I have a conservative friend I've been emailing back and forth with for years—which means, basically, that for years and years he's been bombarding me with insistent bleats about the horrors of government. Any government. It turns human beings into serfs, slaves, little babies slurping on mother's breasts and unable to do anything else. It breaks up families, corrodes souls, tears the bond between man and God asunder. This particular conservative, in fact, used to be a survivalist.

Not more than two weeks ago, though, he sent me his brilliant plan for saving the economy. "Small bailouts like our $300 Billion ($600 tax rebate credit) effort in April of this year and the $700+ Billion bank bailout in September won't begin to touch the order of new spending required to overcome our already-lot credit (e.g. home equity lines, revolving business lines, credit card, municipal lines, home mortgages, etc.). Take that $1 Trillion up to $10 Trillion and we've got a chance."

And maybe that's so. It may be a reasonable position to take.

But it's not a reasonable position for a longtime conservative to take.

You see the problem. The man now recommending the government spend $10 trillion saving the economy is the same one who spent years and years telling me government turns human beings into serfs, slaves, little babies, etc. And so I responded to him: "The political success of the conservative movement in de-legitimating activist government makes the notion of what you propose...impossible. Ideas have consequences. Take responsibility."

He didn't, of course. He accused me of fighting the battles of the past, of partisanship—of which he now finds himself a full-time scourge, to wit: "while I don't expect Team 0bama to listen to me," he wrote, "I'm convinced that each of those ideas would benefit America overall if they were implemented, regardless of who pushed through those ideas."

Look at the "Team 0bama" above. Yes, he refers to "Obama" as "0bama," with a zero in place of the "O." And he wonders why Obama wouldn't listen to him.

He goes on about his $10 trillion idea: "This concept will likewise be lost on the masses." Yes, he refers to the "masses," like some Leninist theorist. Even though, for years and years, he's been painting me as the patronizing snob who thinks ordinary Americans can be led around like, well, masses. Well, that seems to be more his view. And he wonders why "the masses" aren't listening.

By the way, another conservative I email with suggested in the same thread that the "easiest and most sensible fix to today's problem in immigration amnesty, which would restore housing demand." And again, maybe that's so. It may be a reasonable position to take. But it's not a reasonable position for a longtime conservative to take. To his credit this particular conservative has been outspoken and consistent opponent of his political party's reliance on nativism to try to hold on to political power. Which doesn't take away the fact that, without a nativist, ethno-nationalist base, his political party would never win an election. It's what his political party is.

Ideas have consequences. And conservatives are drowning in the consequences of theirs. More on that soon.