"Crunchy Con" reviews

If I understand the Post reviewer correctly, the failure of the book to do something the book wasn't trying to do invalidates the entire argument? Those who are quick to jump on Rod's book for its lack of definition (even though the "manifesto" surely must provide some general outline) would probably consider The Conservative Mind an eclectic list of People Russell Kirk Liked rather than one of the canonical works defining American conservatism. I'm not saying that the two books are comparable in many ways, but in its method of finding common elements of principle and mentality uniting wildly diverse people and recognising the importance of sentiment and aesthetic and ethical expressions of Newman's "illative sense" Crunchy Cons does approach some of its topics in the same spirit as The Conservative Mind did.

As for convincing people that there are many crunchies out there, how could an anecdotal book possibly achieve this? More to the point, even if there are only a few who fit the mould this wouldn't affect the merit of the philosophical claims being made. This reminds me of a remark made recently that a particular scholar should be ignored because he doesn't have much of a following, as if a following was what made a scholar's work worthwhile. No one worried whether Kirk had a "following" in 1953, or whether there were actually a lot of "conservatives" who possessed this mind he was describing. Kirk's definition, nebulous as it was in its way, managed to win as much acceptance as it did because there was no entrenched body of conservatives already convinced that they knew what conservatism was. Now the gatekeepers are predictably loath to see conservative ideas that point out the flaws in the edifice of their precious "movement."

If Rod's description of Meilaender's review is right, it seems that the anti-crunchy critics are once again uninterested in self-examination or anything that might call into question the comfort of their existing routine. Maybe there is more to the review; I would almost hope there is.>

You've gotten the same kind of reaction here in the Twin Cities among our conservative blogger friends. Either people love your ideas or hate them. People read all sorts of things in the book that aren't even there. You do have an explicit and implicit critique of the neocons that is worth taking seriously but in the waning years of the Bush presidency, neo-cons are loath to hear it at the moment. With all the wailing, I'd say you scored a bullseye.

Then again, you might be, as my spouse says, a pro-life democrat.>

For myself, I had to ask if Republicanism (or conservatism) is inherently good. I have concluded that it has evil elements to it that undermine the public good and the family. I haven't converted to the Democrats yet because I can't find any to be enthusiastic about.>

Rod—I haven't read you book yet; in fact I had only just heard of it a couple days before my copy of First Things showed up, but I was intrigued enough to read the the review.

Even without having read your book, it was clear that Meilaender was, as you say, putting the worst possible spin on your positions. He may have had some valid things to say about your tone—I'll judge that myself when I get my hands on the book—but his dismissive attitude was obnoxious, and even inspired thoughts of not renewing my subscription to FT.

What particularly bothers me is that the editors of FT would think the "Crunchy Con" phenomenon as worthy only of their derision. I'm a faithful FT reader—eight years—and bear all the marks of a Crunch Con; I even brew my own beer. I'm disappointed that my favorite journal seems to be sending the signal that my type aren't their type.

One might argue that Meilaender's review represents the view of only one contributor to FT. But I don't think that holds water. If there really are a lot of us Crunchy Cons out there—I know scores of them—then the first attention paid to us by a serious conservative journal outght to be something more than an absurd dismissal.

I remain very disappointed in FT. It remains to be seen what I'll do the next time a renewal notice shows up.>

Larison said, "Those who are quick to jump on Rod's book for its lack of definition (even though the "manifesto" surely must provide some general outline) would probably consider The Conservative Mind an eclectic list of People Russell Kirk Liked rather than one of the canonical works defining American conservatism."

Rod entitled his book "Crunchy Cons", and then failed to define or develop who that group might be -- and then, on top of that, admits that he himself has no idea who that group might be. Russell Kirk can admit no such failure when writing a book about the conservative mind, which is simultaneously a perfectly abstract and perfectly valid category for investigation. Whereas Dreher makes no methodical investigation of anything. Instead his book is a series of free-floating anecdotes and ruminations about virtue, arbitrarily yoked to an imaginary set of people. Worse, he explicitly maligns a clearly defined set of people ("mainstream conservatives") in order to make his own categorizations appear less arbitrary. By his own admission, he can't demonstrate the integrity of his own ideas about crunchy conservatism, so his only alternative is to malign everyone else's.>

"Rod entitled his book "Crunchy Cons", and then failed to define or develop who that group might be -- and then, on top of that, admits that he himself has no idea who that group might be.

