Tuesday, June 5, 2007

I Agree With Daniel Larison

Larison says here that "...[Jonah] Goldberg demonstrates once again that he still has no idea what "crunchy" conservatism is." And he is right because no one really knows what crunchy conservatism is. As Kathleen famously observed here:

"[C]runchy cons" is a cipher, therefore it's anything you want it to be. Great taste and less filling!

Of course, Bubba the Energizer Bunny has pointed out many times that Rod doesn't really know what crunchy conservatism is either. For example.

Jonah's post is sensible and worth reading, as usual. It's also read-able which distinguishes it from writing that blogger Mark Shea might nickname the "IreallyreallyreallyloatheJonahGoldbergandhislittledogtoo" blog.

Daniel Larison also comes to Crunchy Conservatism's defense, typically protesting that I don't know what I'm talking about. Uh huh. I read the book. I participated in endless debates with Rod about it when his original article came out. It seems to me that Larison wants it to mean something other than what Rod has said time again. Maybe this is because Larison thinks that Crunchy Conservatism amounts to a useful marketing tool for his brand of "paleo" conservatism. I don't know, and I'm not going to try to read the mind of someone who's shown such unremitting hostility towards me. But he does simply assert that Crunchy Conservatism is what he says it is — i.e. a reformulated anti-statist paleoconservatism which "abhors" federal interventionism — and I find his assertions otherworldly. I know Rod says some nice things about Russell Kirk and the Agrarians (though his use and abuse of Kirk left a lot of people cold). But that's hardly a compelling presentation of evidence.

Hey, go back and check out that Claremont review, "Soft in the Middle". It's a slam-dunk and it contains great lines such as

One supposes it would surprise Dreher to know that achieving a workable balance between "we" and "I" is one of the defining achievements of Western civilization, an achievement that goes a long way to explain why the East, and not the West, has been historically mired in despotism (see Herodotus, et al.).

Also, while we're on the subject of smack-downs, Kathleen just reminded me of the insightful Mises.org article which came out exactly a year ago entitled "Crunchy Conned". Excerpt:

It never occurs to the author that his crunchy way of living is a consumable good — nay, a luxury good — made possible by the enormous prosperity that permit intellectuals like him to purport to live a high-minded and old-fashioned lifestyle without the problems that once came with pre-capitalist living.

He has fallen for some romantic notion of the past — happy, faithful communities raising their own food and working their own land — without considering the downside: infant mortality, plagues, lack of sanitation, short lives, surgery without anesthesia, and all the rest. The market — that global matrix of exchange that forms its own order out of billions of individual decisions — is his benefactor, and he seems completely unaware of it. A writer like this can make an economist wish that the invisible hand were slightly more visible so that at least its merits could be appreciated.

There are times when his romanticism is overt: as when he favorably cites John Ruskin's claim that the Industrial Revolution "came at the cost of [England's] soul" and ended up "debasing the soul of man by treating people as mere consumers." This line of thinking makes good poetry but has nothing to do with reality. How does a switch from wood fuel to fossil fuel debase the soul?

All good stuff by these "smart guys".But indulge this average American and let me, for the record, explain to everyone what crunchy conservatism means to me. I just thought of this while playing Rockem Sockem Robots the other night. Remember the old commercial saying that "4 out of 5 dentists recommend Trident sugarless gum to their patients who chew gum"? Crunchy Conservatism is embodied by that fifth dentist who flatly refused to be controlled by the corporate interests and all that. We don't really know what this wise prophet standing alone on the mountain peak recommended chewing, if anything, but I believe that whatever it was it is most certainly the key for our very survival, the regaining of our......"lost community soul". (Oooh! That was a good one! Yeah!) What do you think? What does Crunchy Conservatism mean to you?

27 comments:

  1. The definition of Crunchy Conservatism is like the weather in Texas. If you do not like it; wait a minute.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Well, another big problem is that a lot of people are "cafeteria crunchies", picking and choosing what they like from the canon of crunchidom. I have photographs of some of the commenters on Rod's blog dining at chain restaurants and shopping at Wal-mart. The photos have been authenticated by the feds.

