Just Because Some of the Party Doesn't Believe in Natural Selection Doesn't Mean We Can't Benefit From It: For an extreme starter, let's take an issue often espoused by conservatives that I do disagree with, intelligent design. Imagine sitting in a small student gathering at Columbia and trying to argue that evolution should be taught in schools. Even if your argument is pretty weak, you're going to get a pass, because few if any people are around to disagree with you. Now imagine trying to uphold an idea like intelligent design: whatever the merits, you'll not be short of those to cross rhetorical swords with. Many of those folks will be skilled with data, have relevant expertise, or just be good debaters. You'll get good fast, or you'll be dead.

At most campuses--at least at places like Harvard or Columbia--conservatives are in that position on almost every issue. The exercise of having to constantly justify your position makes one used to the necessity. Indeed, it becomes second nature. I was at a largish lunch recently where I was seated with two fellow conservatives, and we started talking about some of the events at Columbia and the Solomon Amendment. Almost without thinking, I was taking issue with the conservative, trying to tone down what we were saying, because, after all, it's what I've been doing for three years. The idea--all of a sudden--that it wasn't a necessity, that I was in the real world where there are a multitude of allies, hit me like the proverbial lemon wrapped around a gold brick.

Conservatives Who Don't Like to Argue Shut the Hell Up: If Mr. Cardinal thinks that Republicans at most universities are on average better debaters, he might be surprised by how much that's because the less eloquent have left the field.

Since I was overseas for university, this might not be the norm, but during my undergrad experience there were a lot of very quiet conservatives. I was not one of them, but I was surprised the number of parties or dinners after which, as denoument, ended with some otherwise quiet member of the table approaching me and confessing that, "Well, yes, I pretty much agree with you, but I just didn't feel like having the fight." Look, in most social settings in college, supporting redistributive taxation, affirmative action, or homosexual marriage doesn't take much courage: bad arguments for these positions will be accepted by most colleagues because one's heart is in the right place.

These Two Principles in Action: I remember particularly a conversation at Columbia just before the last election. One young lady--a rather passionate woman of the type I imagine Mr. Cardinal speaks--said to me, "Well, you can't argue that we [the Democrats] are the party with a greater diversity of ideas, and that gives us the advantage." (This was back when at least some New Yorkers thought Kerry was a winner.) I should have let that pass, but it was the phrase--"you can't argue"--that goaded me on. And sure enough, I did precisely that. Actually, I first asked her for her support for the position. It amounted, basically, to, "You know what I mean."

"Well, yes, I know what you mean. You mean that the Democrats are more racially diverse, which is probably true. That's not the same as diversity of ideas. Republicans have both pro-life and pro-choice candidates on the stage at their convention. In the meantime, Democrats like Gov. Casey only get their fame in Democratic circles through case names. We've got differences in just about every aspect of the party, and there's not a lockstep march even within the pages of National Review. My guess is that both parties are pretty diverse but find it more difficult to see the diversity in their opponents--a heuristic bias that's understandable--but I'd not want to put that forward as more than a guess until I had some evidence to back it up. Meanwhile, I'd really like to see the evidence of intellectual diversity--not diversity that is purely racial--that makes your position unarguable, as it doesn't fit my experience."

Believe it or not, asking for justification was taken with offense. The young lady belonged to Dean's 'They're all white, upper-class Christians' part of the Democratic Party, and I'd offended the orthodoxy. Let me suggest that a conservative whose orthodoxy is so easily offended in law school should be prepared for a very lonely existence. More likely, they'll just go turtle until they graduate. When faced with "unarguable" propositions, they'll just not argue.

I don't think that American universities are so hostile to the right that they're uninhabitable, but there is an adversity to be faced as a conservative that sharpens one's skills. What is amusing is how transparently Mr. Cardinal avoids these rather obvious explanations. If Republicans can be said to be better organized, better prepared, better debaters, the answer would seem to be clear: in a hostile environment, you're either good, or you're not there.