Personally, I felt it was more along the lines of the earliest exercises in feeling around the edges of a potential new "Platonic Ideal Form" of an ideological persuasion. Eventually a pure definition might be arrived at, by the discoverer or some other wiser investigator, but it might be too early right now to frame it within specific walls.>

A quick thing or two about Rod's post:

1) Rod, you write that you don't recognize your book in Meilaender's review.

"There are some decent criticisms in the piece, don't get me wrong, but it's startling to see how an intelligent reviewer took words and phrases out of context and put the worst possible spin on them."

I'm reminded of something Jonah wrote at the CC blog at NRO, about Maggie Gallagher.

"Your constant insinuation that Maggie didn't read your book closely enough suggests to me that you don't grasp how many readers conclude in good faith that you've over-read the significance of your personal experience and the experiences of the people you went looking for and found who verified what you already believed."

If quite a few conservative writers misread your book, it might not be their fault. It might be that it struck a nerve with those who were already inclined to join the crunch-con congregation, but the strong negative reaction from mainstream conservatives might be because the book conveys things you never intended or (in retrospect) regret.

2) In the post to which you link, Spengler comes off as an arrogant elitist who thinks that most Americans are fat and stupid.

"I have been to Indiana, and the strongest impression I took away was of epidemic dysmorphic obesity. Fast food makes you obese, and an intellectual diet of spectator sports make you stupid."

Of course, it's hard to get a clear impression of a guy from just one post, but it's not clear to me why any of us should care why he agrees with you.>

As one who grew up and went through college and law school as a pretty mainstream Republican/American conservative (i.e., pro-life, low taxes, strong defense and otherwise stay away), Crunchy Cons, has given me a little bit more to chew on than just those mainstream big ideas. It s not that I ve changed position on those issues; rather, it is that I see those pieces as part of a large context, one in which all aspects of life should be integrated in a cohesive sensibility (or attitude) towards life. No, that s not it precisely. Let me restate: a context in which all aspects of life are integrated in a cohesive sensibility living a true sacramental life. I just never fully recognized it before.

This call to live a sacramental life is what I think underlies Dreher s book throughout. I therefore think Crunchy Cons is essentially a Catholic book, with a Catholic sensibility. To be sure, he profiles quite a few Protestants and followers of other religions but the theme of the book directly relates to a life lived in accord with the natural law. When he speaks of the Permanent Things, that is what he means. When he speaks of honoring tradition, that is what he means. I m not sure why he doesn t come out and just say that Crunchy Cons is a Catholic book (probably so as not to exclude any non-Catholic readers) but one cannot escape the Catholic sensibility which permeates every page.

And I think that s why Meilaender had such trouble with Crunchy Cons. Approaching the book from a very American and Protestant perspective, he just cannot bring himself to see the complete integrity of a sacramental life. He contends that many of life s choices are merely personal preferences, not moral choices. One can be a good person and still drive an SUV. Perhaps. In fact, I think he s probably right. But what happens when that personal preference is placed in the context of an entire set of personal preferences does this not paint a picture of how one views one s place in the world? Can we truly just explain to God, that hey man, it s no big thing, that s just the way I like it? Are we not accountable for the accumulated personal preferences that we make (at least to some degree)?

Meilaender does make a few good points however. Dreher s emphasis on the importance of raising children is good, but they are not the everything that he makes them out to be. Dreher goes a touch overboard here. And Dreher does come off as a little too precious at times his life altering moment at biting into an organic piece of fruit caused a little eye roll from me. Also, I tend to think there s much to save and hold dear in Roman Rite Catholic churches. I m not ready to throw it all away as Dreher seems to do in his journey towards the Eastern Rite. But at the end of the day, Meilaender (and Dreher s other critics) miss the boat by getting so defensive. I don t think they get what he means by calling Crunchy Conservatism a sensibility rather than a program for change.

