I love internecine ideological squabbles, as any longtime reader knows. I love arguing about what is or is not the correct position for conservatives, libertarians, trekkies and trekkers and everything in between. But I usually expect a minimum level of argumentation. Why is this or that the conservative position? Why do you say Hayek or Burke or Strauss would like this or dislike that? Why do you claim there’s a conservative position on X or Y at all? Etc, etc.

Maybe that’s why I find this sort of thing so lame.

The “cunning realist” writes:

Apparently, there is some sort of virus going around that affects ostensibly Conservative media outlets. Over at The Corner, it seems they’ve overstepped their literary charter a bit, forgotten their ideological roots, and perhaps taken leave of their senses in the process. From Jonah Goldberg:
“Lastly, the death penalty. Again, this guy is guilty. There are many witnesses, including this poor woman who was shot in the fact, the pistol-whipped AJC reporter, the dozen or so people in the courtroom who were held at bay etc. Nichols apparently went considerably out of his way — postponing his escape — to shoot down a judge. Opponents of the death penalty who make their arguments on procedural grounds — as opposed to strictly moral or ideological grounds — need to explain why this man should not be executed. Fine, fine, there may be others on death row somewhere who shouldn’t be. Or, there may not be. But none of that is relevant to whether this guy should get what he deserves.”
Everyone ready to go out to Stone Mountain and find a tall tree?
Proclaiming a suspect’s guilt the day he is arrested is the absolute antithesis of Conservative ideology, and is a basic part of the judicial systems of some of the “evil” nations in which the United States is currently trying to effect change.

Me: Note there’s no argumentation here whatsoever. He simply asserts that my statement is not merely “un-conservative” but the “absolute antithesis of Conservative ideology.”

Nonsense. I am not going to waste much time arguing with someone who doesn’t even try to make an argument. But one would expect someone who calls himself a realist would at least understand the realism of my point. I am all in favor of the man getting a fair trial. Then I’m all in favor of him being executed once the reality of the situation is comfirmed by a court of law.

Regardless, I am a commentator, an opiner, a journalist, a citizen. There’s nothing in conservatism or in America’s judicial system which says I cannot proclaim my opinion on anything I choose. Stalin was never convicted of a crime, nor Hitler. I do not call them “alleged” criminals either. And, O.J. Simpson was cleared by a jury and I think he’s guilt of murder and I see nothing wrong, never mind unconservative, in saying so. Frankly, I don’t know what this guy is talking about and since he makes no effort to explain himself, I see no need to explain myself further.