Peter Wehner recently wrote a post for Commentary magazine titled The Establishment, Compromise and Conservatives. It’s well worth a look, albeit doubtless not for the reasons Mr. Wehner would prefer.

Mr. Wehner is currently a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. The Center’s stated goal is “to clarify and reinforce the bond between the Judeo-Christian moral tradition and the public debate over domestic and foreign policy issues.” I’m guessing that translates into everyone play nice now with a side dish of gentle Jesus meek and mild.

There is, of course, an inexorable thread of said Judeo-Christian moral traditions woven throughout our country’s history. A prime example is how the Declaration of Independence’s second sentence states (emphasis mine):

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

There is also the First Amendment to the Constitution (again, emphasis mine):

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

In this, the Founding Fathers declared that while there would be no state religion, there would also be no suppression of religion.

With this as a background, on to Mr. Wehner’s article for Commentary. The article text will be in blockquotes.

Among conservatives today, there’s a phrase that has become an all-purpose term of derision: “the establishment.” The purpose of the charge is to call into question the bona fides of self-proclaimed conservatives and Republicans. The choice is supposed to be between “true” conservatives and “establishment” ones.

From the get-go Mr. Wehner could not be more mistaken. The concern among conservatives is not between “true” conservatives and “establishment” conservatives. It is between conservatives period, be they an existing member of government or no, and those who assume the conservative label yet whose actions — or lack thereof — declare them to be content with the status quo and going along to get along. They’re not for genuine spending cuts or reigning in the amount of control government has over so many aspects of our daily lives.

I wonder, though, how many conservatives who rail against the establishment these days realize they are appropriating language from the 1960s, when the New Left attacked the authority structures in society and presented themselves as “anti-establishment.” Back in those days, it was conservatism which saw its role to protect society from the radical tendencies of those on the left and defend the beneficial social effects of an establishment. Yet today, even so quintessential an establishment figure as Newt Gingrich explains opposition to his candidacy chiefly in terms of opposition by the “Washington establishment” rising up to block “bold change.”

The comparison is ludicrous. The anti-establishment movement of the 1960s has nothing in common with today’s conservative movement. Today’s conservative movement seeks to restore the federal government to a Constitutionally-based system that is not overreaching into the private sector and is not racking up crushing debt. It has nothing to do with overthrowing the system, which was at the heart of the more radical elements in the 1960s. It has everything to do with overhauling the system and getting it back to its roots.

But that’s where this critique begins to break down. Many members of the conservative establishment, after all, were hoping Mitch Daniels or Paul Ryan would run for president because Daniels and Ryan are arguably the most committed and best informed when it comes to the most urgent and difficult domestic issue of our time, which is reforming the entitlement state, and Medicare in particular.

First off, there wasn’t a tremendous amount of enthusiasm for Daniels to enter the race. Ryan, yes. Second, again Mr. Wehner runs with the false assumption there is a blind loathing by conservatives of all things “establishment.” There is not. As noted above, the opposition is not an automatic knee-jerk reaction to anyone and everyone in public office. It is to those in office who say they are conservative yet refuse to act based on conservative principles.

To complicate things even more: polls tell us that many members of the Tea Party, which embodies anti-establishment feelings, are lukewarm when it comes to reforming programs like Medicare. And many of the loudest voices against the establishment have spent relatively little time laying out the case for structurally reforming Medicare. In fact, some of these conservatives have criticized President Obama for cutting Medicare (albeit to pay for the Affordable Care Act rather than as part of a broader reform agenda).

I do not know from what source or sources Mr. Wehner is getting his data, but it is in error. There is not a Tea Partier alive who does not believe in immediate, strong entitlement reform. We know there are massive, ever-growing unfunded obligations that cannot possibly be paid for if the current situation is allowed to continue. We know there needs to be hard solutions that may well involve some not receiving the benefits they have paid into and been promised for decades. We trust the Paul Ryans of this world to propose sound economic platforms that will simultaneously minimize the pain and end the progressive bankrupting of the country. Mr. Wehner is badly mistaken.

I wouldn’t deny for a moment that criticisms of the current establishment and political class have some merit. I’d simply suggest that the picture is incomplete. There’s an important role for the establishment in American politics. For one thing, it’s comprised of people who have substantive mastery over issues. Think of the difference between, say, Christine O’Donnell and Herman Cain, who embodied an anti-establishment style but who were not fluent on policy, and Representative Paul Ryan, who qualifies as part of the establishment under any meaningful definition of the term. (Ryan worked at a Washington, D.C. think tank and as a staffer on Capitol Hill in the 1990s, he was elected to Congress in 1998, he’s now chairman of an important committee and is undeniably a part of the governing elite.) The establishment, at its best, provides experience and guidance, a stabilizing presence and a practical (rather than a rigidly ideological) outlook, all of which should appeal to conservatives.