I m really glad Dreher wrote the book. I m not in his corner all the way and probably never will be. I haven t thrown away my shoes for a pair of Birkenstocks, and I haven t thrown out my iPod. But I have started to take account of the purpose of my life (I actually started this before reading Crunch Cons, but it has helped me a great deal in taking that account), and how the choices I make in what I buy, where I live, how I live, etc. indicate what kind of person I really am. That ain t bad for a book.>

Daniel says,

(even though the "manifesto" surely must provide some general outline)

The manifesto has bugged me ever since I saw it.

1. We are conservatives who stand outside the conservative mainstream; therefore, we can see things that matter more clearly.

This has been commented on a lot. There is no support for the claim that "standing outside the mainstream" makes one more able to "see things that matter more clearly". Ramsey Clark stands outside the mainstream of American society, but nobody here thinks he sees anything clearly. Likewise Maureen Dowd. The John Birch society is also outside the mainstream - do you really think they see things more clearly? This is a load of pretentious crap.

2. Modern conservatism has become too focused on money, power, and the accumulation of stuff, and insufficiently concerned with the content of our individual and social character.

This is a debateable claim, but I haven't seen anyone make a substantive defense of it. I think it is more accurate to say that the Republican Party has become to focused on money and power, but it's far less clear that this is true of mainstream conservatism.

3. Big business deserves as much skepticism as big government.

Somebody did address this somewhere, perhaps on the concrunchy blog. It makes no sense without some context. Taken at face value, WalMart is as dangerous as the Soviet Union. It's one thing to say we should be skeptical of big business, or of it's marketing techniques - it's quite another to say we should be as skeptical of big business as big government.

4. Culture is more important than politics and economics.

I would very much appreciate some examples of mainstream conservatives who make this claim, if any such people exist. I'm not saying such attitudes don't exist in the conservative movement, I just think they aren't that common, and that supporters of this sentiment outweigh those who would disagree with it.

5. A conservatism that does not practice restraint, humility, and good stewardship especially of the natural world is not fundamentally conservative.

Again, some evidence please? Like has been said before, it seems that Rod simply buys into the standard liberal stereotype of conservatives as greedy capitalists who don't care about the environment.

6. Small, Local, Old, and Particular are almost always better than Big, Global, New, and Abstract.

Again, this is a pretentious statement that makes no sense without some context. It would make a lot more sense to say that one needs to appreciate both, not to say that one is "almost always" better than the other.

7. Beauty is more important than efficiency.

Yet again, we need some definitions. Why can't beauty and efficiency both be important, depending on the context? I prefer a military that is efficient over one that is beautiful, for example. I also don't think it is fair to claim that mainstream conservatives don't already support this claim, at least in significant numbers.

8. The relentlessness of media-driven pop culture deadens our senses to authentic truth, beauty, and wisdom.

And no conservatives have made this claim recently? Please.

9. We share Russell Kirk s conviction that the institution most essential to conserve is the family.

See #8.

10. Politics and economics won t save us; if our culture is to be saved at all, it will be by faithfully living by the Permanent Things, conserving these ancient moral truths in the choices we make in our everyday lives.

It may well be that too many conservatives have put all their faith in a political movement, or political philosophy. But this is not a critique of mainstream conservatism per se, it's pointing out the larger truth that politics is secondary to virtue. It's not necessary to make the criticisms of mainstream conservatism that Rod has made in order to make this point.>

This call to live a sacramental life is what I think underlies Dreher s book throughout. I therefore think Crunchy Cons is essentially a Catholic book, with a Catholic sensibility. To be sure, he profiles quite a few Protestants and followers of other religions but the theme of the book directly relates to a life lived in accord with the natural law.

This is why I think people have a problem with the book - it's framed as an intra-conservative argument; CC is set against "mainstream conservatism". But conservatism as a political philosophy is not designed, and does not have the capacity, to tell people how to live their lives. I totally agree that if the book had been written as a specifically religious (even if inter-denominational) book it would have received a very different reception. What I don't get is why Rod and Daniel et al. don't understand the disconnect between writing a book calling people to live a more sacramental life, which is essentially a spiritual and religious calling, and framing/marketing it as a different (more virtuous!) version of conservatism. How can people not be irritated/confused by that?>

Mike S.

