There is no doubt that the current crisis in Ireland, and internationally, has major implications not just for the economy but socially and politically as well. However, in Ireland at least, there are no signs that policy makers have grasped the full extent of the problem yet.
It appears that the main pre-occupation is still how to preserve the status quo, or as much of it as possible, rather than a serious look at the fundamental problems inherent in the system and their consequences for society. This is to be expected from those on the Right.
What is surprising is that some of the more radical alternative solutions on the economy are being proposed by sources considered on the Right. They include the Financial Times, The Wall Street Journal, and the International Monetary Fund.
Similarly, commentators such as David McWilliams, Peter Mathews, Paul Somerville, Jim Power, George Soros, Senator Shane Ross, Dr. Constantin Gurdgiev, Professor Patrick Honohan, Professor Morgan Kelly, Professor Karl Whelan and Professor Brian Lucy could hardly be described as the “raving, loony Left” and yet they have, during the last decade, repeatedly come up with analysis and alternatives that would go far beyond what the Irish Congress of Trade Unions or the Irish Labour Party have offered.
Indeed, the lack of any alternative proposals on the part of the bigger Trade Unions and Political Parties at a time of an unprecedented crisis in capitalism is conspicuous for its absence. The almost complete agreement, with minor differences, on the strategy forward from political parties on the Right and the Left is quite a remarkable accomplishment on the part of the establishment.
Despite ample research pointing to the fact that societies that address social inequality do better on almost every indicator, one would be hard pressed to find any mention of it in the political discourse of all the major parties, Left or Right. Instead, all the attention is focused on ensuring that there are no radical or fundamental changes offered.
The main pre-occupation of all the major political parties appears to be not to offend the wealthy and the powerful by suggesting that they pay their fair share of the cost of this fiasco caused by their rapacious behaviour.
The need to ensure a minimal corporation tax rate is considered sacrosanct, almost worth going to war with “friends” but no such consideration for protecting the poor, the weak and the vulnerable in society, they can be sacrificed with disdain. Of course, this is nothing new to any student of history, but that doesn’t make it any more palatable.
Furthermore, the lack of any proposals to avoid the same predicament in future is also lamentable. We are supposed to be satisfied with the fact that there is a different regulator and Governor of Central Bank, never mind that the policies and the guiding principles remain largely the same as those responsible for this crisis.
Indeed, any mention of the need for a significant change of mindset is ridiculed with scorn by “respected” commentators and “experts” as impractical, childish and generally not worthy of consideration. This is despite many serious problems with regard to equality and fairness and their impact on poverty, housing, healthcare, education, transport and energy over many decades and the need to address them as a matter of urgency.
It is often claimed that the majority of the population do not want radical and significant changes. If this is true, is it not due to the fact that any alternative is condemned to the margins and hardly ever discussed seriously? Is it not because the true costs of the existing situation are usually minimised and framed in a manner that distracts attention away from the root causes? Is it not because of the relentless promotion of a skewed set of values and the subliminal assumptions propping up the status quo?
It appears that far from playing a role in helping to bring about the required changes, the leadership of the Left is often a hindrance to it and any significant change is only possible as a result of popular action.
Latest posts by Pirooz Daneshmandi (see all)
- Pirooz Daneshmandi Interviews Economist Tom McDonnell of TASC for Near FM - June 16, 2011
- Near FM Interview with Gideon Levy - June 15, 2011
- Interview with Denis Halliday - May 5, 2011
- Interview with Professor Kathleen Lynch - May 3, 2011
- Near FM Interview with Noam Chomsky - March 18, 2011
February 21, 2011 5:16 pm
You hit the nail on the head when you wrote ” Is it not because the true costs of the existing situation are usually minimised and framed in a manner that distracts attention away from the root causes?”. The actual cost to people is never a consideration. Instead we’re treated to discussions of marginal tax rates and whther millionaires are paying nothing or 5% or 15%. But the real cost is borne by people who suffer in hospital waiting lines or on trolleys, in long dole queues, in emigration, in shorter life-spans, in depression, in long-term unemployment, in miserable old age. These are the externalised costs of the 12.5% corporate rate.
February 22, 2011 12:04 pm
It’s notable that almost all arguments put forward by the left during this election have focussed on such issues as ‘protecting the vulnerable’, and arguig against cuts to welfare and the minimum wage.
I agree that these are all issues, and that they should be a concern to us, but the truth is that even many people on the right feel compassion for the vulnerable – they just don’t see any self interest in helping them. I believe that FG will gain many votes on Friday from people who feel no antipathy to those on welfare or the minimum wage but who believe that it is not currently practical to ‘look after’ them.
Instead of focussing on compassion, surely we should be talking about equality (as I think the op is arguing), and showing how we can all benefit from a more equal society. And arguing too that those benefits are not some wooly ‘feel-good’ nonsense, but are hard measurable things like being healthier, living longer, better educated and even wealthier.
It is always going to be hard to get those arguments out there, but its not as if the current arguments are working. We might as well go down fighting.
February 22, 2011 1:09 pm
The rhetoric does certainly talk about protecting the vulnerable but we need to look at the actions and it’s no surprise when you consider that the last time Fine Gael and Labour were in power, the better off in society did better than the poor. Admittedly, it was not as bad as what followed, nevertheless, there was no serious attempt at increasing equality, reducing poverty, etc.
I don’t agree that there’s no antipathy towards the poor. I think there is significant resentment towards the poor and a concerted effort to divert attention away from wealth and power and scapegoat the poor, trade unionists, public servants and other usual suspects but I agree that we need to concentrate on equality. There is ample hard evidence to confirm that more equal societies do better on all social indicators including innovation than less equal societies.
This is not a question of looking after the poor, it’s a question of building a sustainable society and as a result looking after ourselves.
February 22, 2011 4:29 pm
I agree that there is both antipathy to those on welfare and to public servants, but I think its also true that many who vote for the right wing parties on Friday do not share this antipathy – and they’re the voters who could be won over if the argument was framed correctly.
February 23, 2011 3:51 pm
Pirooz,
How are you! Good article
“This is not a question of looking after the poor, it’s a question of building a sustainable society and as a result looking after ourselves.”
Yes indeed, and as we know the promotion of the community sector is one of the keys. I went looking on the Web sites of the parties to see which had devoted any attention to the sector in their election manifestos There was a big blank with the exception of Sinn Fein who had a seperate policy statement. Theirs was excellent and a lot of it follows on an article I had writeen for the January issue of the Socialist Voice. (available on this site) If you get time I would welcome your comments.
In the meanwhile keep writing and fighting.