What do some Catholic bishops have in common with Thatcherite fundamentalists? The answer is that both are, in their own ways, enemies of the State.
The bishops I have in mind are those who decide that, in spite of strong evidence against them, the cases of priests suspected of rape or assault are better heard by clerical authorities than by the courts which normally deal with such crimes.
The intention may be to maintain secrecy and protect the church. The result which, they may argue, unintended by the bishops, is to support the argument for self-regulation and to undermine the authority of the State.
The Thatcherites, who make no bones about their hostility to the State in any shape or form, share the bishops' paternalism - the conviction that they know what's best for the masses - better, indeed, than the masses themselves. Politicians are considered fair game by some critics, who lump them together and condemn them, one and all - government and opposition, national and local - targets worthy of a cheap shot.
It doesn't take much thought or effort and it entertains the lads. It's good for a laugh. And no one is going to complain: who'd want to be seen standing up for the gobdaws in Leinster House?
And if, in due course, the target changes from politicians to politics, from cute hoors and bumbling backbenchers to the institution itself - debate and legislation, party affairs, competing interests and occasional compromise - if it's all too dull, too boring, too lacking in high drama for the exhausted critic, who gives a damn?
Well, I do for a start. And so, I imagine, do many journalists who've been keeping an exasperated watch on politics while the anti-politicians were honing their intolerance, not only of politics but of democracy. Because what's at issue here is neither drama nor entertainment competing for attention with the hysteria and high finance of soccer but the interests of the people of this State being decided by those who are elected to handle them.
And if the hurlers on the ditch, armchair generals or fastidious critics have a point to make they should be heard.
They do the State some service when they turn their fire on the inefficiency and evasion of politicians, the ramshackle system and the failure to make it accessible or answerable to the public.
They cheered the persistence of colleagues who pursued the issues that led to Dublin Castle, the long search for evidence and Fergus Flood's resonant finding of corruption at the crossroads where the paths of business and politics intersect.
But the target of the neo-liberal proponents of individualism, here and elsewhere, is not the politician who strays from acceptable standards: the target is politics as a civic pursuit undertaken for the benefit of the community at large.
Margaret Thatcher famously denied the existence of society. And those who still share her conviction find the logic irresistible: since society does not exist, any activity based on the assumption that it does is a diversion from the real business - business - and a waste of time.
THIS kind of stuff, creed of the followers of a leader in her dotage, will be heard in criticism of the left generally and social democracy in particular as Labour chooses a leader and prepares the left for what could well be the worst of times in this State.
Mistrust is already abroad and growing, as the latest Irish Times/MRBI poll shows. Astonishingly, after the campaign we've just had, the European Union is one of two institutions claiming the trust of more than half of the electorate: at 53 per cent by a majority of more than two to one, though one in five is undecided. The other highly regarded institution is the Civil Service, with a similar majority, but a somewhat lower level of undecided.
Of course, people in our trade have reason to worry about the lack of trust in the press and television.
We have it in our power to repair the damage done by falling standards and encouraged by increased concentration of ownership which sees news and opinion as commodities to be sold and controlled like any other.
But there are good, as well as anti-social, influences in newspapers and television; as there are in politics and in organised religion - those who are at odds with those forces dedicated to self-interest and mind-you-I've-said-nothing.
The Sean Healys, Gordon Linneys and Stanislaus Kennedys annoy the hell out of the Thatcherites and send some of the bishops into paroxysms of rage and resentment. They know that those who pay for the secrecy and the silences, the evasion and corner-cutting, are the very people who might have benefited from reform when this was the richest State in Europe - but didn't - and will pay again when the bad days return.