A friend of long ago and far-off places was given to asking: what would they say if they could see us now? The people in question were bosses we'd shared in another life. But the conversation invariably turned, as conversations do, to the state of the country.
Were we, we'd wonder, as the founding fathers intended? And how far had we deviated from the indomitable vision of that old warhorse of the letters pages, Mother of Six?
Both the founding fathers and the mothers-of-six wanted us to live up to, if not in, a past that was more imagined than real.
But we shared that past with them and others of our own generation. It embraced the Fianna, the Famine and the Penal Laws, golden ages, great misfortune and ready-made demons.
Our declared belief in the unity of Catholic, Protestant and Dissenter was pretence; in truth we knew no Protestants and thought Dissenters were atheists.
The founding fathers might not have been too displeased at that. The nearer they got to having a state of their own, the more the vision of diversity receded.
By the time the State was ours it was clear that Wolfe Tone's ambition - and much more about equality and the like - was the stuff of dreams. We didn't seriously want diversity at home.
And we were uneasy with the wider world, for whose conversion we prayed and paid.
As it grew into the shape moulded by the founding fathers (and mothers), it was obvious that the new State would have one brand of politics - broadly nationalist and essentially conservative.
There would be one religion - Irish Catholicism with as little "Roman" influence as possible and a mere nod in the direction of Others. There would be one country (the whole island), one language (some still hoped it might be Irish), one culture and one set of social values.
The country's permanent rulers, whether of church or State, would be drawn from one, narrow, closely-knit class - people of property or the professions, rooted in the last quarter of the 19th century.
This class would supply the bishops, judges, politicians and senior civil servants - the makers of laws and leaders of opinion. Anyone foolish enough to oppose that class would have two choices: shut up or get out.
If they chose to go, they'd hardly be noticed in the crush. If they stayed and refused to shut up, the new State had ways of keeping them quiet.
The first hint of doubt about the way we were coincided with the 50th anniversary of the Easter Rising. Could it be that we'd let its leaders down, failed to match their ambitions, even though most of them wanted no more than the right to run our own show?
By the early 1970s we were asking whether even that measure of independence was being abandoned for membership of the Common Market. Similar arguments are now to be heard in the British debate on economic and monetary union: some believe our wry amusement at their doubts shows how far we've travelled since 1973.
But how far have we travelled? Do we still see ourselves in any sense as Europeans? Are we so different from the British who look east or south and thank God they're surrounded by water?
In our language and attitudes to much that pertains to the European Union - not to mention potential members in middle Europe and beyond - it's a case of Them and Us. The monocultural approach is of its nature exclusive. Outsiders beware. You are not one of us, nor can you become one of us - not in one or 10 or 300 years.
From the start, our message to Brussels has been: keep sending the money but don't think that that gives you a licence to interfere in our affairs. Indeed, in the debate about how this State is to develop in the first decade of the next century, the emphasis so far has been on monoculturalism of a wider kind.
We now look to America and Britain for example, not to our partners in mainland Europe. (The thought that we might take what we need from every source and construct a model of our own doesn't seem to have occurred to anyone.)
On Today FM, one commentator celebrating the privatisation of Telecom Eireann cackles inanely at the arrival of Thatcherism. Another mumbles excuses for not sending people to jail for tax-evasion.
Mary Harney argues the case for the Fianna Fail-Progressive Democrat coalition as if all that mattered is money and the only way to an inclusive society is to cut taxes.
In an article in The Irish Times this week, she asked: "Do we in Ireland want a liberal economy or a leftist economy?" And her answer was nothing if not direct: "I would argue strongly that liberalism, not leftism, is what has transformed this country over the last 10 years."
The contribution of education is acknowledged, briefly; but not the social partnership which the government is now attempting to renew.
But then a lesson from Mary Harney on the partnership which has produced wage moderation and industrial peace over the last 10 years would be like listening to a lecture from Gerry Adams on democracy.
Ms Harney ended her piece with a few smug sentences about socialism which, no doubt, will go down well with the Small Firms Association. Or on Today FM. Or among the friends of Fianna Fail.
But if she wants a serious debate about the choices facing this country, she might turn to the articles which James Wrynn wrote here last November. His message was neither as crude nor as simplistic as hers. It acknowledged economic achievements but paid as much attention to the development of a fairer society in the years ahead.
He began by describing what other EU states see as they look at one of the economic successes of the Community. It's "a State which is rapidly approaching EU levels of income" but is yet "unwilling to invest in our own society through taxation".
He wrote: "We expect other EU countries, which carry an average burden of tax of almost 50 per cent of GDP as against our 34 per cent, to fund key activities and infrastructure . . .
"Our European partners clearly see that we will not fund the essentials of a developed, fair and just society. We create a tax climate which attracts industry from other EU countries, adding to their unemployment, attacking their social market model by attacking its taxation base, from which we ironically expect to draw benefit by way of structural funds."
He pointed to connections between levels of public spending, the inequalities in our society, the lip service paid to reducing social exclusion and the EU's structural funds.
"We need to confront the contradictions and the connections," he wrote. "It is time we did. We have the resources to decide what kind of society we want. We are rapidly heading for a society whose driving force is the US variant of capitalism. This model is characterised by the assumed superiority of `the private' in every domain and its consequent gross inequality. We are right there behind the US in second place."
You see, it's not so much a question of what the founding fathers would say if they could see us now; it's what we think of ourselves and our future that matters.