Peter Roff, a conservative writing in U.S. News and World Report ^[1], thinks that Caroline Kennedy, a socialite who has been so concerned with New York’s political future that she has voted in almost 40% of its elections, is qualified.

Well, yes, she meets the mere constitutional standards: she is over 35 and has a pulse.

No, what Roff is trying to argue is different–and it is an intellectual trap I see many conservatives falling into. Call it the “Palin problem.”

Still stung by the establishment media’s dismissal of Gov. Sarah Palin as “unqualified,” some conservatives want to be “consistent” and contend that Kennedy is suffering from the same unfair attacks. (I know, what attacks?) Still, Roff puts this a powerful way, meant to attract centrists to his view:

Having just been through this over the question of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin’s candidacy for vice president, we are again faced with the prospect of career partisans attacking a woman who has just entered the arena from outside it—way, way, outside it.

In much the same way that black politicians, at least prior to Obama’s election, were damned with faint praise when cited for their “eloquence,” the overarching focus on “qualifications”—especially as they apply to women seeking elective office—is little more than an attempt to score a few quick, easy points and push them out of the way. It is unseemly, and it is wrong.

He is onto something. He has noticed the mechanics by which the Establishment tries to keep people, noting that it uses different tools to keep out different types of people. Fine. But, Roff is missing the boat.

Gov. Palin had repeatedly run for office in the years preceding her walk on to the national stage. She had stood before voters and weathered their often harsh appraisal. She has been repeatedly vetted. And she had a record of government service–a record of leadership that can be weighed (not that it actually was). And finally Gov. Palin worked for it every step of the way; she was not waiting around to be crowned.

Roff and too many other conservatives are forgetting a great insight from Ralph Waldo Emerson: “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall.”

In other words, foolish consistences are the lazy way out.

Let’s avoid foolish consistences. Gov. Palin and Ms. Kennedy are worlds apart. One is a self-starter who made her way through the scrum of local, state and national politics, asking for nothing but a fair chance. The other is the offspring of a wealthy political family who, surprised by a string of deaths and departures, has seen her chance and reluctantly decided to take it.

This should be a moment to remind ourselves what makes Gov. Palin uniquely qualified (in contrast with Ms. Kennedy), not a time to transfer her mantle to an undeserving New Yorker who resembles her only in the most simple biological sense.