Sir, - Fintan O'Toole's column of March 19 begins by outlining acase for the proposition that "repression has been replaced, not withfreedom, but with a new kind of enslavement to consumerism andcelebrity".
He questions the wisdom of people like himself, who campaigned to"clear away the detritus of a failed moral project of moralprotectionism" and wonders if he has thereby helped create a "valuelesssociety in which the baby of collective responsibility has been thrownout".
Unfortunately, he goes on to glibly dismiss all this and to evadethe real seriousness of the question, before concluding that the blamelies with the political parties who "failed to articulate a notion ofpublic morality".
What nonsense! The paradigm shift does not go back 20 years, as MrO'Toole seems to suggest in discussing attitudes from a 1981 survey. Tomost older people, the relevant comparisons go back 40 years. Then youhad a society which, for all its faults, was streets ahead of today'sin the matters that he now laments: "wider framework of social ethics.. .deeply-rooted concern for generosity, solidarity and equality". Thatframework was based on hundreds of years of Christian teaching andpractice and a way of life that still retained a close-knit sense ofcommunity.
It was a society with a very strong sense of moral right and wrong,combined with a sympathetic understanding of human frailty. It wasundoubtedly harsh in some ways, but that was a reflection of theeconomic realities of its recent history. And in the rather laxattitude to civil law and taxation there was still a hangover from thecolonial past.
But serious crime was almost non-existent by today's standards. Thestreets were safe and houses were usually left unlocked. Politicianswere still inspired by the idealism of the generation that had wonindependence and built the State.
Visitors were struck by the genuine "céad mile fáilte" they met -some traces of which remain today despite the widespread commercialgreed. Turnout at elections and general interest in politics were farahead of what we now see. All sorts of social and civic organisationsfound it easier to get volunteers than they do today. It was no utopia,but it was far better than the image nowadays presented of a repressedsociety.
What has happened since then is open to debate. Much of the changewas probably inevitable, with increasing affluence and an increasingopenness to the world via TV and foreign travel. Much of the newprosperity and individualism has been put to good use and few peoplewould want to roll any of that back.
But we have also lost a lot, just as Mr O'Toole outlines in hisopening paragraphs. We should not glibly pretend otherwise. And weshould not overlook the crucial role of the liberal avant-garde who,since the 1960s, have undermined respect for traditional values as theygained positions of influence in the media and campaigned steadily forthe legal and constitutional changes that would bring Ireland into linewith the societies they admired.
A "cool and amoral" Ireland is what they (and all of us) got as aresult. We now need to renew our spiritual and communal values. To lookto the forthcoming general election to begin to do so is indeed"hopelessly naïve". - Yours etc.,
MURT O'SEAGHDHA,
Mount Avenue,
Dundalk,
Co Louth.