America gets a real leader and we get Cowen’s €2bn bundle of misery

EIGHT days compared to eight months. Eight days of hope, of energy, of a palpable sense of new direction.

Eight days of purpose, confidence, of clear language and commitment.

Compared to eight months of crisis, of mismanagement, of a strong sense of everything falling apart. Eight months of diminishing hope, impenetrable language, disappearing sense of purpose.

Eight days of Barack Obama’s new government. Eight months of Brian Cowen’s. You’d have to wonder if in years to come a historian took a notion to compare the two, what he or she would make of it?

Barack Obama was of course elected to deal with a crisis already apparent. Sometimes, when that happens to American presidents, they rely on great principles. If they can communicate that principle and turn it into a lasting vision, they can aspire to greatness.

When the greatest American president, Abraham Lincoln, took office, the United States of America faced the worst crisis imaginable in its short history.

Seven states had broken away from the union, and everyone wondered what Lincoln would do. He had been an unlikely winner of the office and his views were not as well known as those of the men he beat.

Many wondered would he, in effect, surrender to the south immediately, allowing the seven states to go their own way. Others thought he would be a compromiser. He made it absolutely clear though, in his inaugural address, that he had taken a solemn oath to “preserve, protect and defend” the constitution, the union and the government, and that nothing would divert him from that. There would be no backing away from the possibility of war, no surrender to those who wanted to leave. He could not have been more firm, more direct, more threatening.

But in his last paragraph he chose to direct his remarks directly to the southern states. This is what he said:

“I am loathe to close. We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land will yet swell the chorus of the union when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.”

A bloody civil war followed, and more Americans died in it, as a proportion of the population, than in any conflict since. And yet it was that paragraph, and the intent behind it, that enabled the United States to be rebuilt. People on both sides of the conflict knew that Lincoln was fighting for a fundamental principle. The only victory he wanted was to establish that principle.

The constancy of Abraham Lincoln in prosecuting a civil war, coupled with his ability to pursue that war “with malice toward none”, was the glue that held the north together.

If ever we could do with some glue of that kind, it’s surely right now. And yet I wonder if anyone in the country can really understand what’s going on.

At a time when we need inspiration, all we’re getting is economic mumbo-jumbo. In the fight that lies ahead, can anyone tell me what principle we’re fighting for? For two weeks now all we’ve been hearing is the phrase “two billion euro”.

That’s the only agenda for the Government, the social partners, the media. It’s a mantra. We’re going to save the economy by cutting two billion euro. If we don’t cut two billion euro we’ll all go down the drain.

The economy/our international credibility/our credit rating/our future depends on us cutting two billion euro.

Today, apparently, we’re supposed to be told how that two billion is going to be made up. And the first concentration will be on the size of the bundle — does it all add up to two billion?

The laborious process we’ve all had to endure will be judged a success or failure by the answer to that question. Only afterwards will people begin to focus on what’s in the bundle and begin to ask the relevant questions.

We’ve come through a period in our history when greed and selfishness were the characteristics that dominated our economic lives and our political discourse.

We lionised political parties and leaders who told us that less tax was good and that we could turn a blind eye to the poverty that still, stubbornly, refused to go away. Now we look at the legacy of the Celtic Tiger — a legacy that, in some eyes at least, seems to amount to little more than an enormous car park full of used BMWs. That’s a failure, isn’t it? Whatever happened over the 15 years of high economic growth, it does not appear to have put us in a position where we can withstand the cold winds of recession.

It’s only when we look closely at the bundle labelled “two billion” that we can figure out who’s going to pay for this failure.

Perhaps the make-up of the two billion bundle will help us also to figure out how we’re going to get out of it. Will the two billion bundle punish the guilty? Will it improve our competitiveness? Will it introduce any new dynamic to the economy, some new incentive for growth?

Will the two billion bundle be packed full of a transparent fairness? Will it really do what it says on time — our international credibility and all that?

Please don’t hold your breath in expectation of any of the above. The two billion bundle is going to be made up of cuts that will affect only public servants and public services.

AS far as I can figure out, no public servant caused the crisis in our economy, but they are still going to have to pay. And if anyone believes that we can make things better by removing some essential public services, they need their heads examined. But it has become a mantra, as I said — the cost of our public services is what has caused the problem.

We may be promised a bigger contribution to the recovery of the economy by people who are a lot better off — even by people who were the prime beneficiaries of the Celtic Tiger — but that’s not going to be part of the two billion bundle. Even if it happens, it will need a budget to make it happen, and that’s the best part of a year away.

So public servants, and public services, are going to bear the brunt. If this was an exercise in solidarity, there might be some point to it.

A lot of public servants would be willing to make a pay sacrifice, I believe, to protect the services they offer, and to protect the jobs of their colleagues.

But that’s not what this is about. It’s about creating a two billion bundle that will make no contribution whatever to our economic recovery. In fact it might make things worse.

Great leaders, in good times or bad, communicate great purposes. But nobody is going to appeal to the better angels of our nature. We’re going to get a two billion bundle instead.

God help us.