crying while in custody – the interviews were taped and the crying stopped when police officers left the room – one of them even asked his mother “whats for tea ” ! they were not ‘integrated – and merseyside police and social services staff went out of their way to make the interviews as least intimidating as was possible to do – this was an unprecedented crime -something police and social services had NEVER had to deal with before – they may not have got it 100% right but they did their upmost .
@Eric Davies: should read interrogated not integrated !!
@Lar Meyler: Thompson will never be a successful man. He is a child killer who played the police like a fiddle. Two sets of parents, you mean the drunken abusive ones? that doesnt excuse evil minded little f****** like those two.
@Lar Meyler: why dont you start a fan club for them and be done with it
Vincent Lambe has a neck on him making this film without consulting the family first, cheeky b###ard
Just sick…step too far. I can’t watch anything related to hurting babies since having a child. I know it happened but that’s even more reason not to see it. I can’t see a stampede at the box office for this. At least horror movies are fiction. His poor mother’s tortured face when she’s being interviewed…just, no. Out of respect. No.
A Irish Film group made a film about a horrible experience, abroad. My heart goes out to the family and I do think it should be taken off screen as it is rude, wrong, disgusting to base a film based on a single matter like this. Irish producers should not lower there standards to English tabloid standards, Ireland is a nation of building, helping and empowering people. We should not lower our standards to others..
@Paul Somers: They make films based on real events & real crimes all the time, I don’t really see what’s so different about this one.
@Keith McDonagh: Because it was someone’s young infant child…someone’s precious heart and soul. That’s what’s different. I think you already know this though and you’re just trying to be edgy.
@Green Lentils: Thank you. We have standards.
Shane Dunphy, very well written article, it is good to read something well articulated on thejournal, I hope that you will continue to write fantastic articles on all matters of importance.
One story missed was 12 year old Louise Allen Kicked to death by two other girls aged 12 & 13. 24 years ago in Corby.
@Niall Sheridan: Never heard of her before. Just googled it there. The 2 girls that killed her were releasd after a year in custody. Mad stuff.
Shame on you “journalist”. “Bulger’s murderers”. I read no more. His name was Jamie. How can you call an innocent toddler by his surname? We all know his name. It was Jamie. So sad.
@Clem J Ó Díomasaigh: No, his name was James. It was only ever the tabloid press called him Jamie. His surname, and the use of it alone, does nothing to change how innocent he was. On the other hand, referring to him as Jamie in an effort to make him seem somehow more deserving of sympathy (as if any stone heart could deny him this based on his name) is a sickening marketing move on behalf of the tabloid press. Remember, they would have say down and discussed why they felt the need to call him something other than the name his mother gave him.
This article is just as bad. . Rip jamie
The murder of James Bolger was a truly heartbreaking and chilling one and I believe that his parents should have at least been informed well in advance of the planned short film if full consultation was not something the director was open to. I agree with those that say we can’t and shouldn’t shy away from the fact that children are capable of such things. I also wonder how many of those firmly opposed to and trashing the film have watched programmes such as Making a Murderer or the Ted Bundy Tapes, currently showing on Netflix. Do we ever give issues of consent or consultation with families a second thought as we binge watch and discuss true crime documentaries? It is undoubtedly sad that this film will cause added pain to the family of James Bulger but I do respect the right to make it and bring it into existence.
It should be withdrawn! End of! Agonising for his parents and family.
Shame on you “journalist”. “Bulger’s murderers”. I read no more. His name was Jamie. How can you call an innocent toddler by his surname? We all know his name. So sad.
@Clem J Ó Díomasaigh: His name was James.
Let the young child rest in peace and those evil, worthless creatures be forgotten. All this stirs up grief, anger and bitterness.
Our National Airline cannot print names correctly on boarding cards , even after numerous queries and requests down through the years .
O Connor as an example is Oconnor
No space or capital
have your say