Smugness is, after all, justified. If you believe the packaging and interpretation of the new book Best of Times? The Social Impact of the Celtic Tiger, critics of contemporary Ireland have been blown out of the water. Since its multiple authors include many of the most authoritative analysts from the Economic and Social Research Institute and the National University of Ireland, Maynooth, the book's apparent removal of the question mark from its own title demands attention. The pity is that few of those who will use it to slay the dragons of political unease will actually read enough of it to see that, were it not for some dextrous spinning, it could just as easily be read as a sharp critique, writes Fintan O'Toole
The odd thing about the book is that the nabobs of negativism are somewhat illusory. There is a tendency to prove points by setting up straw men (or women) and then knocking them down. The social critic who is most prominently named is the Ombudsman, Emily O'Reilly, who complained in 2004 of the drunkenness and violence on our streets and "the obscene parading of obscene wealth". O'Reilly is thus Exhibit A among the whingers who see only the negative side of the Celtic Tiger. The point of the book is to show that this pessimism is unjustified.
I had a look at the actual speech that Emily O'Reilly made at the Céifin conference in 2004. It does indeed contain these quotes. But she also lists the achievements of social transformation: "Irish women's lives have also been transformed immeasurably over the last 20 years; our children have opportunities unimaginable two decades ago; luxuries denied to all but the wealthy are now available to the masses; good political choices have been made that have broken the poverty cycles of many families; the stultifying cosh of the Catholic Church has been removed."
Painting her as a Cassandra of Celtic doom, though, helps to make the book more upbeat by allowing its authors to show that things are much better than she, and by extension every other critic of the way we are, supposedly claims.
The truth is that very few critical commentators do not welcome the fundamental economic and social shifts of the last 15 years - the vast reductions in unemployment and emigration, the expansion of personal choice, the increased prosperity and opportunity. But in a period of massive and massively positive change we have had vastly more opportunities than ever before to create an inclusive republic. The real question is whether a wealthier society should not be held to higher standards than a poorer one. To judge Ireland by the miserable standards of the past and discover that we're doing grand, as the book tends to do, is surely to miss the point of change.
It is fine, for example, to know that the level of social mobility in Ireland is now much higher than it was in the early 1970s and that kids from working-class backgrounds are now far more likely than before to get into the professional and managerial classes. But if you want to look beneath this genuinely positive headline you will remember that the base we're coming from is very low.
Irish social mobility in the 1970s was outstandingly poor. You will remember that it would have been truly astonishing if it had not improved markedly during a period of extraordinarily rapid growth in the labour market. You will also remember that what we're looking at now is not a level playing field but one that is somewhat less slanted than it used to be. As the book itself concludes, the improvements do "not mean that equality of opportunity has been achieved, since the offspring of professionals and managers still enjoy very substantial advantages over those from working-class backgrounds".
The book actually gives a good summary of the breakdown of Irish society into three categories. The first is the 80 per cent of us who are, in general, free of serious financial problems. The second - about 10 per cent - is economically vulnerable, juggling with debt and unable to cope with sudden expenses. The third, 9 per cent of the population, is consistently poor.
The authors wring an upbeat conclusion from these figures by saying that they show things are not as bad as some unnamed "radical critics" suggest. But, frankly, disproving the alleged views of anonymous radicals gets us nowhere. The point surely is that at a time of unprecedented wealth in Irish society one in five of us experiences either significant economic stress or consistent poverty.
The tenor of the book is to suggest that this is mildly regrettable, but inevitable: "Utopia is not now and never has been available." But believing that something could and should be done about this situation is neither Utopian nor particularly radical.
The 2002 Programme for Government told us that consistent poverty could and would be eliminated by 2007. Things might not be as bad as some anonymous people think they are, but they are - empirically - worse than even a conservative government told us they were going to be.