I'm now an apostate to National Review

For 40-years I wanted to be quoted in National Review. I’ve arrived…just to be considered an apostate.

I’ve argued that the rebellion by some conservatives against Harriet Miers’ nomination to the Supreme Court is extremist, in exceeding sane choices, that her confirmation is an acceptable move toward a more conservative Court, and that the negative effects on Republican candidates of a split conservativism could undermine far more than what is at stake in her nomination compared to some apparently stronger conservative legal ideologue.

Ramesh Ponnuru, in his 6:08 PM post today at The Corner of National Review Online says, “I think Kesler is wrong [because] conservative journalists and spokesmen have to be able to say that certain things should be done even if those things are unlikely or are almost certainly not going to be done. Sometimes their saying so will have effects down the line.”

In 40-years of political argument and leading conservative movements, with remarkable results, I have learned that winning is more important than losing. It bestows power, which can be used across a wide range of issues. I’ve had my more than fair share of converting others to conservative thinking, and have lived long enough to see many positive ripples way down the pike from the rocks I threw, vainly at the time, into the political pond. But, while waiting and struggling, too many hostile purposes were accomplished by my adversaries in power, that if they weren’t would not have occurred.

Ponnuru adds: "The job of a conservative thinker isn’t the same as that of a conservative politician, and neither should be evaluated by the criteria rightly applied to the other.” I couldn’t agree more.

I agree with the conservative arguments for frustration with Ms. Miers’ nomination, most ably put forth by my respected friend, law professor and commentator Professor Stephen Bainbridge. I wrote to him: “I don’t agree with your conclusions on Miers, but the logic is irrefutable. It’s just that when I add the logical points of what happens after your conclusion, the consequences undermine the logical points that led to it: further weakening of the conservative electoral position which reduces the number (however few) of the conservative agenda that get enacted or get upheld by the Court.”

I also wrote to Professor Bainbridge in a follow-up: “…both your and my ‘stakes’ are ultimately in our political judgment of the effect of the conclusion – acceptance or rejection. You argue that it will not injure other issues and candidates. I argue that the argument, carried to extremes, will. That’s what is called, I think, litigation risk, and the wiser attorneys I know try to avoid it. So, while all you say is true, and I could even add to it, I still think it’s the wrong case at the wrong time with the wrong effects, even if true. It’s not a catastrophe, or effects if she’s confirmed, that will seriously impair our causes. However, should she be so impaired, and moreso the president, and moreso our party’s electoral unity, the downside is worse.”

I’m not a highly-paid political commentator nor a law professor in academia. I’m just, and proud of that “just”, someone with extensive scars and ribbons from 40-years in the practical political trenches, who has left many surprised downed enemies on the left in my wake.

I’ve worked too hard, and been fortunate to see too many results, ultimately the first Republican Pennsylvania Avenue since my infancy, to see it frittered away in impetuous, and in my opinion politically immature, frustration by those who believe the battle is more important than the war, and who seem to care more to be intellectually pure even though it very well could mean becoming even more frustrated by the loss of conservative political power over a wider host of issues.