Re-crunching Crunchy Conservatism

I'm glad you haven't kicked me out yet :-)

It seems to me that Mr. Savage illustrates the problem rather precisely: American debate -- about nearly any topic you care to name -- is not valid unless it is polarized to the nth degree.

Throw in shades of gray, and people's heads start to explode. Shame on you, Rod, for expecting people to think beyond the binary.

Oh, and I now have an excellent reason to hate you: having dinner with Mr. Buckley. O, to have been a fly on that wall...

;-D

Dreher’s site is mobbed by Obama-ite commenters who gush over their desire for “reconciliation” with conservatives.

Hmmm. I really haven't seen this Obama mob recently (where are all those cute chicks making the big "O" sign, anyway?). Put a few pics up, Rod!

Conservatives who would like to confront such people on the issues are scorned there.

I'm a social conservative who enjoys a good confrontation now and again and I sure haven't felt "scorned." Hey, it's a blog, any fool can post - how exactly is this Rod's fault?

I think what Savage is really complaining about is that Rod is a social and religious conservative, and not a war-monger or blue blood. How is this a crime?

If you cut through the rhetoric, Savage's complaint can be summed up by a checklist:

a) Social issues (abortion/gay marriage/family values)
b) Culture issues (immigration, invasive secularism, Islam)
c) War issues (Iraq and troops overseas)
d) Fiscal issues (taxes, welfare)
e) Crime issues (war on drugs, death penalty)

On a & b, Rod a conservative.
On c, d, and e, he's a moderate (certainly no bleeding heart lib).

Not much of a complaint, to my mind. If conservatives wish to keep the coalition together, guys like Savage should give a little on all this heresy talk. We conservatives need absolutely all the friends we can get; read the polls and note that liberal fascism will be marching strong for the next decade or two until the boomers start to die off. Chill, bro, for the country's sake.

** ... especially when he’s the type who’s easily made to feel apologetic about taking conservative positions, and has an excessive need to just get along and ingratiate himself with the Left.**

Evidently Savage has never read any of Rod's interactions with me!

**Dreher’s site is mobbed by Obama-ite commenters who gush over their desire for “reconciliation” with conservatives.**

I plead guilty, though my desire is more to UNDERSTAND conservatives than reconcile with them.

**Conservatives who would like to confront such people on the issues are scorned there.**

... and evidently Savage has never read any of my fellow comboxers' comments, either.

Clue to the wise: They're cheered, not scorned.

Will, Can someone be a "crunchy lib?"

It doesn't rhyme!

But mostly, libs are already known for eating crunchy foods, so you would just be another granola-eating lib. Sorry.

M_David, I think you mean "It's not alliterative!" since "Crunchy Con" doesn't rhyme, either.

That said, I think that there is a difference between "conservative" and "Republican," and that the thoughtful conservative, crunchy, deep-fried, haute cuisine, or whatever, is constantly examining conservatism especially along the lines of this question: what are we conserving?

Kathryn Jean Lopez in an NRO article earlier today says that McCain's not a conservative--on the issue of *waterboarding* among other things. I'm sorry; is it now essential to the nature of conservatism that we conservatives embrace methods of torture as long as "our guys in office" say these things are okay and good and right and necessary? I reserve the right to make up my own mind about that, and to reject it on firmly conservative principles dealing with the intrinsic dignity of humanity and the destructive nature such practices have not only on their victims, but on their practitioners and eventually on the Republic itself.

If "conservatism" means overriding our principles and prostituting our liberty to make the world a safer place for multinational corporations that give us no loyalty, owe us no responsibility, exploit the illegal immigration situation for their own gains while saddling us with the costs, and send our troops into harm's way for purposes that have more to do with the companies' bottom lines than our nation's security, then it is long since past time that we stopped conserving any of that, and started conserving the things that matter: home, family, freedom, responsibility, independence, justice, and faith.

Interestingly, Erin, I think you'd find many "liberals" who are just as concerned about preserving what you state, albeit with different takes on how to define and preserve some of these things.

Rod's going to experience more and more of this type of criticism throughout 2008. It's going to become worse as the November election nears. Conservatives are going to want people to stand behind their man(it's always a man)(a white one), and attack the liberals. Defeating the liberals takes unity. It means standing behind the man whether he's spouting garbage or he's right. Savage and his buds aren't going to be thinking highly of conservatives who want to examine the GOP candidate.

