Congressional candidate Allen Quist makes it clear that he regards his campaign as part of larger fight for freedom. Freedom of speech? Freedom of the press? No, nothing so banal. Quist explains,

“Every generation in our country has fought the fight for freedom. For George Washington it was the War for Independence; for Abraham Lincoln it was the Civil War; for Ronald Reagan it was the Cold War. And for us—it it this war, it’s the battle against the Nanny State, the battle to remain a nation where we are free indeed. This is our fight, this is our time. Let us not shrink from the task. Let us leave to our children a nation of people who are still free.”

Freedom from the Nanny State? That’s not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. In fact, the Constitution states that Congress has the duty of providing for the General Welfare – and why would we want to set up a democratic government that doesn’t work for our benefit?

Quist isn’t just speaking in generalities about his irritation at having a government that takes care of the citizens who create it through their participation in the mechanisms of democracy. He’s speaking with particular frustration at the idea of health care reform legislation. He writes of the legislation in the House of Representatives,

“You can now decide what medical treatment is right for you. It is a free country—you decide. The Pelosi bill, in contrast, creates what it calls the “Medical Benefits Advisory Committee.” We will just call it “the Committee.” The Committee will decide the parameters, the limitations, within which you can make your decisions.”

Quist’s objection to the Democrats’ health care reform legislation is based upon two premises: 1) that people now have the freedom to decide for themselves what medical treatments they will receive, without parameters, and 2) they won’t have that freedom if the health care reform legislation, because the government will.

Quist’s argument falls apart with the first premise. Americans do not now have the freedom to decide what medical treatments they will receive, without parameters. Parameters are now being set by committees of bureaucrats in insurance companies. As anyone who has actually needed their medical insurance knows, these insurance company committees frequently deny payment for medical treatments. They set parameters and limitations, and do so in order to make big profits for their employers.

Quist’s characterization of health care reform legislation as creating a “nanny state” makes it sound unappealing, but I know something else that sounds even worse: Nanny insurance companies, and bad nannies at that.

Allen Quist may characterize his struggle as the moral equivalent of 1776, but in fact, he’s not protecting our children’s freedom. He’s just protecting the profits of insurance companies.

Allen Quist is running against Democratic incumbent Tim Walz in Minnesota’s 1st congressional district. In his spare time, Quist writes curriculum guides teaching Creationism that religious right activists can work to slip into public school classrooms.