I must take issue with the letter from Patrick O'Connel ("Constitution's crucial lessons," March 13).
It doesn't advance one's argument to malign anyone perceived to be in opposition to that argument. In saying, "Notice the parallel with the modern liberal promise (security) in exchange for more restrictions that never make anyone safer," he seems to support the notion that conservatives are alone in the vanguard of preserving liberty. If that were so, then why was the greatest expansion of federal power in recent decades, i.e. the establishment of the Department of Homeland Security (and with it the TSA), enacted under a Republican (and self- proclaimed conservative) administration?
And what about the practice of tapping the communication lines of ordinary American citizens in the name of national security? That same administration fiercely defended that practice as necessary to protect the country.
I'm certain some conservatives were as alarmed by these developments as the rest of us loyal American citizens. And if liberals were critical of the practice, does that make them treasonous?
You can see where this name- calling leads: Nowhere. The ranks of our Founding Fathers were filled with a wide variety of opinions and political philosophy. Their debates were famously lively, and the resulting Constitution is still a remarkable accomplishment. How about putting the same combined effort into our public discourse?
Liberals and conservatives and everyone in between have valid contributions to make. Try listening to all of them. You may learn something.
Mary Beth Donnelly
Albany