RE:     December 2009 Editorial: “Democracy’s New Challenge"

Dear Mr. Toedtman:

          Your December editorial was passed along to me by a “concerned grandmother” who was disturbed by the tone of the piece. I read it and also found some curious points.

          Your use of Sylvester Graham’s health crusade in the early 19^th century is a curious analogy for the federally mandated “health care reform.” Followers of Graham’s unique lifestyle chose to do so, they weren’t coerced, threatened, or otherwise forced. He promoted the presumed benefits of his prescribed lifestyle and those who liked it joined up. Of course, many others didn’t care for what he was promoting and chose to live in their own manner. Choice. That’s what our Republic is all about.

          I concur with your statement that “...proper response is to see the larger picture by learning the issues, the arguments and the options we face.” I do not see an array of options nor honest debate of the issues. I believe this is the reason polls indicate a majority of citizens reject the current bills before Congress.

          You illustrated the fate of dissent to Graham’s dictates when Oberlin College fired the pepper loving Professor: No dissent allowed. Perhaps the ill fated Professor used the 19^th century equivalent of Twitter to alert Bostonians what lay in store for them if Graham’s movement captured a government as well as academia. 

          Indeed, the opposition you allege to the butchers and bakers in Boston 172 years ago is replayed today. In St. Louis, on August 6, 2009, a peaceful assembly of citizens dissenting from the proposed budget and “health care” bills were disrupted by SEIU members, some of whom used racial slurs towards Kenneth Gladney, punched him in the face, knocked him down and kicked him in the head and back. The message was clear - no black man (or woman I suppose) can be allowed to question certain political positions. Such racial profiling is anathema to most Americans.

          The Secretary of State has declared, robustly, that dissent is the highest form of patriotism. Yet factions of her party employ thug intimidation against citizens during open and free discussion. Perhaps you can appreciate the concern that AARP leans too heavily towards one side of the “health care” issue. I don’t recall discussions of tort reform, expanding tax sheltered medical savings accounts, personal access to health insurance plans across state lines, or of a federally insured catastrophic coverage of last resort. These are solid concepts in the prevue of the federal government and would find great public support. Yet they are not considered. Odd.

          No doubt AARP has encountered vulgar and abusive commentary for its positions. However, that’s not the temperament, language, or nature of what’s called the Tea Party dissenters. I’d suggest AARP examine such foul commentary for the finger prints of agents provocateurs.

          I concur that it is “...important how we respond to the larger challenge of meeting the health care needs of all generations.” Let them choose. The single greatest factor in physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual health is freedom. Top down, coerced, forced, compliance is a no-brainer. It has never worked in the past, it does not work in the present, and will not work in the future. I don’t gather from your tone that you open to discussion.

          Finally, as the concerned grandmother put it to me: “The majority of people do not want to be told how, when, where or what to do about their medical attention. They want to choose.” And, regarding the Congressional bills: “First show you can fix what is wrong with medicare.” I think she gets it.

PunditGeorge