Paulists & Crunchy Cons

In a followup to John's question: what are the possible social ramifications of a large migration to localized, non-industrial agriculture, given the possibilty that in some locations, crops will fail as we have lost a great amount of the knowledge that our ancestors had about how to live through really hard times.

We've become accustomed to thinking of famines as largely the result of bad policy and politics, but in the not terribly distant past, too much rain or too little, too much or too little heat could be a death sentence if you are dependent on what is grown locally during a crop failure. Is this simply a part of the human experience that we have enjoyed a holiday from in the last century or so?

Regards,

Adam

From what I've read here, it's still the tired cant of the Falwells and Dobsons, with a whiff of Carlism

Yes, I think we're all a bit tired of the numerous daily threads in which Rod asks crunchies to debate the vexed question: Who is the legitimate head of the House of Bourbon?

Like the Ron Paul movement, it’s antiwar, decentralist, and relatively hopeful.

Is it? Rod publicly dumped (on)Ron Paul months ago and voted for Bush twice. The Head Crunchy was arguably the biggest supporter of invading Iraq at the conservative DMN.

If Crunchy means anything, it's finger to the wind prognostication.

Instead of wondering about the public acceptance of crop failure (not gonna happen), perhaps the more immediate question is will the public accept seasonality? Will consumers used to being able to purchase any fruit or vegetable they desire year-round voluntarily give that up? I think not, which means at best we'll simply end up augmenting our current globalized food supply with more locally grown options.

Is this what local food activists like Pollan want, or are they looking to actually dismantle the global food web? It's possible that conditions will change to the point where we won't have any other choice, but maybe they won't. If you're still of the opinion that localized food supplies are better for people, the environment, farmers, and everyone else, as I suspect Pollan does, do you try to change the culture (a re-embrace of tradition perhaps?), or do you simply leave it to economics?

I accept "decentralist and relatively hopeful," but I don't see Crunchy Conservatism as inherently anti-war. I'm a Crunchy Con, and I'm certainly not. There's a difference between being critical of the Iraq War and being "anti-war" in the way that Ron Paul and libertarianism are.

Granted, there are a lot of anti-war voices within the Crunchy Con chorus (Wendell Berry perhaps being the most prominent), but I don't see it as being an essential part of Crunchines per se.

Sigh, usual noise to signal ratio in comments. But for Pollan: what John S says,and what he thinks these days about hunting (common) species and foraging, at least for us rural residents.

Mr. Dreher: His answer to the following question may not be useful for us, but perhaps you could ask him his opinion of national politics and whether he has given up on the major parties and is interested in helping form a broad coalition seeking local solutions.

Rob G,

That's just crazy talk, we should all stick to our guns, despite silly little things like evidence to the contrary. Evidence and facts are just ways elitists control us good, down home, folk. Sure, every major economist in the country thinks that the gas tax holiday is a stupid idea, but let's not listen to those elitists. I mean, what do they know, it's not like they've devoted their lives to the study of economics. People who change their minds are flip floppers just like John Kerry, that communist. ;)

Sorry couldn't resist.

Chris

he distinguishes himself by making radical, 180 policy/ideology/religion shifts every few years.

"Radical, 180 degree"? Such as? I used to support the Iraq War and this administration, but I saw that I was wrong. Aside from that, you're just talking through your ... hat.

Bob, your critique fails because you cannot demonstrate that Rod (standing in as CC Avatar) has failed to acknowledge or deliberately avoids facing the consequences of being wrong.

Competence is not being perfect. A competent leader will make a minimum of mistakes and have the ethical fortitude to openly acknowledge those mistakes as a prelude to dealing with the consequences of them. Rod, like you and I, is a commentator, not a leader. I submit that the focus should be on the absence of competent (as I've defined it) leadership in the current administration.