In his 2010 book The New Vichy Syndrome, Theodore Dalrymple presented an idea that had not yet spread widely beyond Britain and Ireland. “Perhaps it is Ireland that offers the most startling example of secularization in Europe because it was a late starter,” wrote the conservative physician and social critic. “Late starters, however, are often very apt pupils; they catch up fast, and even surpass their mentors.”

A decade and a half later, Ireland’s devout adherence to liberal dogma has indeed surpassed that of many — or most — European peers. Its academics, professionals, and other institutional representatives profess a religious faith in progressive liberalism that their forebears once reserved for the Catholic Church. The country’s viable political options range from revolutionary-left to corporate-friendly liberal. Party-approved views on abortion and the portfolio of rainbow issues are requisite for Irish public life. (RELATED: Catholic Decline and Christian Revival in Ireland)

It was in this setting that a class of people keen to lecture about “democracy” blocked conservative attorney and activist Maria Steen from appearing on the ballot in next month’s presidential election. She had sought to offer a meaningful alternative to Irish voters but fell short after gaining only 18 of 20 required nominations from the Oireachtas, the country’s bicameral parliament, by Wednesday’s deadline.

Steen’s bid to make the ballot has been the premier story of this year’s campaign and surely will remain so. Now the only certified candidates will be Heather Humphreys, of the establishment-liberal Fine Gael; Jim Gavin, of the establishment-liberal Fianna Fáil; and Catherine Connolly, an independent supported by a broad front of left-wing parties, including left-nationalist Sinn Féin. Irish voters critical of unchecked immigration, novel types and severity of crime, and state-enforced social views will have no electoral option; likewise for voters who embrace Catholic social teaching. (RELATED: The Outbreak of Migrant-Related Crime and Rape in the EU)

Steen gained national prominence as a “No” campaigner ahead of two government-sponsored referenda last year. The government had proposed and campaigned for constitutional amendments that would have redefined families to include “durable relationships” outside marriage and removed references to “motherhood” from the constitution.

The proposed amendments enjoyed the unanimous support of major parties, government officials, and corporate media. Confident after the recent referenda on abortion and marriage redefinition, the government assumed victory. In a shocking outcome, Irish citizens rebelled. Nearly 68 percent of voters, including all electoral districts outside the wealthy Dún Laoghaire in suburban Dublin, rejected the “family” amendment, while 74 percent and all electoral districts rejected the “motherhood” amendment.

Steen, holding her infant child while conducting interviews after the result was announced, became a symbol of the grassroots “No” movement. To date, it has been modern Ireland’s single major anti-establishment achievement. In the country’s general election later that year, the dominant parties retained firm parliamentary control with a mere reshuffling of seats.

In Ireland, most power resides in the directly elected Dáil Éireann (house of representatives) and the unelected Seanad Éireann (senate), with the president performing a largely symbolic role. It is unclear precisely to what degree a president could act in opposition to the government. Recent presidents, including the incumbent Michael D. Higgins, have been emboldened to champion left-wing social causes, which is not controversial in the Irish political establishment. A President Maria Steen would have realized this scenario of opposing forces, which Irish political grandees were not willing to entertain.

Much of their public opposition was tied to Steen’s views on abortion and marriage, which would not have been controversial or noteworthy until recently. According to this narrative, Steen’s position on the losing side of the last decade’s referenda makes her unsuitable to stand before the voters. Never mind the fact that she became the symbolic face of last year’s referendum results, in which all major Irish political figures stood in opposition to the voters, and in which the “No” side prevailed by even greater margins.

“While many argue it is the will of the people that this candidate should be on the ballot paper none have produced empirical evidence that their demand is in fact the will of the people,” said Senator Gerard Craughwell, who refused to nominate Steen over her stance on abortion.

After much wrangling, the non-aligned Independent Ireland party announced on Tuesday that its four TDs (members of the Dáil) would nominate Steen. “We want someone who can reach out to everybody, even those not in, let’s say, her agenda, or those she’s reached out to up to now in her life,” said party leader Michael Collins. A subsequent press conference reflected an obsession over LGBT issues that has become a hallmark of Irish corporate journalism.

That the current political class does not reach out to everybody, even those not in, let’s say, their agenda, is one of the indefensible hypocrisies of Official Ireland.

After the grudging vote of confidence from Independent Ireland on Tuesday afternoon, Steen looked like she would meet the threshold of 20 nominations. “I’m told Marie [sic] Steen has the 20,” Dublin City Councillor Dermot Lacey, of the Labour Party, wrote on X. “So a four way contest. Probably good for democracy.”

Later that afternoon, Dr. Eoin Lenihan, an Irish journalist, reported that his contacts had become “somewhat subdued,” and suggested “there was a concerted effort to keep Steen out.”

On Wednesday, Steen acknowledged that she had secured only 18 nominations and formally conceded she would not appear on the ballot. “Rarely has the political consensus seemed more oppressive, or detached from the wishes and desires of the public,” she stated.

“[T]he ruthlessness shown by the political parties at local level in shutting down any challenge to establishment candidates shows the need for reform,” wrote Irish journalist Niamh Uí Bhriain. “Reform is needed because the threshold to enter in the Presidential race is simply too high to the point where it is undemocratic.”

“Pressure cooker populism on [the] way later this decade,” predicted Irish journalist Thomas O’Reilly. As more-established populists have thus far been blocked from power across Europe, one can only guess what that would mean for the country. It is clear, at least, that Ireland is assuming its familiar role as a late starter.

READ MORE from Michael O’Shea:

It’s Past High Noon for Poland’s Liberals

What Next for Poland After Nawrocki Victory?

Is Poland the Next Victim of Mass Migration?

Michael O’Shea is an American-Polish writer and translator. He is a Danube Institute visiting international fellow.