May 2007

Communism, fascism and chiropractic

by Terry A. Rondberg, DC, WCA President

They say history repeats itself. When it comes to trying to force the ICA to merge with the ACA, history has been repeating itself over and over and over again. Every few years, a new attempt is made to eliminate the diversity that strengthens and protects all members of the profession.

Sometimes, the effort has been directed toward destroying the World Chiropractic Alliance. At other times, the movement has been to marginalize the Federation of Straight Chiropractors and Organizations. Frequently, the campaign has been to "merge" the International Chiropractors Association and American Chiropractic Association into a single organization.

The latest effort is by the Congress of Chiropractic State Associations (COCSA) which has issued a resolution that "demands" the ICA and ACA merge. I'm not joking. That's what the resolution states: "the board of the Congress of Chiropractic State Associations (COCSA) demands that the ACA and the ICA set aside their philosophical and political differences and begin the process of merger for the greater purpose of creating a single national voice for the chiropractic profession."

First of all, I have to question, by what authority does COCSA think it can "demand" these two organizations merge? This kind of arrogance is particularly surprising when you realize that COCSA is made up of carefully selected state organizations that, all together, probably represent far less than half the chiropractic profession and are weighted heavily toward ACA‑aligned groups.

But a larger issue is the purported goal of this merger. COCSA says it is "for the purpose of creating a single national voice for the chiropractic profession."

Another way to state the same goal: to suppress competing or opposing ideas in order to impose their views on the entire system.

On a national scale, that's called a single‑party system. The "Encyclopedia Britannica," states: "There have been three historical forms of the single‑party system: Communist, Fascist, and that found in the developing countries."

"Britannica" goes on to explain: "Single‑party systems are found in countries that do not allow genuine political conflict. Multiparty and two‑party systems represent means of organizing political conflict within pluralistic societies and are thus indicative of democracy. Multiparty systems allow for greater representation of minority viewpoints; since the coalitions that minority parties must often form with other minority parties to achieve a governing majority are often fragile, such systems may be marked by instability."

There's another interesting observation on the UK's History Learning Site: "One of the more common features of a one‑party state is that the position of the ruling party is guaranteed in a constitution and all forms of political opposition are banned by law. The ruling party controls all aspects of life within that state. The belief that a ruling party is all important to a state came from Lenin who believed that only one party ‑‑ the Communists ‑‑ could take the workers to their ultimate destiny and that the involvement of other parties would hinder this progress."

Yet, that is precisely what COCSA and other "one‑party system" proponents want ‑‑ a ruling party that will control all aspects of life within the chiropractic profession. It wants to put us in the same category as Communism and Fascism.

The COCSA leaders cloak their intentions with high‑sounding rhetoric and call it a 'merger' but does anyone truly believe that the ICA members will be given equal power in a merged group?

The "voice" that will ultimately rule under this one‑party system will be that of the ACA and we have real‑life examples of what that will mean for chiropractic.

Remember what happened in the VA chiropractic committee? The WCA and ICA representatives fought for direct access to chiropractors in the VA system. The ACA representatives sided with the medical contingent and Charles DuVall of the National Association of Chiropractic Medicine to support a medical gatekeeper system.

The fact is, while the ACA and ICA share many political and philosophical positions, they differ on many others. The same is true with the WCA and FSCO. We all represent different and at times overlapping portions of the chiropractic spectrum. No one group represents the entire spectrum and it is naive at best to think that a merged group will be able to do so.

In October of last year, in an editorial for CNN, Bishop T.D. Jakes ‑‑ named "America's Best Preacher" by Time magazine ‑‑ said "enforcing unanimity of voices is a dangerous proposition."

Speaking of the African American community, he explained that "Throughout our history, various voices have served our communities well simultaneously. Booker T. Washington shared the public spotlight with W.E.B. DuBois. Ida B. Wells worked against the lynching of black men, while Mary Church Terrell worked on behalf of black women. Martin Luther King Jr.'s voice calling for nonviolent integration echoed alongside that of Malcolm X demanding freedom to do for self by any means necessary. As it is in all American communities, no one person or perspective speaks for all African‑Americans."

The same is true for chiropractic. No one voice speaks for all chiropractors and the attempt to silence other voices is simply an effort to suppress dissension.

We don't need a single‑party system, we need a spirit of bi‑partisanship (or, actually, multi‑partisanship). That is, the willingness of all organizations to work together on those issues they agree upon, and the willingness to respect each other's views on issues where they differ.

That's not what we have today and the blame can be placed squarely at the feet of the ACA. As you can see from the front page article on COCSA's merger demands, the ACA has repeatedly rejected overtures for cooperative action.

In 1998, COCSA formed the National Chiropractic Leadership Forum, which included the WCA, ICA and ACA. For three years, 2000‑2002, the group met to discuss areas of shared interest and members were able to agree on several major issues, including joint legislative efforts. Internal disputes, however, began chipping away at the precarious peace and a seven‑point "code of conduct" called the St. Louis Principles was developed to try to maintain a cooperative atmosphere.

Among the rules were those stating each member was to "respect personal differences in style and substance," "respect the professional differences that can exist within the chiropractic scope and practice as outlined in the ACC paradigm," and "air our differences inside this forum (and not in public)."

Controversy over the Veterans Affairs bill ‑‑ and the makeup of the VA committee ‑‑ brought the conflict to a head and representatives began trading accusations and recriminations. Although some NCLF members tried to carry on a dialogue within the framework of the St. Louis Principles, tempers flared. The final rift occurred when the ACA published a lengthy attack on the ICA and WCA in Dynamic Chiropractic.

The ICA and WCA protested the violation of the code of conduct that prohibited "airing our differences" in public. The ACA, in turn, walked away from the table, declaring that it would "forego further joint legislative efforts" with other organizations. That was the end of the Forum.

Since the ACA refused to work with any other group, the ICA, WCA and FSCO formed the Chiropractic Coalition and have been working together on important legislative issues ever since. In fact, it is thanks to the Coalition that Rep. Filner introduced two important bills that will have a tremendously positive impact on chiropractic. Despite its attempts to take the credit for these bills, the ACA's voice alone was not effective. It was the cooperative efforts of the members of the Coalition that brought about this success.

One last point. Bipartisanship doesn't mean compromising just for the sake of "getting along." Political expert James M. Lindsay warned that "bipartisanship on behalf of an imprudent policy can be folly, just as partisanship on behalf of a just cause can be wise."

When we agree on an issue, let's raise the bipartisan flag and work together on it. But when we disagree, let's make sure we preserve the right to raise our voices ‑‑ many voices, not just one ‑‑ and allow different organizations to exist that will represent those different voices.

One size truly does not and should not fit all.