In the coming election campaign, not a single newspaper, radio station nor television station among the mainstream media will campaign for a radical restructuring of Irish society to achieve a far greater level of equality than exists, writes Vincent Browne
I am not arguing that this is necessarily the preferred programme, let along that it is the only option. Nor am I arguing that it is necessarily the only fair option. I am simply drawing attention to the fact that not a single one of the mainstream media will campaign on that front or anything resembling that front.
The media, including RTÉ, will represent the prevailing "common sense": that while criticisms may be levelled at some of the more glaring manifestations of inequality, fundamentally the structure of Irish society is okay; that this structure has yielded spectacular economic success in the last decade and a half and that this economic success has indeed lifted all boats; that the levels of consistent poverty are now a fraction of what they used to be; that poverty previously was associated primarily with unemployment and unemployment is now largely taken care of.
This is a respectable and defensible point of view. Indeed, the point of view expressed by Michael McDowell some time ago in an interview with the Irish Catholic to do with some inequality being a good thing is also respectable, and I think that viewpoint was unfairly traduced. Most people accept that some level of inequality is appropriate to reflect, for instance, different levels of commitment, different hardships associated with particular kinds of work and a variety of other factors.
So my point is not that opinions other than the one which holds that a radical restructuring of Irish society is essential are unsustainable or are morally objectionable. I am merely noting that none of the mainstream media will reflect that position. They all converge around the prevailing "common sense" - that aside from some marginal imperfections, the structure of society is fine.
And the media-led agenda will reflect that "common sense". The debate will be about who best can manage this "basically okay" society and what marginal reforms are necessary to correct the imperfections. The view that there is something inherently wrong with the structure won't get an airing, aside from the obligatory genuflections towards "balance" which will allow the occasional representation of that viewpoint before the main debate resumes.
And that media-led consensual agenda will result in either the re-election of the present Government or the election of a government that, policy-wise, is inherently no different.
For we are governed primarily not by laws or parties of coalitions or individuals or even economic forces. We are governed by a mindset. A mindset created in the main by the media and also by the educational system and by religion (religion, education and the media being the main purveyors of ideology). And it has always been thus. Those who signed in 1776 the American Declaration of Independence - "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" - were fine people: John Adams, Roger Sherman, Benjamin Franklin, Robert R Livingston of New York, and Thomas Jefferson. It was Jefferson who drafted the Declaration of Independence.
And yet many of the men who signed the declaration, and the person who drafted it, owned slaves. The words "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal" didn't apply to slaves.
The "common sense" of the day was that the institution of slavery was in the natural order of things. It made "common sense". It was the mindset.
And the mindset of today, the "common sense" of today, is that it is okay that one fifth of the population is living on household incomes of €9,680 or less (that is, €186 per week or less). This is according to a report of the Central Statistics Office in reference to 2004.
The report stated: "Excluding social transfers [ such as unemployment benefits, child benefits and pensions], the risk of poverty rate would have been close to 40 per cent [ of the total population]". The report states that, without social transfers, nearly all old people (87 per cent) would be at risk of poverty.
The realisation that two in five people in this massively wealthy society are dependent on social welfare payments to keep them out of the "at-risk poverty" bracket, and that nearly all old people here would be at risk of poverty were it not for social welfare payments, is shocking.
What's the "common sense" of that? (Yes, I anticipate the response that this is why we have welfare payments, but why should so many people be so dependent on welfare payments? Does it not speak of some basic injustice?)
There are numerous other indicators of a deeply unjust society. How is it that this will be ignored almost entirely in the coming debate and that none of the media will campaign on these realities? It's the mindset.