As my work laptop is cycling down I am replying quickly from my home pc. It is very good question. A great question. No surprise here, I am Roman Catholic. I will think about this, but I suspect that Rod thought that it would sell better and have a better reach. He should answer that question. He SHOULD also not throw a dozen posts on top of this so we can have a proper liturgical conversation about this topic. Rod can you please answer Mike S. question? It is very important. I am a CC and I want to know too. In a rush got to go.:-)>

For what it's worth, "Spengler" doesn't seem to realize that Gilbert Meilaender is a LCMS Lutheran, not an ELCA liberal (like, say, me).>

More free market obsession from mainstream conservatives... (I know, I know - I'm sure the content of the magazine was prompted by the realease of Crunch Cons.)>

Thanks, Mike. :)

(I just noticed, to keep the parallelism, I should have said "body and blood," not "blood and body." Oh, well.)

(Anyway, the choice of that particular junk-food combo is not from out of nowhere.)>

Todd:

Again, it starts with the intent to live a sacramental life. As a friend put it rather bluntly, "if your heart is with Jesus, then your ass should be too." Can one live a sacramental life in a McMansion? Possibly. Can one live a sacramental life without giving thought as to the how living in a McMansion achieves that goal? I don't think so.

As a Catholic, I believe we are all called by God to live according to Christ. And that to do this, to live sacramentally, requires thinking about all aspects of our life. We can't just compartmentalize and fragmentize different aspects of life. Politics, religion, lifestyle, career, family, home, eating, the whole darn thing!, is part of the calling from God.

I agree with all that, that we cannot compartmentalize our lives, that God doesn't want a part of our time, that He wants us, and that even a decision to live in the suburb should be subordinated to His will.

The question is, does Jesus actually show a real concern for such issues?

I've given this before on other sites, but this seems like a decent summary of at least part of the Sermon on the Mount:

Quickly reconcile with someone you've wronged. Give no quarter to the temptation to indulge in lust and hatred. Be nothing less than honest. Treat everyone with love and respect -- even those who hate you. Do good deeds quietly so as to avoid the spotlight. Pray sincerely as part of genuine relationship with a personal God. Trust that God loves you, knows what is in your best interest, and is both willing and able to bring that about.

The question of whether to live in a suburban "McMansion" seems trivial in comparison. We should be good stewards of what we have. If we go into debt to live extravagently, or even if our personal comfort trumps others' genuine needs, we're not being good stewards.

But this emphasis on aesthetics -- this sense that organic salads are better than a sandwich at Subway, that the extra cost is (at least generally) worth the aesthetic pleasure it provides -- is at best a good thing that is overemphasized compared to the concerns that are truly the focus of the New Testament.

At worst, it's an outright rejection of what Christ taught about food in Matthew 6 and Matthew 15.


I've made the comparison before, but it's worth repeating: a lot of well-meaning Christians agonize over whether he or she should marry so-and-so. The Bible is clear about marriage being instituted for lifelong heterosexual monogamy, and it has some guidelines about not marrying someone who's unequally yoked spiritually and about seeking a wise and godly partner, but I believe it's emphasis is on how you live a married life, not with whom.

The important question is not, Alice or Lisa? It's whether you as a husband demonstrate the same love Christ has for His church.

It's not, farmer or engineer? It's whether you work with God's glory in mind and whether you honest and honorable in all your business dealings.

It's not, Wal-Mart or Whole Foods? It's whether you are grateful for God's daily bread and take the opportunity to draw closer to the Father above and your brothers beside you.>

Ben, ya lost me: how does my working in software indicate some big disconnect? I don't begrudge your bringing it up, I just don't follow. :)

Java -- and JBoss and Maven and CruiseControl -- may have made my mind mush. I'm off to lunch.

(And to buy Jewel's new album, released today.)>

Bubba,

Sorry for the confusion; I just meant to link playfully to your post. I was interested in calling attention, not to your biographical details, but to the last few paragraphs of the post, where you point out (as I read it) that the ultimate goal of discipleship with Christ is in danger of foundering on essentially earthly concerns.

