Mary McAleese was impressive yesterday. And reassuring. She is no tribal time bomb and maybe those of us who worried about her vanity and her agenda were precipitous. The inaugural speech struck many right notes: the convincing summons to reconciliation, the remembrance of Enniskillen 10 years ago and of Gordon Wilson's forgiveness, the commemoration of those Irish people who died in the two world wars, the acknowledgement of inequality.
The inauguration was also better than it has been. The children in Castle Yard were wonderful, the informality of dress was a relief (even judges were asked to dispense with their clobber). But inaugurations are still dreary, with the tedious civil and religious ceremonial, the guards of honour and the 21-gun salute.
I did not support her and I did not vote for her. But she was the best of the candidates on offer and, based on her performance since the election, perhaps the best President we could have.
There was a theme in her speech at Dublin Castle which perhaps marked a public recognition of an extraordinary juncture in Irish life: the acknowledgment of the "success" of the Irish State.
Less than 10 years ago, we were talking of this State being a "failed political entity". Politicians over the previous decade had devastated the country, through Fianna Fail reckless public spending and Fine Gael-Labour indecision. Emigration was surging as was unemployment, the growth rate was zero, the population was falling, national confidence was shattered.
And yet in a decade all that has turned around dramatically. The population, measured last year, was the highest in a century (3,626,087). The number of people at work has risen steadily over the last six years, unemployment has started to fall (190,000 last year as compared with 217,000 in 1992).
The most remarkable statistic has been the rise in the gross domestic product - an increase of 36 per cent in the years between 1992 and 1996 - and there is talk of an increase of a further 8 per cent this year. Gross national product per capita has increased from £6,934 in 1990 to £10,214 in 1996.
Far from now being perceived as the poor man of Europe, we are now hailed as the flowering success of the European Union.
Around, behind and in front of Mary McAleese yesterday were those in part responsible for this "remarkable success story", the politicians whom we have for so long reviled:
Bertie Ahern (as Minister for Labour and Minister for Finance), Albert Reynolds (as Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, Minister for Finance and Taoiseach), Ray MacSharry (as Minister for Finance), Alan Dukes (as leader of Fine Gael and author of the Tallaght Strategy), Dick Spring (as Tanaiste from 1992 to 1997), John Bruton (as Taoiseach), Ruairi Quinn (as Minister for Finance) and Desmond O'Malley (as Minister for Industry and Commerce during critical periods).
And two others: Garret FitzGerald, who as Taoiseach failed to grapple with the national debt problem but in the teeth of an international recession and internal disharmony in his 1982-1987 government laid the groundwork for recovery; and Charles Haughey.
Yes, Charles Haughey had contributed hugely to the vandalisation of the economy in the period from 1979 to 1982. But it was his governments from 1987 to 1992 which turned our economic fortunes around.
Ray MacSharry is credited with the imposition of financial rigour on the Exchequer, but it was Charles Haughey who appointed him and who gave him the necessary political support. Charles Haughey may have been a rogue but his contribution to this "remarkable success story" was great.
They and the civil servants, the IDA, those in our educational institutions and many others deserve great credit for this achievement. But "this remarkable success story" has happened at a terrible cost, the cost of leaving behind that 20 per cent of the population that has failed to join the gravy train: the long-term unemployed, the low paid, those living in the ghettos of deprivation, those abandoned to drug addiction, the detritus of society in our prisons and, as I witnessed recently, in at least one of our psychiatric institutions, St Ita's, Portrane.
The correction of our fiscal recklessness was done primarily at the expense of these. Those who benefited most from the earlier extravagances, the well-paid public servants, the fat cats in the professions and in business (i.e., us) suffered least.
There is one extraordinary feature of "this remarkable success story": it was achieved under a tax regime described as the most "penal" in Europe. How often were we told in the 1980s and early 1990s that economic recovery depended on us unleashing the adrenalin of enterprise through massive personal tax reductions?
Well, it happened without any such drama. Tax rates were reduced but nowhere as much as we were "advised" was "imperative", and who now claims that such tax reductions played any significant part in our recovery and success? And what now is the rationale for drastic tax reductions in this coming Budget?
Perhaps we need some tax reductions for those in the low and lower-middle income groups (say, for incomes of less than £15,000 p.a., for reasons of equity and for reasons of wage moderation).
But why should the enlarged national cake be divided again in ways that favour the better off? Why should we not use the Exchequer bonanza entirely to relieve the misery of the ghettos, to finance comprehensive drug-care facilities, to boost radically long-term social welfare assistance, to improve old age pensions drastically, to finance special educational facilities for the inner city and the awful outer suburbs of our major cities?
Why not go for broke with the basic income scheme urged persuasively by CORI, whereby we could assure decent financial resources for everyone, without discouraging participation in the workforce? And, for God's sake, even for the sake of our own minimal sense of decency, to look after those in prisons and psychiatric institutions.
Through a combination of external fiscal disciplines, wise investments in education and telecommunications, securing national partnership in wage increases and improvements in competitiveness, we have exceeded our best expectations of economic growth.
For many of us, this coming Christmas will be a period of unprecedented plenty. Already the surge of extravagant consumer expenditure is almost tangible. We do not need to boost that through tax reductions. We do need to use this surplus wealth to create a fairer society.
Those who have brought us boom should now apply themselves to bringing us decency.