Now, McCain may have a point that the bravery of apostates is often exaggerated, because any friends you lose in your former camp are usually quickly replenished by the allies and friends you make in your new home. So McCain does score a small hit there: namely, that criticizing your host movement is not always that brave. But a lot of this depends on the content of the apostasy. If you break with Republican dogma from the center, then yes – you will do alright. But if you break with Republican dogma from the RIGHT, then you better not quit your day job. (vice versa with the left)

Basically, the main problem with McCainian analysis is that he sees politics as a binary combat between two monolithic forces: conservatism and liberalism. There is no variation of thought or critical distinctions with the ranks. He assumes everybody must by definition have sworn some allegiance to one side, so that whenever they break ranks – no matter how trivial or unimportant the issue – its some kind of serious betrayal. I mean, Kathleen Parker has always been a pretty centrist pundit, whose main focus was criticizing the excesses of contemporary feminism. Whining about her breaking conservative orthodoxy just seems like a waste of time.

Finally, this growing self-pity among movement types really needs to stop. If you take a strictly conformist line on the Republican party and can write complete sentences, you are basically guaranteed a job. Probably not at the New York Times, but definately somewhere. Which is not the case for independent-minded right-wingers, who are stuck writing in sparse corners of the internets. I mean, McCains idea that we heterodox conservatives are all partying it up – presumably on Ross Douthat’s gigantic yacht or something – is just fucking retarded.