I am a 50-something, Jesuit-educated, Libertarian-leaning registered Democrat who has been reading Thomas F. Schaller's column for years. He has the luxury of at least being accepted around liberals and only being castigated by conservatives. Libertarian thinkers eventually are attacked by both sides. Both sides are terrified by the specter of a marketable candidate who believes in personal liberty, personal responsibility, peace, free markets and limited government.
I have often agreed with Mr. Schaller's well thought out arguments in favor of social changes and disagreed with his support of policies that redistribute wealth and feed the government monster while respecting the presentation and reason of his arguments. His last column ("Ben Carson should stick to medicine," Feb. 3) is an exception.
His commentaries are usually interspersed with clever and thought provoking similes. His essay on Ben Carson was peppered with tangential ones that detracted from his arguments. There are a number of reasonable cases made for a flat tax, many of which allow for relief for our most vulnerable households. But how would liberals and conservatives wield power over people or procure donations without the "privileges" he endorses? Labeling a renowned neurosurgeon and some of these deep thinkers, even if he disagrees with them, as "simpletons" is unacceptably dismissive. It especially plays poorly in Dr. Carson's hometown where many of us have met him. He is no simpleton.
Casting him as an amateur after defending nearly every action of one of our most ill-prepared presidents makes Mr. Schaller's argument even more shallow. We have elected two consecutive men who read from teleprompters speeches crafted by handlers who wanted electable cardboard cutouts. Each side is guilty. Why not another poorly-prepared neophyte who at least thinks on his own?
I also took umbrage at Mr. Schaller's ridiculous assertion that because one journalist had a bad experience with her health care providers, that all providers cannot admit mistakes, never listen and treat patients paternalistically and, thus, that is how Dr. Carson will behave as president. This is sloppy writing and juvenile logic. And as a primary care physician, I find it as offensive as the care that the journalist received.
Perhaps Mr. Schaller was behind grading papers and rushed through this particular commentary. Maybe the idea of someone with Dr. Carson's ideas terrifies him as much as it does the Republican establishment where a Ross Perot-style smear campaign looms, I am sure. But he should get back to grown-up writing or else he will be hard to take seriously.
Dr. J. William Cook IV