You must be regarded as one of these treasonous suspects, says this liberal reader. The whole inside/outside, member/nonmember dynamic is quite fascinating. I was raised in a fundamentalist church where this was a big concern. Who belongs? Who doesn’t? Who gets into our heaven? Who doesn’t? Kind of picture St. Peter sitting by the gates and scratching his head at all the little gates being raised along heaven’s walls by groups great and small–no one enters heaven but by our little gate.

As a liberal, I’ve always been liberal about who might or should be considered liberal. Figured political stuff is about conversation, and power, and compromise, so does it really matter where people start from? Lately, though, I’ve been a bit more cynical about the whole thing. Looks like there’s really just one establishment party to me. I’m beginning to think the hippies may have been right on that point.

At any rate, I sure appreciate your thoughts. We can use all the nuancing we can get. Thanks for sharing them on the internet.

I think that this kind of approach is great for whipping the movement conservatives up into a froth against someone. But it’s bad for our national discourse. People such who earn respect from the other team such as Ross, Reihan, and you, Daniel, have an opportunity to engage and persuade that those who choose to live in the conservative establishment media cocoon lack. And of course, the establishment figures, Bill Kristol and his ilk, are far more likely to get the big media opportunities; their appearances are losses for conservative ideas because they have no credibility with the other side and no ability to make their cases to anyone who isn’t already a believer.

I tend to doubt that Roman Catholic pro-lifers are the NY cocktail party set’s idea of a good time. It’s not just that this kind of attack on Ross is wrong, but that it’s not even an argument. It doesn’t say, “X diverges from conservative policy views in the following ways, which is why I find him unreliable or do not regard him as being very conservative,” but instead says, “People on the other team have some basic respect for X as a serious figure whose ideas they don’t dismiss out of hand, therefore he must be a traitor.”

That said, there is a lot of truth to this part of Lewis’ formulation. ““What conservatism is if you live in New York City,” the sort favored by those who attend New York cocktail parties.” Many right thinking conservatives have been saying this for years. In fact, this has been a criticism of the New York and DC centric “conservatism” of NR, for example, leveled by many of us paleos out here in flyover country. Douthat is not the same as the new breed of self-consciously moderate conservative bashers like Frum, Brooks, Parker and Miss McCain, but this dynamic certainly exists.

“according to which anyone whose writings are of interest to people outside the confines of the movement is inherently suspect and untrustworthy.”

Again there is much truth to this if those “outside the confines” are from the center or left. I don’t think this is just simple minded cultishness. Suspicion is warranted and this accurately captures an important dynamic. A problem with movement types is that they have never been able to tolerate (or frankly understand) criticisms from their right.