The usual definition of pragmatism begins with “a practical approach to problems.”

On Feb. 6, Professor James Carignan blessed us with a column on this subject. In summary, he believes that Democrats are pragmatic, others are ideological.

The good professor trotted out his favorite example of all that is good in Maine and the country – Ed Muskie – and anointed John Baldacci the beneficiary of his legacy. Our governor has reduced property taxes by applying those pragmatic principles Democrats have used for decades – rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic. A property tax bill might go down a little, but other taxes and fees will increase to make up the difference – and then some. Because a pragmatic approach never includes reduced spending.

If the professor had stopped there, I could dismiss the column as just another of his Muskie puppy-love fluff pieces. Unfortunately, he had to continue and use as an example of ideological solutions President Bush’s proposals for Social Security. He advanced, at least twice, the following cogent argument: Social Security is not broken. End of argument. With typical leftist logic, not one word of evidence to support his assertion, but a liberal dose of the emotional labels “American” and “democratic.”

I’d like to see reprinted columns and letters from April 20-27, 1999. I’m interested to recall opinions on President Clinton’s “USA Accounts,” a similar proposal to strengthen Social Security. I wonder if today’s ideology is yesterday’s pragmatism.

Michael LeBlanc, East Wilton

Copy the Story Link