Which liberals are trying to play kissy face with the conservatives at this site in Obama-like fashion? Really, I read post after post around here, and I'm missing it.

I've only known Rod to throw a few conservatives off of this site. Most have been liberals. The conservatives who got tossed had a problem focusing on the topic. For some reason, the focus always became arm chair psychoanalysis of Rod. Rod gave them many chances to focus, focus, focus.....They just couldn't do it.

True, true, true!

However, the voters could have selected the first female VP in 1984 had they voted for Mondale.

2004 Democratic Primaries started with your buddy, Al Sharpton, on the ticket. And don't forget about the former Senator from Illinois, Carol Moseley Braun. They might not have won the nomination, but they gave it a go.

Name a few non-white or female candidates who have even attempted to get the GOP nomination, and I'll eat my words.

Name a few non-white or female candidates who have even attempted to get the GOP nomination, and I'll eat my words.

Alan Keyes.

Picking a nit, Will: "few" means more than one. ;-)

Rod, I don't think Savage's criticism quoted here is that off-base:

"Dreher has dwelled on GOP insider scorn for Mike Huckabee, for instance, and feeds off this shared resentment at being a scorned outsider."

I don't think he is necessarily fair in all of his criticisms of you, and if you deny what he says then I believe that what he says is inaccurate, but there is no question that some of what you have written on this site regarding the rise of Huckabee has left the distinct impression that you are taking pleasure in the emergence of an "us vs them" candidate where for once your views are the "us." For those like me who are the "them" this is off-putting and a little confusing. I mean, Huckenfreude? What's that all about? The fact that you were using that term for a while validates Savage's comments. I understand that you are happy to see the conservative movement potentially taking a new turn, but I am worried that you are also happy that this is causing discomfort for other conservatives. Why? It sure makes you look vindictive, and it will make the divisions harder to heal after the primaries, regardless of who wins.

Am I the only one who is completely Hucking sick of all the cutesy name jokes about the former Ark. governor?

As a flaming liberal, I'm hoping that Huckabee wins the Republican nomination and a realignment of the parties follows. You guys can have the theocons and the economic populists and Knights of the Blue Collar. If it means that fiscally and economically responsible conservatives can find more of a home in the Democratic Party, I'm all for it. Without the bogeyman of Communism lurking in the shadows, social liberalism and fiscal conservatism aren't such implacable enemies.

Two things: First, I don't know about the GOP establishment taking social conservatives for granted. Bush was supported by the GOP establishment and he is basically a less charismatic version of Huckabee on social issues.

But more importantly, I don't want to confuse the GOP with conservatives. Arlen Specter is part of the GOP establishment but he is not a conservative. Huckabee (and Rod) have not just been coming out against the GOP establishment, which I don't care to defend anyway, but against a mythical "conservative establishment." When Huckabee dismisses criticism from Rich Lowry because Lowry is part of the "DC-Manhattan axis of power" and the "chattering classes" he is not exactly brushing off Lincoln Chafee. We are talking about critics who more or less share Huckabee's social conservativism but are concerned about his economic/big government positions. You are missing the point, and I'm afraid setting yourself up to be the victim, if you think it is Huckabee's social views that are the problem. It is his lack of conservative substance in almost EVERY other area of policy that his the problem.

People like myself are looking for a candidate that is the entire package (and a viable candidate). That person isn't out there, which is why conservatives in the media are all over the place on who they support. You may feel piled on against by the GOP, but Rod and Huckabee are allowing those sentiments to spill over against other conservatives who have legitimate grievances against Huck, which is where I get concerned about "enjoying the discomfort."

And I don't think you are a liberal for supporting Huck, for heaven's sake :)

Crunch libs: does my family qualify?

I think we've decided that 'crunchy lib' is indeed redundant. Generally speaking, as long as you don't derive most of your income from NASCAR, you probably qualify as 'crunchy.'

Rod,

You say that my thoughts on the morality of capital punishment boil down to "kill 'em all and let God sort it out." Frankly, that is unfair, childish, and beneath you as a serious writer.

I made an argument using a text in John 8 often used by opponents of capital punishment to demonstrate exegetically that Christ in no way condemns the death penalty. That's hardly indicative of bloodlust.

Frankly your caricature of me is gross, inaccurate, and lacking in Christian charity. Coming from a writer that I respect, I would expect better than picking on a small-time blogger who merely tries to write in faithful adherence to the scriptures without any pretensions of grandeur.