Jonah Goldberg seems to have been thinking along the same lines when he suggested that the constant cries of "materialism!" in the book may indicate an underlying... materialism.>

I was reading Todd s post. I now figured out what is going on here. It was this line, I m not ready to throw it all away as Dreher seems to do in his journey towards the Eastern Rite. I did not know that about Rod, and if true it puts all the pieces in place.

It s mysticism! That s the disjunctive point! That is the thread, and that is where we are missing the boat. I am new to this blogging and CC thing. But it s the mystical dimension. I followed the links back to the blogs of some of Rod s defenders, and they all have some sort of mystical component.

What we (CCs) seems to be after is (without going into detail) mystical union with the Trinity here on earth. Actually that is the end game for all of us. But in the Roman and Eastern rites there is a strong mystical component. It is almost inseparable part of our faith. The kingdom of heaven is all around us. In other words, we see an open door to heaven here on earth. A mystic likes it, and wants to stay there. The epiphanal moment for the CC mystic is analogous to the neo-platonic peach. Here is the corporate mass produced peach. Now here is the peach as God intended. Bingo, the scales fall off, and you are instantly transformed into the unitive way. The key phrase here being God intended .

Now how could that be perceived by folks who don t follow mysticism? Probably badly. What I noticed when I returned to the faith nearly a decade ago was the harsh strain of Marxism in the social justice crowd at church. What I came to understand as I got to know those folks is that they were no more Marxist than Bubba. I simply misunderstood their use of terms like community. Sure they said some pretty insensitive and offensive things about the middleclass but it can be understood given that they work in EXTREME poverty. That s their calling and they are human too. It s understandable.

What I learned since then is that God works multidimensionally. There are many threads that intersect the body of Christ. My thread may not cross your thread, but it may be in God s bigger plan. So I leave them alone, and try to learn from them. Rod may have noticed for the first time that the kingdom of heaven is all around us by watching his children eat dinner. Who knows? It s no different than writing a beautiful song, or building a beautiful 100,000 sqFt mega-church sanctuary to honor God.

Personally, I respect the dissenter s views. I don t think that you have a lesser spirituality or your political views are far off from mine. In the end if all you have time for is hamburger helper, then God bless you. Be grateful that you have what you have, and know that I got your political six . But please remember that many perfect dimensions may intersect the Trinitarian singularity, but God could still work through a peach.>

John, let me preface this comment by saying that I believe God wants us to enjoy the things that He gave us, including the natural universe. In oppostition to the gnostics, Christianity asserts that the universe is neither evil nor an illusion, that God did call the universe "good" when He created it.

But in opposition to the hedonists, Christianity is clear that the universe is not pristine. It is, as Paul wrote in Romans 8, in bondage to decay (entropy?) and is "groaning" in anticipation of the culmination of God's redemptive plan.

The universe is neither good nor evil: it is fallen, and one can be too enamored with it.

(And, if I may say so, we should enjoy all the gifts God gave us, both the natural world and human intellect and creativity. One can praise God and enjoy His handiwork at the Grand Canyon, and one can do likewise listening to Bach.)

(Or watching Serenity on HD-DVD.)


Now, you talk about what is natural: "Here is the corporate mass produced peach. Now here is the peach as God intended."

I have no idea what you mean by a "mass-produced peach." Regardless: God gave us the ability to innovate; can you clearly point to when we took that ability too far? Or when something that was in some way manipulated by man -- even picked from a tree, as your peach was -- is "as God intended"?

Factory farming is apparently bad, but the initial act of domesticating livestock was okay? Family farms are good, even though hunting and gathering is a more natural way of living? Grain processed at a plant is too sterile, but ground cornmeal from a watermill is okay even though the mill is no more natural?

There is the risk of going so far that one takes a position that is positively antithetical to Christianity; many enviornmentalists seem to think that man wasn't given dominion over the earth, but rather that we are (at best) coinhabitants with the rest of life on Earth and (at worst) a cancer on this planet.