    ReplyDelete
  3. pauli, great observation, except a crunchy wouldn't be caught dead in a CAFETERIA -- at least not one that called itself that.

    if it called itself a CAFE (pronounced caf-AY, please), THEN a crunchy would be ok there.

    therefore, one should really call them "cafe crunchies" (wish i knew how to do an *accent aigu*)

    ReplyDelete
  4. my comment for yesterday under the bono/palm post should really go here:
    ====
    i'm hooting with laughter at the following by wawison today:

    ”Crunchy” conservatism ... does not share compassionate conservatism’s assumptions about the “role of government,” since it does not propose much in the way of a role for government to remedy the ills it describes"

    uh, not really. in his book, dreher proposed all kinds of roles for government, repeatedly saying we should have regulations for this and that, but did so in such a lazy, non-specific manner that one can credibly argue that the book "didn't propose much in the way of a role for government". sadly for wawison, his point is not so much argument disputing that statism is inherent in crunchy conservatism (talk about "merely obvious") as it is an idictment of dreher's shallow argumentation.

    of course, i should be writing this on wawison's blog, but then i would have to register over there, and what a bore that would be.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Hi Pauli,

    To me, "crunchy conservatism" is just another catchphrase that allows certain people to look down their noses at most other people...especially those dreaded "neocons". (I swear that whenever I hear/read most people use the word "neocon", the manner in which they use it causes the "Darth Vader" theme to start playing in my head.)

    Some people have a need to see themselves as special...as being smarter and better than those teeming masses going about their lives the best they can -- working and paying their bills. The crunchies very much remind me of left wingers who sniff disdainfully at "bourgeois" middle America.

    OT...I would like to apologize for the delay in your comment on my blog being published the other day. Sometimes the Spamlookup thing on MT blocks legitimate comments for some reason.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Crunchy Conservatism, to me, is the combination of elitism and avoiding responsibility.

    It is elitism for the obvious reasons, like susan_b said.

    But it is also conveniently avoiding responsibility in the World.

    WalMart is Big, Bad and Mean, you say? I deem it "not Crunchy" to shop at WalMart, and I wash my hands of it.

    The schools suck? I deem it "not Crunchy" to attend large schools, and to prove it I send my kids to a small invisible school and I tell you about it. I wash my hands of the problem.

    Iraq is difficult? I deem it "not Crunchy" to wish for Republicans to win in the off-year '06 election, and I hope Jim Webb wins in VA even tho he stands for all I hate. I wash my hands of the problem.

    You get the picture. If I were snarky, I'd toss in something about leaving a large Church with a huge and good presence in the world and joining a small church with little presence in the world (that, sadly, may have the same problem that I ran away from in the large Church). But I'm not snarky, so I won't do that.

    Crunchy Cons, as so defined, check out from every problem in the world. Rather than roll up their sleeves and Fight the Power like the rest of us do, in our own feeble way.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Susan B., your 2nd paragraph nails it. I said somewhere that there's definitely a disdain for "Joe-Six-Pack".

    You might want to check out my neocon post from a while back.

    Regarding... Maybe your spam blocker choked on "anarchist" or even "jerkwad". Or it could have had a "crunchy moment" and choked on that hideous word "pauli".

    ReplyDelete
  8. Pikk: "Crunchy Cons, as so defined, check out from every problem in the world. Rather than roll up their sleeves and Fight the Power like the rest of us do, in our own feeble way."

    This is true esp. of Rod. He even moped about someone with a mean dog in his nabe. Get real, man, there are about 357 ways to deal with that, or at least 38.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Susan B., you so rock!

    dianonymous

    ReplyDelete
  10. Speaking of churches with problems...check out the latest entry at cathedraunitatis.wordpress.com. The one about the EP criticizing Moscow for trying to take over World Orthodoxy. Yipes! What I miss when I'm away on vacation.

    dianonymous

    ReplyDelete
  11. Susan B, where is your blog? I must check it out eftsoones and speedily!

    dianonymous

    ReplyDelete
  12. Could it be that Larison actually wrote something that makes sense to mere mortals? It must have been taken out of context.

    The absolute best thing I have ever read on this blog is the takeout of Larison that Rod/Ray/Ben deleted on this CC blog and you published. It made me want to give up writing. Or maybe not.

