Heather Humphreys lost last night’s presidential debate simply because she didn’t win. It may have been her best performance, and occasionally her blows grazed Catherine Connolly, but there was no killer punch.
Connolly was calm, poised and expertly skated away from uncomfortable questions about her trip to Syria, her employment in Leinster House of a member of Eirigí convicted of firearms offences and representing banks who were seeking evictions when she was a barrister.
The Humphreys presidential campaign, in so far as it can be described as one, never had a proposition beyond asking people who are like Humphreys to vote for the very likable Humphreys. Coming from somewhere called the centre ground, it has no wider horizons and no destination. Last night’s debate, the last before polling day on Friday, at least implied recognition that this approach has failed. Humphreys’s focus last night and in the last few days was not herself, but her opponent. That approach has likely failed too.
It is a compliment to Humphreys personally, but also a political limitation, that she is incapable of demonising Connolly effectively. Operation Fear is a bit less impactful if your weapon is cotton wool. Connolly, according to herself, is about speaking truth to power. Her highest power, however, is avoiding home truths she doesn’t like and criticising those who present them to her – but none of the issues she was confronted with seemed to stick. And having made Connolly, rather than herself, the focus of her debate strategy, Humphreys could not pin her down.
The team behind the RTÉ Prime Time debate, moderated by Miriam O’Callaghan and Sarah McInerney, learned lessons from the frantic pace that tried to cover too many topics in the general election. However, like most of the debates on-air in this campaign, it largely avoided discussion of the office of president. The limitations of the office and how – as president – they would deal with them wasn’t mentioned. Neither were their views on how President Michael D Higgins has arguably crossed accepted boundaries. It was another presidential debate about lots of things except the office itself.
[ Presidential election: Frontrunner Connolly stands over her record in final TV debateOpens in new window ]
Reality did occasionally intrude into this surreal context. There was mention, first by Heather Humphreys in her opening remarks, and again later in the debate, of the riots at Citywest in West Dublin last night. Humphreys focused on the law-and-order issue, while Connolly insisted on wariness about the conflation of multiple issues around asylum and immigration. It was a reminder that this election is taking place against a backdrop of real issues about this country’s internal cohesion. It is also a fact that the two viable remaining candidates represent too narrow a spectrum to capture the fragmented politics characterising modern Ireland.
What was left to decide on, in this last of a series of on-air job interviews, was performance and articulation. It is questionable how credible Connolly is, and fair to ask who she really is. But what she did consistently – from the start of the campaign and in the last debate – is outperform Humphreys. She talks a lot about speaking truth to power, but she does at least succeed in defining herself against power. A psychologist, barrister and successful politician, she aligns against an establishment she is apparently not part of. Connolly occupies a peculiar place in which she is adept at using power, but successfully stands as an antidote to it.
In this presidential race, the establishment distilled itself into the capable but uncharismatic persona of Humphreys. Her language last night about being moderate and representing the middle ground came across as a rejection of any attempt at daring and imagination about where the country should go, or how a president might be a guiding light on the journey. She may have succeeded in raising doubts about Connolly, but she reinforced a certainty about herself.
It was not just that Connolly outperformed an improved Humphreys – it is that the former was the only one of the two to offer a broader vision. There was a momentum behind the idea of Connolly as a future president, and you could see that she senses the prize is close. Humphreys fought to the end and succeeded in giving a decent account of who she really is. But she gave no clear sense of why she should be our next president.
