A smart reader writes in about my Times op-ed:

Can’t say I was persuaded by the Pelosi for Speaker piece in the NY Times this morning. . . . I certainly agree there could be a silver lining of the sort you mention, but a silver lining in a darker cloud than you seemed to suggest. The piece almost (or maybe not almost) argues it would be on the whole a positive development for conservatives, and if that’s what you’re arguing I would certainly disagree. Two reasons, above others.
First it would be a very bad signal on the war. The Democrats-to the extent they’re running on any issues at all-are running on just one issue, the war. They don’t even have gas prices to kick around anymore, and they have made nothing of any domestic issues or corruption etc., at least to this point. They are running against the war, and if they win, they would see themselves (perhaps rightly) as having a mandate to obstruct its conduct. The House’s formal role in foreign and defense policy is limited, as you note, but the message of such an outcome, and the action they could take if they hold the gavel in the House would nonetheless be serious problems. To the extent we think the war needs to be the highest priority (and of course good people differ on that point) losing the House majority would be a very significant setback. Second, I think you don’t acknowledge the extent to which the House acts as a check on the Senate now. It’s not as though we have conservatives in both houses and losing the (arguably) less powerful of the two won’t change much. We have, in essence, a fairly liberal majority in the Senate and a fairly conservative majority in the House. That means all the great things that pass the House go nowhere in the Senate. But it also means all the terrible things that pass the Senate (or would) go nowhere in the House or because of the House. The one major exception-the stem cell funding bill-gave us a hint of what we’d face without a relatively reliable House leadership on all sorts of issues, from government interference in drug pricing to minimum wage to life issues (the Dickey Amendment, say, or the Weldon Amendment) and others. Now having to veto more bills wouldn’t be a bad thing in itself, but on many of those issues we wouldn’t even have the kind of base support and clear case we had on stem cells and it’s far from clear if we’d have veto proof margins either. What we have had is a House leadership that controls the agenda to keep them from going anywhere. Losing that would, I think, be a bigger problem than you’re suggesting. Having the leadership allows us to prevent a lot of mischief. Now I’m not one of those who thinks all conservatives need to do is keep government from doing bad things-I think there’s a use for government properly understood, and gridlock is generally not an end in itself-but it remains the case that it’s not bad to keep government from doing bad things, and we do a lot of that by having the House leadership. And anyway, we are facing two choices, one of which is much better than the other. We should want the better of the two to win, particularly in such a time of testing for the country, and all the while we should be working to make the Republican party more conservative and more constructive. Those aims can conflict, but I don’t think the conflict should make us yearn to lose. That’s one place, by the way, where I do think you hit the nail right on the head: there is a sorry lack of policy ideas among conservatives right now. Creative and concrete pro-family pro-market policy proposals. That’s what we need not only to win votes but to hold the coalition together too. Much work to be done there. I think there are actually some great opportunities on that front for a new wave of conservative reform ideas, but everyone seems too tired to take much note of the opportunity. So in any case, I see the silver lining you point to, and I’ll certainly cling to it if the Dems win the House, but I think Nancy Pelosi two heartbeats from the Presidency is a very dark cloud, and silver linings shouldn’t make us forget that. It’s useful to think two elections ahead, but it’s important also to think about this one, and to want to win.

Since the email praises the House leadership, I should note while posting it that my wife works for it (specifically, for Roy Blunt).