Reason's Jesse Walker examines the crunchy con phenomenon from a philosophical angle. Excerpt:
But it is Kirk, the traditionalist who once wrote that “the devil was the original libertarian,” whom Dreher taps as “the pater-familias of all crunchy cons.” The most interesting thing about Dreher’s volume is not that it combines conservatism with the counterculture. It’s that it combines traditionalism with the counterculture, marrying two trends that seemed as they emerged in the postwar era to be opposites. What’s more, it does this in a way that makes sociological sense. His crunchy cons might not be dropping acid or living in communes, but those aren’t the only legacies of the hippies. When Dreher writes that “Small and Local and Old and Particular are to be preferred over Big and Global and New and Abstract,” he could be quoting Kirk. He could also be quoting the liner notes of a dusty Dylan LP.Dreher didn’t invent this social category. He put a label on something that has been evolving for a while. American subcultures tend to bleed into each other, influencing one another in unexpected ways, even if they initially seem to be antagonists. And then, like other married couples, they start to look alike: They can peer back at their youthful selves and suddenly see resemblances that were invisible at the time.
Jesse, who's a libertarian, goes on to identify in "Crunchy Cons" a tension between the fear of co-optation by the mainstream and the fear of irrelevance to it. He concludes:
Every substantial social trend can expect a little cooptation, and every radical critique can expect a little irrelevance. What allows them to transform a culture is when unexpected allies start to absorb them in unanticipated ways. Just ask the last hippie.
I appreciate Jesse's thoughtful and generous essay. It will be interesting to see how transformative traditionalist conservative ideas might end up being if they get absorbed by the mainstream in some form. Yesterday's Nick Kristof column calling on his fellow secular liberals to knock off the knee-jerk demonization of conservative Evangelicals suggests one way that the breaking down of customary ideological barriers could change society. The point I'm making here is not that conservative Evangelicals are necessarily Traditionalists, but rather that it pays for all of us to think beyond the narrow categories we're accustomed to, because it could well be possible to make alliances that could change society for the better. I think the Ron Paul campaign, which has attracted support from the left and the right, is another example.
(By the way, ain't you read "Crunchy Cons" yet? Do you not have proper theology and geometry? Are you some kinda communiss?)
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
I agree, Ron, that Walker's article is respectful and thoughtful. But I still think that Walker makes a mistake by analyzing Crunchy Conservatism as a sociological phenomenon (rather than asking whether what Crunchy Cons say may be true). I think this often happens when someone puts forward an argument based on transcendent, revealed wisdom. The reaction of most reporters, critics, etc. is "My, what a quaint person! What sociological/psychological/evolutionary phenomenon made them that way?" And if the critic is a libertarian, sooner or later they get around to praising "the market" or "affluence" or something similarly Ayn Randian for making this particular phenomenon possible. Walker quotes a libertarian thinker who says that a rising tide of affluence in the postwar years made it possible for people to turn their thoughts to things spiritual (such as Crunchy Conservatism). Puh-leeze. What history shows us is that Americans were far more spiritually-oriented before WW II, often during days that were very dark in terms of financial crisis and other types of difficulty. From my own family's experience, spiritual commitment was highest during the Depression, during the homesteading era on the frontier, and during the dangerous immigration from Europe to flee religious oppression. What appeals to me about Crunchy Conservatism is that it hearkens back to the reality most Americans grasped in those days, that spiritual things are more important than material things. Time and again, my grandparents and parents said that those days were the happiest of their lives (even though, from an economic or other "objective" standpoint, they were days marked with privation and struggle). The theocentric Crunchy Con gets this; econocentric folks (such as libertarians) don't.
it pays for all of us to think beyond the narrow categories we're accustomed to, because it could well be possible to make alliances that could change society for the better.
I'm not sure it does "always pay" to make alliances with people you disagree with morally. These "narrow" reasons exist for a purpose; one shouldn't tear down a fence unless one has reflected on why it was put up in the first place.
Example: The US worked with the USSR against a common enemy, Germany. Look what happened: a 5 year hot war, but a 50 year cold war! We could have won the war anyway and avoided the mess by just sticking to our guns and never negotiating with Stalin.
Another example: the AmChurch and liberals. First, it was just being open-minded, avoiding narrow categories, and getting with the times. But soon libs ruled the roost.
Another example: racism. Our culture has drawn a firm line against racism - we don't negotiate with racists, and rightfully so. There can be no alliances with racists even when we agree with them on, say, the tax code, nor should we.
Summary: you just can't have alliances with people who cross a moral line. Examples include abortion supporters, racists, or torture supporters. It's dangerous to negotiate with these folk even to obtain good ends because you bring them legitimacy and thus power. This sort of political play does not "always pay" but usually ends badly, in ways that are often difficult to predict.
M_David,
Millions of Americans who are now old men, or who have gone to their Reward, are grateful you were not in charge in 1941.
Peace.
"Walker quotes a libertarian thinker who says that a rising tide of affluence in the postwar years made it possible for people to turn their thoughts to things spiritual (such as Crunchy Conservatism). Puh-leeze. What history shows us is that Americans were far more spiritually-oriented before WW II, often during days that were very dark in terms of financial crisis and other types of difficulty."
Very true, Bill. In fact, if you read some of the pre-WWII forbears of the 'Crunchy Con' mentality like the Southern Agrarians, you'll see that they believed that commercialism and its accompanying affluence were actually a threat to spirituality, localism, etc.
auqa, Millions of Americans who are now old men, or who have gone to their Reward, are grateful you were not in charge in 1941
Actually, opposite.
Millions of Americans would still be alive today had Hitler/Stalin chewed each other up.
All those dead Americans would have children and grandchildren.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.