Sir, – Although there is a grain of truth in Desmond FitzGerald’s intemperate attack on Michael D Higgins (September 25th), his main argument – that only those who have divested themselves of all possessions can urge justice for the poor – is as hackneyed and as illogical as it ever was. Even Jesus liked his wine, we know that from the Gospels.
He is, however, right that €250,000 is not justified as a President’s salary. Neo-liberalism has been so unopposed for so long in this country that it clouds the thinking even of those who oppose it like Mr Higgins and the Labour Party. One of its tenets is the belief that money is the only motivator, and consequently if you pay peanuts, you get monkeys. This pseudo-scientific doctrine has justified the opening of a huge gap between average wages and those of the elite.
Mr Higgins commendably took a voluntary pay cut when he became President, but if you want to oppose neo-liberalism, you must support a return to the differentials that existed before neo-liberalism became the country’s religion, under Haughey and MacSharry. Does anyone seriously believe the quality of our politicians has risen in parallel with the rise in politicians’ salaries in the past 30 years? I suggest the evidence of the crash points to a contrary conclusion.
Mr Higgins’s pay cut is not nearly enough to restore the relation that existed between politicians’ wages and the average industrial wage in 1987 and that is what what he and the Labour Party should be aiming for in the both the public and private sectors. Instead, both the President and Tánaiste have employed advisers whose pay has breached the Government’s own salary cap.
How can an adviser prepare speeches against neo-liberalism when their own pay contract implicitly condones the “L’Oréal – because we’re worth it” elitist fantasy that is at the heart of neo-liberal “philosophy”.
I’d still vote for him. Nobody’s perfect. – Yours, etc,
TIM O’HALLORAN,
Ferndale Road,
Dublin 11.