I’ve long thought consistency was overrated. That doesn’t mean it’s not important, but it’s not everything either. I seem to recall reading that Edmund Burke defended different aspects of the British Constitution on different grounds, and the subsidiary defenses contradicted each other (If someone could send me the exact citation I’d appreciate it). I generally see the world, culture etc as far too complex to demand consistency of principle in every situation. The second canon of Kirk’s Six Canon’s of Conservative Thought is an “Affection for the proliferating variety and mystery of human existence, as opposed to the narrowing uniformity, egalitarianism, and utilitarian aims of most radical systems;”

Marxism is consistent on every point, or at least Marxists think it is. That doesn’t make Marxism any more right. In fact, it makes it more consistently wrong.

When Andrew and others demand consistency from conservatives that’s a perfectly defensible position. But that doesn’t mean conservative inconsistency makes us wrong, it just means we have to defend our inconsistency better.