Books & Culture on "Crunchy Cons"

What I get from Miller's review is that _Crunchy Cons_ has a good deal of merit, but never quite manages to face up to the notion that political labels are no longer useful for a Christian to bend over backwards trying to maintain. This is a criticism I've heard from a few friends of mine to whom I've passed the book along--that Mr. Dreher is too desperate to identify himself as a conservative when it's clear that he's not, at least by any current political definition of the word. That doesn't make him a liberal; it just means that those of us who embrace this sensibility, particularly for reasons relating to our faith, aren't going to be easily classifiable. And that, I hear Miller saying, needs to be okay and allowed to stand.

I can see where this criticism comes from; however, I can also see the other side. When I first read Russell Kirk, my immediate thought was, "Well, if that's a conservative, then I guess I'm a conservative." There's a particular romance, especially these days, to an intellectually positive image of conservatives. Maybe it's true, nonetheless, that we've slid so far since the time of Kirk that while we need to continue holding to those ideas that are useful, the labels on their own aren't going to get us anywhere anymore (if they ever actually did).

Does that seem like a fair assessment of Miller's comments?

Richard>

Did I mention that you are a Poopyhead and your book smells and that I am going to devote the rest of my life to talking about how I don't like you and your smelly book?>

It is interesting how much time and effort Bubba spends on the blog of someone whose ideas he holds in such complete disdain. I've started to find the fact that he does so far more interesting than anything he actually writes here.>

Rod, I don't hold you in complete disdain.

(I haven't finished your book yet, either...)

When I agree with you, I've made that clear, though I admit that's become increasingly rare. It is true that, while I've been trying to give you the benefit of the doubt as best as I can, I'm losing any hope that your philosophy/sensibility is coherent and reasonable, and (worse) that you are an honorable conservative, though I'm still quite sure that you're probably very pleasant company.

I'm almost certainly not going to devote much more time to your writing after I finish your book; by then, I will know what it is National Review saw in your writing that justified the cover story and the blog that they gave you -- or I will resign myself to the belief that they made a mistake in giving you such a high-profile venue to peddle your nonsense.

Until then, I think you should be spending less time considering my motives and more time looking at how you've reacted to sustained, substantive criticism, here and elsewhere.

You don't respond at length to essays that undermine the premises of agrarianism.

You don't respond at length to essays that are highly critical of your writing.

You did briefly confirm that yes, you accuse the GOP base of homophobia, an confirmation for which I'm grateful, but getting that confirmation was like pulling teeth, and you still haven't even attempted to defend the slanderous accusation.

(And, at the same time, you still haven't given your oh-so-sensible reasons for opposing the redefinition of marriage.)

You've now started banning people for name-calling (while you are guilty of the same, calling others abusive loudmouths in the same breath that you're banning them).

You rarely address any substantive criticism I have, but I see you take the time to sneer at me; I admit that as an amateur satirist I do my fair share of sneering myself, but I usually attach it to something worth saying.

And you have, for the second time in a week, made it clear that a comments thread to a blog entry should ignore a great deal of substance within that entry.

In what you quote, and in what you address in the comments section, you are cloistering yourself from criticism, surrounding yourself with fellow agrarians. (And I suspect you would justify such actions by invoking the retreat from civilization by some monk or another.)

It's kinda clear that you would like to be a bigger fish in the pond of political thought, but you should ask yourself, how in the world can you deal with the whales and sharks of conservatism when you can't even adequately handle an admittedly persistent minnow like me?>

That's interesting Rod, because I find it interesting how much time and effort you spend bashing conservatives while calling yourself one. and I, too, have started (in fact long ago started) to the find the fact that you persist in doing so far more interesting than anything you actually write here.>

I enjoy meta-discussions. "Why are we here?" is always an interesting question, even if no one is able to answer it.

For the record, I'm here because ideas are more important than how well they are presented, and even (from my POV, of course) an Ann Coulter is worth reading if only to keep the Harsh Light of Reality shining on all things. There is nothing that cannot be faced, nothing that is not worth viewing in the light.

I'm here, also, because I find the concept of a crunchy con disingenuous, but I'm willing to be educated, and what better source than the person who started the discussion in the first place?

If you haven't visited my listed "homepage", you should also know that I am a Pagan, on the libertarian (small-l) side of the liberal spectrum, and I just can't pass up a good debate.>

Rod, I think you have found an unimpeachable example of your constituency in Franklin Evans.>

What about those of us that do like "crunchy" part, but just not too sure about the "con" part?>