I'm not saying y'all do that, but it does seem that y'all have an idea about when technological and intellectual advances should have stopped -- I guess sometime before the Industrial Revolution, perhaps before the Enlightenment, possibly even before the Reformation.

Whatever point you set, in which you praise a farm that inherently involves irrigating water and moving dirt, all to raise crops that weren't there before, but in which you reject certain farming practices as not "what God intended," it strikes me as an arbitrary marker.>

If I may say something about mysticism, John, I have no problem with it, but (like C.S. Lewis) I believe that a mystical experience is neither necessary for a holy life nor even necessarily indicative of a holy life.

In revering nature too much, there's a risk of idolizing it, so that mysticism becomes a form of nature-worship. Nevertheless, there's nothing inherently wrong (and a good bit right) about mysticism.


Let us suppose that the mystical experience of eating an organic meal in a liturgical city is as important as participating in a worship service.

(I don't think it is, and I don't think anyone here thinks it is, either, but let's suppose.)

Christ is clear that we need to have our priorities straight.

"...if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar and go. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift." - Matthew 5:23-24

If we ought to postpone worship to reconcile with our brothers, surely crunchy living should not be our highest priority.

My fear is that this (perhaps small-c) Catholic mysticism is being overemphasized. People may think that having their sacramental dinner might be as important as our explicit Christian duties -- or even, God forbid, more important.

If sacramental living facillitates one's growth in resembling Christ and following His explicit commands as recorded in the Gospels, great. If it comes to replace that growth, that's bad. Very, very bad.

And, I agree that (while He does not contradict Himself), God uses different methods to work with different people in different circumstances. Protestants should give a wide berth to the practices of other denominations, particularly those that are not forbidden by Scripture or even have at least some support in Scripture. We should not be quick to judge either mystical Catholics or charismatic Pentacostals.

At the same time, I do wish the reverse were true, that Rod and others would not presume that others' faith is less authentic or less holistic simply because it is not (or at least not as obviously) sacramental or mystical.>

The very short answer. Everything we do is supposed to draw our focus to Christ.
I will answer in detail tonight if I have time.>

John, I could agree with the assertion that government regulations favor corporations over family businesses, and I would agree with the proposed solution of deregulation that would level that particular playing field. I'm not quite sure that that is what Rod supports, that he supports deregulation instead of re-regulation to favor crunchy concerns.

Truth is, the current business environment isn't anywhere near what is ideal. I affirm the wisdom of the old Biblical principle of lex talonis -- proportional compensation ("eye for an eye"). The owners of limited liability corporations can make an unlimted amount of profit, but their losses are limited to what they invested, and that strikes me as a violation of lex talonis. Balancing that, but no less a violation of the same principle, is the idea of punitive damages. In an ideal world, a corporation that causes X amount of genuine damage would have to pay that amount regardless of whether that's more than what the shareholders invested (and that would encourage companies to be more prudent with their money), but someone who spilled coffee in his lap wouldn't be able to sue for seven figures even if the coffee did cause third-degree burns. Whether we can get to that ideal environment -- by overcoming great political inertia to find a path that doesn't cause an economic disaster -- is a question I cannot answer.

All that said, I don't think we should consider corporations as living entities that make their own decisions. Whether they should be granted some legal status is a whole other question, but regardless their are humans responsible at the top: the shareholders, the board of directors, and the executive officers they hire. I think that, rather than throw our hands up and declare that corporations are inherently amoral, we should be urging responsible, moral behavior from these guys at the top, starting with those who buy corporate stock in the first place. Though I am not Catholic myself, I think something like Ave Maria Mutual Funds (link) is a good place to start.


Honestly, I'm not quite sure what you mean when you say that corporations and family farms "design" peaches.

Fruit that travels well may not be a concern for those who live near the orchard, but the capacity to ship food inexpensively probably does matter to those who live in colder climes and would prefer not to spend more on produce. I say, let the market handle this. Encourage people to buy local and organic (or whatever) but do not inhibit them from buying what they want.

And maybe you misspoke the first time, but I'm still not sure how one can be certain that, say, 17th-century farming methods are what God intended but 21st-century methods are not.


