(1) Let’s not trivialize charges of “inconsistency.” Indeed, what I’ve said before of morals (see the “Larry Craig flap” post 10-11-07) holds too of factual claims—i.e., that every false claim amounts to some kind of inconsistency, insofar as people claim correctness for their views (i.e., to claim, or seek, correctness while being incorrect is inconsistent). So if we can’t criticize people for inconsistency, we can’t criticize anyone for anything, ever–including, as you do, criticizing me for a bad post.

(2) Surely some “inconsistencies” are more interesting and relevant, less trivial, than others. Saying, “it doesn’t bother to call a politician inconsistent because all politicians are inconsistent” is like saying that, since using profanity and molesting children are both errors, we can’t criticize a child molesting politician because “every politician makes errors.” The issue is how grave, how dangerous, etc. the inconsistency, or the error, is.

(3) However, it isn’t clear—beyond the bare and admittedly pretty uninteresting sense of “inconsistency” in (1)—that I’m charging Paul with an inconsistency, anyhow. (Well, I do this in the “notes,” but that isn’t the main idea.) Rather, I’m charging an incoherence—his view doesn’t make sense, therefore couldn’t possibly be implemented. This is be infinitely more interesting than the politicians’ “inconsistencies” you must have in mind, e.g., sometimes speaking as though they support the war, and sometimes not. I don’t think Paul is especially given to “inconsistenc[ies]” of this type at all. I certainly haven’t charged it.

Could you name one politician now, or in the last 2,000 years, who did have a consistent philosophy? Of course you can’t. It doesn’t pay to be consistent in politics.