He makes several good points for which I have yet to conjure up counterpoints.
Unlike the Left, conservatism has never been an ideological movement, in the sense of possessing an overarching system of thought demanding acceptance in toto. American conservatism is based on principle, firmly-grounded, straightforward concepts: that men are lower than angels, that governs best which governs least, and that innovations must be examined under the presumption of error. Apart from these axioms, everything else was open to debate.
I would like to take issue with the basic premise that there is no overarching system of thought underpinning "conservatism" but, so far, that requires subdividing "conservatism" and breaking out portions thereof - subgroups such as "classical liberals".
Dunn continues on to arrive at,
...the question of why a large segment of the conservative elite is treating Harriet Miers, and beyond her the President of the United States, with... disdain
It seems a very good question and has several Yargbians scratching our heads when we aren't vocalizing our annoyance with it.
Dunn, after some further stage setting, answers the question thusly,
Because changing the judiciary has become a covenant. Conservative judicial strategy is no longer simply a policy. It’s a dogma, much the same as abortion or gun control is to the Left, and is being treated by conservative mandarins as quasi-religious doctrine, not open to discussion, to be carried out with the precision of ritual. Everything must be done as was handed down. The selection must come from the anointed and none other.
He concludes with what I believe is the more relevant and larger question,
It comes down to a question as to whether or not we want to settle for the same stale brew as the Left – the empty posturing, the kowtowing to received opinion, the angels-on-pinheads dialectic. If not, a confrontation is in order.
and, with hope that the descent can be arrested,
Fortunately, we have the means. The internet, grass roots organizations, talk radio, and other channels for opinions not delivered from on high keep conservatives talking – and arguing among ourselves. We are not passive recipients of dicta handed down from on high by those who consider it their right to tell the President whom to nominate, and to define the qualifications for the nation’s high court.
This knucklehead believes Mr. Dunn has made his points briefly but well and draws the correct, albeit optimistic, conclusion.