    But, what is CC? Damned if I can figure it out. Seems to change with the wind. Like Jonah said in his original critique, it might just as easily have been labeled "quirky conservative." And actually, I like that. You can call me the Quirky Conservative from now on. Of course I will soon get QC trademarked and travel to many conferences extolling the virtues of QC and its position as the only real conservatism.

    On second thought maybe not.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Judging from the number of times Rod uses the word "countercultural" in his book, I'm going to go on a limb and say that Crunchy Conservatism has something to do with being countercultural for its own sake.

    So, really, crunchy conservatism is nothing new. Like so many political and social movements, it's simply a way for an individual or group to pat themselves on the back and say "I'm special because I'm different."

    It's like the use of the labels "moderate" and "independent." My apologies to anyone here who considers themself to be either or both, but way more often than not, it's simply a way for a person to pretend to be smarter than everyone else. "I am neither a conservative or liberal. My political views are so nuanced that I am above such petty labeling. Because I am soooooo smart."

    There's nothing more pathetic than going out of your way to be outside the mainstream. Just live your life - there's no need to garner plaudits from everyone else for being so special unless you just desperately need society's aprobation.

    Heh. So the non-conformists are the ones most desirous of social acceptance. Telling.

    ReplyDelete
  14. PZ: "My political views are so nuanced that I am above such petty labeling. Because I am soooooo smart."

    Yes, the key word there is above.

    I suppose I'm moderate on some issues, but I have an opinion about most. But, please, show me what is wrong with my opinions, OK? All the people I know who identify as crunchy or with the so-called sensibilities of CCism to any degree have a real time taking any criticism at all. They equate their opinions with dogmas. Seemingly, this is especially a temptation for Catholic bloggers; that's why I like the CFF blog; it's very down to earth and objective in that regard.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Hi dianonymous,

    Thank you! **blush** Like Pauli said, my blog is here.

    Are you Diana from the Contra-Crunchy blog? If so, I've always enjoyed your posts, too. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  16. Susan B. makes her own soap like Granny and Ellie Mae from the "Beverly Hillbillies". Or you used to... didn't you? 8^)

    ReplyDelete
  17. I just had to look this up and repost this description of Larison by the Man from K street that Rod deleted:

    I make no secret of my opinion of Larison. I think he's one of many C-list academic paleocons I've known: angry, pedantic, as terrified of female sexuality as any Wahabbi imam, self-important, and waiting for a societal collapse that will never happen. In five years he'll be an untenured hanger-on at some jerkwater college, a perpetual bachelor, and no one will give two seconds to his ramblings online or off.

    His blog helps me see neo-Agrarianism/"Cruchiness" as the ideology of the loser. But your posts of the past couple days make it look like the creed of the coward as well. I'd love to be moved away from that sense, but the fact that I fully expect you to delete this post only underscores that.
    The Man from K Street | 04.16.07 - 8:43 am |


    Priceless.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Yes, priceless. Who is this K Street dude? I love his comments.

    Could it be..... nahhhhh.....

    Or maybe it's.... no, wait..... nah.....

    ReplyDelete
  19. Pauli,

    LOL! Well, kind of, except I use a microwave to melt the soap base rather than mixing fats and lye in a big iron pot. :-D Maybe someday when I master melt and pour soap, I can can get up the courage to work with lye.

    ReplyDelete
  20. the catholic information center is on K street. lots of fancy people work on K st, and but so do many unfancy people (like me for 8 yrs). so "The Man" is probably just some bored office worker, who also happens to be pretty cool.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I think I should repost a now-deleted comment to Rod's latest, sad entry in the discussion with Jonah, where he (SURPRISE!) lets Daniel Larison do his work for him.

    ********************

    Douglas Jeffrey, reviewing Rod's book last year for the Clairmont Institute, asserts that Rod reacted against free-market extremism "when the Texas legislature failed sufficiently to fund a children's health insurance program; as a result, a woman in his Catholic home-schooling group had to take a job and enroll her kids in public schools. He gives no date or details, but this episode led him to editorialize for higher taxes in the name of 'traditional family values.'"

