Ross Douthat has posted a piece that juxtaposes comments by me and my former White House colleague David Frum about the lessons of Newt Gingrich versus Paul Ryan.

Douthat’s conclusion—gently directed mainly at me, I think—goes like this:

But some of Gingrich’s more enthusiastic critics are failing the test as well, by behaving as if the Ryan budget represents some kind of sacred right-wing writ. Unless American politics changes beyond recognition, Ryan’s plan cannot and will not become the law of the land in its current form. And while it has many virtues, it has many flaws as well. Its example should call Republican presidential candidates to a greater seriousness about Medicare reform than most conservative politicians have manifested to date. But it cannot, and must not, become a rigid litmus test: That way lies intellectual sclerosis, and political disaster.

I agree with much of what Ross said, and in fact I think he said it quite well. There are no sacred texts—and certainly no sacred budgets—in contemporary American politics. All of us, regardless of our political philosophy, should welcome a rigorous debate about the merits of various plans. And I myself have argued against purity tests.

As a matter of clarification, then, I don’t believe Gingrich deserved to be harshly rebuked simply because he had the temerity to challenge Ryan’s plan. In fact I have said explicitly, “It would be one thing for Gingrich to say that he disagrees with the Ryan plan; that would, in my judgment, be wrong but not particularly outrageous.” What I went on to say is this: “But to use words like radical and social engineering to describe it is irresponsible, even for Gingrich.” And I went on to argue that the lesson of what happened to the former Speaker is that “reckless attacks” against what Ryan has proposed will be met by powerful criticism from a spectrum of influential figures within conservatism.

Nothing anyone has written or said has convinced me that Gingrich’s attacks on the Ryan plan weren’t anything but irresponsible and intellectually incoherent. And I say that as one who stands foursquare against rigid litmus tests, intellectual sclerosis, and in fact sclerosis of any kind.