You seem to think that industrialization is positively unhealthy:

"What is the relationship between diet and rising healthcare costs? Things that once were not a concern suddenly become a concern."

On balance, I'm not sure industrialization is bad for human health. Yes, fresh fruits are more nutritional, but the reason we can worry about the nutritional value of our fruits is because we're not suffering from another dust bowl or other type of famine. We're worrying about the food allergies that tiny minorities have because we've made such tremendous strides against things like the flu and malaria.

If industrialization is so bad for our health, why is it that Social Security has been broken by our skyrocketing life expectancy?

It may be that, thanks possibly to increased information or more leisure time, we're merely more accutely aware of the paper cuts we get from time to time when the pre-industrial world was a relative bloodbath.


Anyway, you close by writing this:

"The war is not on a single front either. You have your front, the social justice crowd has a front, the pro-life crowd has a front, the theology crowd has a front, the apologists have a front, and the CCs have theirs too."

(You follow by saying that CC's "are not against truly free trade and love prosperity." I hope that's true, but I'm not conivinced.)

If CC's were merely arguing that they're fighting another front in a greater war that needs to be faught but may never be truly won before the end of history, that'd be fine. Jonah seems to think otherwise, that Rod implies that these other fronts aren't as important because we mainstream conservatives on these fronts don't really value what we claim to value.

Maybe that's (yet another!) misreading of Rod's book, but since Rod hasn't addressed this two-month-old critique, I'm not sure we should assume that Jonah simply didn't "get" the book's message.>

I was supporting your point about man being involved in the domestication of plants and animals. It is the process of hybridization. The original peach looks nothing like the 1850 peach or the 1998 peach. All produce that I am aware of is man made. I say that to keep the CC's humble and authentic.

My criticism about corporations stems from abortion law. I believe that some of the justificatory case law supporting legal abortion came from our legal definitions of corporate personhood. I am a little short on time to confirm this. I would check a site called Priests for Life. I could be wrong.

I was going to bring the live close to the food source discussion up but lacked time. I am glad you did. This gets into another topic, if society through laws etc forces us into the cities and into highly specialized work then do we really have true liberty or sort of constrained liberty? Another topic for another time.

Above I site two off point topics, case law and how free are we. To me this demonstrates that CCism has other supporting factors. There is another which is "the way God intended" part of the discussion. It was plain old hyperbole when I brought it up. But it leads into notions of excellence. It gets into the virtues regarding food. CCism asks the question is the corporate peach virtuous or is it a cynical substandard representation of the man made peach. I am guilty. In my mind, I always think I can do it better. Pride gentlemen. You dissenters have to work to keep us humble.

I am beginning to think that industrialization is bad. Since I am running out of time I can't really talk about it. My intuition is that it is bad. I know it's good too. Maybe we can discuss it another time? I think the scope of the CC argument is have we crossed a slippery slope. A good friend set me straight on slippery slope arguments. He asserts that slippery slopes keep us from getting out of bed in the morning. "If I get out of bed, there is a good possibility that I will get killed." So you do nothing. The object is to keep some kind of balance with great ideas. I think somewhere we have slipped past the point of balance. Probably most CCs think this way. The attempt now is to move back up the slope.

I suspect since you are talking about marriage and having kids that you don't have them from a previous marriage. Kids change your thinking. Society comes after them with a vengeance.>

Having kids in Kgarten you see a lot of food allergic kids in the school. You see a lot of obesity. Little kids in after school programs till 6PM. It's like a ten hour day. My kids are still young and I am seeing some very troubling behavior.

CCism for me is about keeping myself in check not you. It is in reaction to materialism. Materialism to me is a dehumanization of the culture. It is brutal and merciless. It has nothing to do with you driving an suv and living in a big house either. I absolve you of guilt if you do--cross yourself. I am not going to site the litany of materialist evils. I've run out of time I have to go.