    (For what it's worth, Jeffrey continues: "In appearing to promote an extension of the social safety net to guarantee the ability to home-school, he does not acknowledge, much less engage, the considerable scholarship over the past 40 years suggesting that the welfare state has proved destructive of the family, both here and (more dramatically) in parts of Western Europe. Nor does he betray cognizance of the school-choice movement into which Milton Friedman and others have poured so much effort in recent decades. The irresponsibility that plagues this book reaches one of its crescendos when he writes: 'What kind of an economy should we have, then? I don't know; I'm a writer, not an economist' (emphasis added).")

    Rod now writes, "my endorsing the sentiment 'It takes a village to raise a child' doesn't mean I endorse government child care, but rather credit the recognition that parents need to have the support of a morally sane and healthy community to support them in their mission to raise morally sane and healthy children."

    Was Jeffrey misreading Rod's support for government social programs that (supposedly) facillitate homeschooling and his support for tax increases to fund those programs? Or has Rod changed his mind and is now embracing communal child-rearing only through the private sector in institutions like the extended family, the local church, and the immediate neighborhood?

    Or is Rod being, um, less than entirely honest about what it is he actually supports?

    Jonah didn't simply appeal to Rod's invocation of Hillary's "village" mantra.

    In his book, Rod embraces leftwing environmentalism which, last I checked, wasn't much invested in Burkean little platoons nor states' rights. In recent columns Rod has called for religious conservatives to form a new alliance with Democrats on the environment and "economic security." Indeed, he's adamant about rejecting free market economics, laissez-faire and the rest. Perhaps Larison, who's constantly opining on how stupid I am, can explain to me how someone can reject free market economics and not be statist in any way.

    Perhaps in referencing "economic security" Jonah was referencing this editorial that Rod wrote, published on March 7th of this year.

    Theocons could make common cause with Democrats on, say, the environment. Treating the earth with an ethic of stewardship is becoming more important to younger Christians. There is also commonality on economic security. A 2006 poll by the non-partisan Pew Center found that social conservatives strongly favor universal health coverage and overwhelmingly oppose job outsourcing. Culture-cons get how vulnerable families are to job loss and health-care costs. [emphasis mine]

    I believe that "universal health coverage" means -- and can only mean -- socialized medicine, the federal government taking control of one-seventh of the U.S. economy.

    But, yeah, Jonah and Jeffrey and I are all arguing in bad faith when we suspect that Rod Dreher is -- at the very least -- much more statist than most mainstream conservatives.

    We've been "over this before, again and again"? (Really? Where, specifically?)

    Maybe we should go over this one more time.

    ReplyDelete
  22. The point is, I don't think it's at all clear what CC-ism means, and I believe that's a deliberate consequence of this mantra that it's a sensibility and way of looking at life.

    He's written, "I don't see what's so crunchy-con about No Child Left Behind," but God only knows what disqualifies it from CC-ism.

    He had some epiphany about the evils of the free market when he supported a state-run children's health program and the tax increases necessary to fund it, and he since wrote about making common cause with the left in an effort to socialize medicine, but we can't dare interpret his embrace of Hillary's village mantra as a sign of statism.

    What is CC-ism? Whatever Rod says it is, but since Rod Dreher makes no efforts to be honest and consistent, CC-ism is a figment of his imagination.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Bubba said:
    "CC-ism is a figment of his imagination."

    Well said, Bubba. Though, a better definition would be "CC-ism is what ever it takes to sell a book."

    ReplyDelete
  24. and it's depressing to see how credulous people are in latching onto an idea that sounds good in theory, but one that hasn't been articulated in sufficient depth to warrant anyone's signing on. of course that intellectual laziness is a depressing human characteristic whose dire consequences have been seen throughout history.

    ReplyDelete
  25. You know,

    With all the criticism he's getting, Rodney just might start saying:
    "I don't get no respect"

    ReplyDelete
  26. LOL, SVC! And thanks, Susan and Pauli, for the link to Susan's blog.

    Hi, Susan! (blushing back) Thanks for the kind remark! Yes, I am Diane, whose comments are routinely deleted at the Dreherrhea Blog. Another proud member of the Banned by Benedict Club. :)

    Doesn't the Man from K Street totally rock?

    Dianonymous, happy to be back from hectic Florida

    ReplyDelete