To the editor:

If conservatism is a disease, someone had better put Cal Thomas in quarantine.

Fortunately for Cal (but not the rest of us) he doesn’t have to be locked up, because conservatism isn’t a disease. At least, not according to Berkeley, despite Mr. Thomas’ indignant protestations (Journal-World, Aug. 4). In fact, in the press release that infuriated him so, there is not a single mention of the word disease, malady, affliction, or as he so wittily puts it, disability. On the contrary, authors of the study are careful to point out that the study “does not mean that conservatism is pathological or that conservative beliefs are necessarily false, irrational, or unprincipled.” Is that the voice of “’60s dysfunctionality” (which, ironically enough, isn’t a word)?

Granted, the study reveals some aspects of conservatism that are hardly complimentary. But the authors also openly acknowledge that “in many cases … ‘liberal’ traits may be liabilities.” Perhaps, when presented with a study based on more than 22,000 subjects, we might think about examining our own faults, instead of attacking the scientists who bring them to light. Anyone who thinks they have a perfect ideology is either crazy, Cal Thomas, or both.

I was particularly amused by the revelation that Hitler, who wished to bring back the old-time glory that made Germany great, was a liberal. I also didn’t know that infanticide was a liberal position. You learn something new every day.

Honestly, do we have to keep printing this guy’s column?

Nat Twarog,

Lawrence