The only incomplete picture is the one being painted by Mr. Wehner. He states that “the establishment” is comprised of people who have substantial mastery over issues. When and where is this being denied by conservatives? We know and trust Paul Ryan and other members of “the establishment” who have proven themselves to be in the establishment but not of it. (How’s that for a Judeo-Christian reference? But I digress.) Mr. Wehner then goes on to politely ridicule Christine O’Donnell as lacking in knowledge on policy issues when in fact, as anyone who has read her book Troublemaker can testify, it was taking advice from members of the establishment that derailed her 2010 campaign. Finally, there is no comfort to be taken from a “practical” outlook when dramatic changes need to be swiftly implemented in this country’s political and economic course.

As in so many areas, we can learn something from the wisdom of the founders. In her book “Miracle at Philadelphia,” Catherine Drinker Bowen wrote this:

Most members of the [1787]) Philadelphia Convention … were old hands, politicians to the bone. That some of them happened also to be men of vision, educated in law and the science of government, did not distract them from the matters impending. There was a minimum of oratory or showing off. Each time a member seemed about to soar into the empyrean of social theory — the eighteenth century called it “reason” – somebody brought him round, and shortly. “Experience must be our only guide,” said John Dickinson of Delaware. “Reason may mislead us.”

How many times will Mr. Wehner reinforce the same invalid point? The contemporary conservative movement does not dismiss experience or automatically disqualify someone for a lengthy tenure in office. It does oppose those who talk the talk but fail to walk the walk regardless of what position of power they may hold, or how long they might have held it. This is why there is such a deep distrust among conservatives for Mitt Romney, whose current policy declarations are for the most part solidly conservative yet whose record in public office was far more moderate to liberal.

Many of the most impressive individuals in political history were “establishment” figures, including Burke and Madison. They knew a great deal about government. And very few, if any, of the founders would have would argued that less government experience would make people better fit to govern. It requires a different skill set to comment on politics than it does to govern, including (among other things) the ability to make wise compromises.

Compromise is why we are in the mess we are in. Capitulation is not a skill set. There are necessary give and take elements in public policy. However, when the fundamental core of increased government control and spending remains untouched regardless of which party is in charge — it warrants mention that Mr. Wehner served as deputy assistant to President George W. Bush, whose rampant deficit spending was overwhelmingly opposed by conservatives — experience is of no consideration. Note how Mr. Wehner works in a thinly disguised slam against commentators, insinuating that adherence to ideological beliefs prohibits effective governing. Really? When you’re right, chuck it in favor of compromise? Now there’s true leadership for you.

Speaking of which: among some conservatives these days “compromise” is considered an offense almost equal to being a member of The Establishment. So it’s once again worth recalling the elegant words of Bowen, who wrote, “In the Constitutional Convention, the spirit of compromise reigned in grace and glory. As Washington presided, it sat on his shoulder like the dove. Men rise to speak and one sees them struggle with the bias of birthright, locality, statehood…. One sees them change their minds, fight against pride and when the moment comes, admit their error.”

Again (and again and again and again) Mr. Wehner preaches the compromise evangel at a time when compromise has led to the precipice on which we are teetering. The middle does not work. It has never worked. Pick a philosophy and stick with it. Either we keep going on the economic and political course laid out by President Obama or we go in a different direction altogether. Your choice. You can’t have it both ways. You cannot simultaneously cut spending while removing government involvement in our professional along with personal lives and pursue the goals and agendas of the current administration. The paths are complete opposites. And no amount of wishing to make nice can change this.

To be clear: members of the Washington establishment can be knaves and fools. Compromise can be just another word for capitulation. And there are reasons to be frustrated with the way things are done. At the same time, reflexive attacks on both “the establishment” and compromise are unwise. We were fortunate at the founding of America to have a political class consisting of individuals with governing experience, scholarly insights, and strong convictions. The best among them took the long view. They were conversant in both theory and practice. They were also undeniably members of the establishment of their era. And their compromises – including between those who favored adding a Bill of Rights and those who did not, between big states and small ones, and between northern and southern states – led to the greatest governing charter in history. These things are worth bearing in mind even, and maybe especially, for conservatives.

And so we cycle back to Mr. Wehner’s beginning, one hundred percent inaccurate premise. The conservative movement is not anti-establishment. It does not reflexively dismiss government officials regardless of their length of service. It does demand those it supports be consistent and firm in upholding the conservative principles of limited government and corresponding limited spending. That is all it asks. Too bad Mr. Wehner isn’t listening.