I think I failed to make my points well. For the record, I am not really interested in politics. That's why I didn't Rod's book. I've read what was on line, plus interviews, critiques etc. I understand the movement. The reason I didn't buy the book (I will now) is because of the words might save the republican party. I figured it was political. I am not interested in political books because I have journeyed half our life's way and have seen little but politic. I am not advocating agrarianism, no way! I like the modern life. I advocating balance a more human scale. I've worked in big, mean corporations all my adult life. They are big mean self interested beasts. I think society would be better served with smaller corporations that could allow for the moral dimensions. I am advocating for that. It's so much bigger than organic food and bungalows. I am out of time again. It was a true pleasure. I hope I served you all well, and did not offend. You are proving that this message needs to be fleshed out. Thank you so much. God bless you.>

There probably is a middle ground, J. Christian. I for one am open for the rare government intrusion into the free market to bust a monopoly: the free market works because of competition, and admittedly sometimes government can and should (carefully) act to ensure such competition.>

I don't think it's pride to suggest that a home-grown peach probably is tastier and can be more aesthetically pleasing, while the factory farmed peach is probably more cost efficient and easier to transport. Both are instances of pursuing excellence, just along different dimensions, and Rod's clear which dimensions he values

Bubba, do you take issue more with (a) the fact that the book asserts the superiority of Mr. Dreher's set of dimensions, or (b) that it simply asserts that superiority, with little or no argument, as far as I can tell?

Or both?

Because I think one could make a principled argument that there are certain excellences of the peach that are more suited to the peach, and therefore, at least to some extent, morally superior. Not to say that any sort of peach has moral value in itself, but that it would be morally better for peach-men to devote themselves to enhancing certain aspects of the peach, as over against others.

This would also tie in with the notion of sacramentality. It could be argued that certain material things are more suited in themselves, to putting us in touch with the eternal, than others are.

So that what you eat and what you buy and what you wear and what you live in, would not so much be matters of taste. Instead they would be the constant, intimate context in which we "work out our salvation". And it would be imperative that we surround ourselves as much as possible with those things that aid in that work, and remove ourselves, again as much as charitably possible, and always begging God for humility, from those things that hinder us in that work.

Could be argued. One of my problems with the book so far (and I've only read about half of it, and only some of the online conversation), is that Mr. Dreher doesn't seem to give such arguments, or even indicate that such things are arguable.

The sense I get so far from the book is that what I've stated above is obvious, and not only that, but that it's obvious what things are more apt to be sacramental, and/or morally better to pursue.>

Ben, the assertion that certain dimensions are more valuable than others -- beauty over efficiency, for instance -- doesn't itself bother me all that much.

The lack of an argument for that assertion bothers me, particularly because technological progress with an emphasis on efficiency has made things like the Dust Bowl less likely. Since widespread famine is worse than the mediocre taste that comes from canned peaches, one could easily make an argument in the other direction.

But what really, really bothers me is the apparent insinuation that those who disagree on the "beauty > efficiency" equation are written off as greedy materialists.


And while I understand that we are called to focus on things that good and pure and beautiful, I am uneasy about something you wrote:

"It could be argued that certain material things are more suited in themselves, to putting us in touch with the eternal, than others are.

"So that what you eat and what you buy and what you wear and what you live in, would not so much be matters of taste. Instead they would be the constant, intimate context in which we 'work out our salvation'. And it would be imperative that we surround ourselves as much as possible with those things that aid in that work, and remove ourselves, again as much as charitably possible, and always begging God for humility, from those things that hinder us in that work."

This seems to fly in the face of what Jesus taught in Matthew 6 and 15, the vision Peter had in Acts 10, and the list of priorities in Hebrews 13.

You write that "what you eat and what you buy and what you wear and what you live in" matters an awful lot.

Christ teaches, "do not be anxious about your life, what you will eat or what you will drink, nor about your body, what you will put on."

It is, I will admit, possible to reconcile the two ideas, but that strikes me as a terribly thin line, and when one begins to believe that food does defile a man -- by apologizing for eating at McDonald's for instance -- that line has been crossed.>

Bubba, I'm with you on this. If Rod's argument is against hedonism and consumerism, then what Christian doesn't agree? But if his argument is "I ate organic, you ate fast food, ergo I am holier than thou," then it's not so convincing to me. If you buy that line, then why shouldn't we all be Amish? Toss out your computers, everyone on this blog! You're endangering your eternal soul by using this technology! ;-)>