t's odd, but after reading NR Online last week, I suddenly started thinking about evil twins. Yep, evil twins.

Twins — and look-alikes, in general — have a rich and honored tradition in literature: Twain's Prince and the Pauper and Dumas's Man In The Iron Mask (no, kids, DiCaprio didn't write it; he only starred in the movie). The story of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde is close to being an evil-twin story, but it's more like a serious case of split personality.

TV science fiction actually gives us some excellent evil-twin stories. One of the best Star Trek episodes was "Mirror Mirror": Four members beam back to the Enterprise, only to find that they've switched places with their evil counterparts from another dimension. The good members find themselves in a universe where Spock has a beard and William Shatner can act (psyche!!! No such universe exists — but you knew that). In another episode, "The Enemy Within," a transporter malfunction causes Kirk to split into two bodies — one mild, one fierce (neither of which can act). Even the campy Lost In Space had an episode, "Anti-Matter Man," where John Robinson, Don West, and the Robot encountered their evil doubles from the anti-matter dimension.

Like similarly themed time-travel stories, all of these episodes pose interesting "what if?" or "road not taken" scenarios. While working on an entertainment level, they also raise somewhat philosophical queries. We're all curious about what our "dark natures" might be like if we gave them free rein — or what the "other side" of our friends and colleagues might be like.

Evil twin. Yeah, that's it. It's the only explanation that makes sense. But if the answer is an evil twin, this has deep and serious implications for the oldest living National Review.

Let me explain.

More than a few NRO readers might have wondered about the odd attack launched upon your humble columnist recently by the Grand High Poohbah, Mr. Rich Lowry. In the beginning of a reasonable essay on how Gov. George W. Bush was using the language of bipartisanship to make a political point, Mr. Lowry harshly called Senator Chuck Hagel "moronic." He went so far as to print this columnist's e-mail and invited outraged readers to admonish me, since I had promoted Mr. Hagel as a potential vice-presidential pick! At least one reader took Mr. Lowry up on his offer and sent word that this confirmed that Mr. Hagel was "not too bright." Heavens.

What was Senator Hagel's offense? It was a Friday New York Times op-ed that made the not-unreasonable point that the Elian saga had become overwhelmed by politics, specifically a "a passionate debate over Fidel Castro and Cuba." Hagel also went on to say that the young boy had become a political symbol. Now, this seems to be a realistic assessment: The Miami Herald reported three days after Elian arrived that, "The Cuban American National Foundation has literally turned him into the poster child of the anti-Castro movement, mounting a photo of the rescued boy on a poster to be sent to [the WTO] meeting [where it was rumored Castro might put in an appearance]." Conservatives pointed to Castro's orchestrated protests as being the catalytic factor for getting the Clinton administration obsessed with sending the boy back to Cuba.

Senator Hagel simply makes the point that it would be better to let the courts decide the custody issue and then let Congress have hearings on the events leading up to the raid. Hagel asserts that the case "fundamentally" has been about the father-son relationship. "Holding congressional hearings now would only further politicize this tragedy, further inflame the passions, and do nothing to resolve the future of the child."

Now, as my readers have told me, that is an arguable point. Honest individuals believe that this is rightly a battle over the remaining vestiges of evil Communism. However, that is not how the public at large views this case. How do we know that? Well, Mr. Lowry's earlier article, "The Politics of Elian," artfully deconstructed why this case has become a political winner for President Clinton. His analysis was that the public tends to support the cops and believes in family values: "So, almost all the administration has to do is say 'father' and 'rule of law,' and it comes out fine in this controversy."

Senator Hagel's view? "We are a nation of laws and family values. We should allow the legal process to work without overshadowing and complicating it with the protracted public drama of congressional hearings." Based on the Lowry analysis, the Hagel conclusion is not completely unreasonable.

Based on the events of this weekend, it is also a somewhat clairvoyant position. Judiciary chairman Orrin Hatch hedged on the possibility of hearings — while blaming the Justice Department for being slow in turning over pertinent documents. Oh, like that's never happened before. He insisted that any hearings would be limited and narrowly focused. Meanwhile, there was one report that the Bush campaign saw the issue as a loser and wanted it dropped. Not even Hagel went that far.

So, the good senator from Nebraska is not exactly off the reservation in trying to separate the custody issue from the hearings question.

Based on this reading, gentle readers, you'll find no lack of consistency at this particular spot on the NR site. No apologies for starting the Hagel-for-VP boomlet.

On the other hand, everyone should be a bit concerned about the Grand High Poohbah. At one point, we have Rich Lowry accurately analyzing why Republicans might have a political problem if they pursue an Elian inquiry — while agreeing with this columnist on his reading of previous GOP hearings. Chuck Hagel takes that analysis to a reasonable conclusion. We then get "Lowry" calling him moronic and slapping down your humble columnist for promoting Hagel in the first place!! It's as if the two pieces — written just two days apart — were put together by two different people!!

Hmmm. The evil-twin theory seems to make more and more sense. What do you think, readers? Different dimension? Transporter malfunction? Anti-matter universe? Do those closest to him know that our fearless leader might have been replaced? If he has been, the duplicate might try to replace cogent conservative analysis with the ravings of various lawyers and shrinks? Nah, that couldn't happen, could it? We'll have to see whether this "Lowry" character goes after Kudlow for suggesting that Bush select McCain as his running mate! We all know the real Rich would never tolerate that!!

I'd print Rich's e-mail so you could express your words of concern to him directly, but I'm afraid any correspondence might fall into the wrong hands — if you get my meaning.