Crunchy Cons by Rod Dreher
By Kevin Holtsberry Posted in Culture — Comments (32) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Rod Dreher's recently released Crunchy Cons is a frustrating book. Dreher, a writer and editor at the Dallas Morning News, raises a number of issues worth discussing, and delivers interesting accounts of passionate people – including Dreher himself - who live out their ideals in ways difficult to categorize along simple right-left political lines. But the book’s tone, style, and structure undermine clear argument and limit its appeal beyond those already highly sympathetic to the label.
The epiphany for this entry in the ongoing hyphenization (or adjectivization) of conservatism came to Dreher when he mentioned to an editor at National Review that he had to pick up his organic fruits and vegetables at the local co-op. When she responded “Ewww, that’s so lefty” Dreher began to think about the political labels associated with certain activities.
After some thought, he realized that he was involved in a number of “counter cultural” activities that are usually associated with the left: organic and slow food, Birkenstocks, urban living, the Arts and Craft movement, giving up TV, etc. He went on to write an article for the magazine on the subject and was inundated with emails from likeminded individuals. With such an outpouring of interest, Dreher decided to dig a little deeper. Crunchy Cons is the result.
For my take on this contentious issue, read on.
Dreher’s basic argument is that traditional conservatism, represented by the ideas of men like Russell Kirk and Richard Weaver, requires a counter cultural response to today’s “libertarian lifestyle” environment. He offers this rule of thumb: “Small, Local, Old, and Particular are almost always better than Big, Global, New, and Abstract.” For Dreher a relentlessly materialistic world who’s god is efficiency is an enemy of the Permanent Things conservatives are seeking to conserve.
Telling the stories of the crunchy cons he has discovered, as well as his own path to crunchiness, makes up the bulk of the book. Each chapter contains a mix of personal reflections, citations from sympathetic writers and thinkers, and interviews with those who have embraced this approach on issues ranging from food and housing to education and religion.
Dreher is at his best when he is relating the life choices of these crunchy cons. He talks with devout Christians who have given up their careers to start small traditional family farms; college graduates who reject McMansions in the suburbs and move to the inner city because they love old houses or want to reclaim the community; home school educators who feel the public education system offers scant protection from a vulgar consumer culture that threatens to overthrow their own values and beliefs; and former seekers and agnostics who are finding a spiritual home in more orthodox denominations.
The people highlighted in these anecdotes and discussions are passionate and committed to making a difference. Even if you don’t wholeheartedly agree with their perspective, or can’t imagine yourself making the same choices, you can respect their idealism and commitment. Dreher himself is clearly in this category.
The book is less coherent, however, and often quite frustrating, when it tries to make this collection of anecdotes and personal choices into something more. What is it exactly about what you eat, or where you live (insert your own cultural or personal choice) that is conservative or liberal? Dreher asserts that traditional conservatism requires a sacramental life where what we believe in, what we value, has an impact on how we conduct our daily lives. Fair enough. But there are some significant problems with the way Dreher goes about making this argument
One area where Crunchy Cons goes off the track is in its insistence that “mainstream” or conventional conservatives - in contrast to Crunchy Cons - fail to live out their ideals. While Dreher frequently insists that he isn’t mapping out a political program or ideology but rather a sensibility, all too often his tone is one of a purist who is disgusted with those who can’t see that they have sold out.
He frequently calls out conservatives for having strayed from the true path and posits crunchiness as a more authentic conservatism - as a more effective way to live. This tone is bound to offend and irritate those who don’t consider themselves crunchy or who aren’t already sympathetic to the label.
To add to this problem Dreher consistently conflates conservatives, or at least mainstream ones, with Republicans. This is both unhelpful and confusing. It is unhelpful because the two are obviously not synonymous. It is confusing because Dreher insists that it isn’t about politics. Despite this claim he spends a good part of the book’s first few chapters denigrating Republicans/mainstream conservatives.
Examples:
- “[I]t is difficult to identify anything within the contemporary Republican party that stands against the dogma of the Market Supreme.”
- “The problem with too many of us conservatives is we think holding he politically correct (from a right-wing point of view) position, and faithfully voting Republican, is enough to guarantee our conservative bone fides. We talk the talk but do we walk the walk? Not if we are consumerists first, and conservatives second.”
-“Does anybody really believe we can grow our way out of our problems? Is another tax cut, gimmicky educational scheme, or entitlement reform – or whatever glorious program the Republican Party promises will call down the New Jerusalem – going to save marriages, restore children to their parents, heal the land, renew the commonweal? Come on.”
- “While their political brethren confine their conservatism to the voting booth and their stock portfolios, many crunchy cons see historical preservation as almost a spiritual calling.”
- “[T]oo many people who call themselves conservative share the same fundamental conviction of many liberals, namely, that individual fulfillment is the point of life;” adding that they believe that “the free market should be the guiding light of our lives together.”
While I will admit that there is a certain type of libertarian that might take their admiration for the free market to this length, I certainly don’t believe that the average conservative resembles this caricature. Are their Republicans that fit this description? Yes, but acting as if conservative and Republican are synonymous undermines both his credibility and his clarity. It also muddies his distinction between a political agenda and a sensibility. If the issues isn’t primarily about politics then why go after Republicans?
But even if this hyper-libertarianism was a legitimate temptation, Dreher never really explains exactly how a belief in something bigger than oneself, a belief in things like community and the importance of family, requires choices like organic food, Arts and Craft bungalows, or stricter environmental regulations.
I don’t eat a lot of organic food, live in a rather plain subdivision, and frequently shop in big box stores and even strip malls. And yet I am a student of Russell Kirk and consider myself a traditional conservatism. I don’t think I have become consumerist, have failed to defend the family, or lost my sense of beauty because I don’t have a crunchy sensibility.
It is one thing to offer a call for open-mindedness and another to castigate those who choose differently. Dreher explains and illustrates how conservatism can inspire, and be compatible with, a range of cultural choices, but fails to demonstrate that "mainstream" choices that don’t involve his explicit counter-culturalism are outside the pale of conservatism.
Part of the problem is that Crunchy Cons is a pop culture book at its heart and is therefore anecdotal and conversational. This wouldn't be a problem if Dreher had chosen to simply offer Crunchy Cons as an example of people who are living out their conservative ideals in unconventional ways. Instead he attempts to construct a philosophy that involves economics, sociology, history, and theology without the necessary depth.
He cites authors and thinkers across the philosophical and political spectrum that line up with the Crunchy Con sensibility without adequatly explaining how they all tie together. Dreher writes as if he is making an argument when he is mostly offering anecdotes.
It is also worth noting, that to be taken seriously an argument should address at least some of the more compelling counterarguments. It could be argued, for example, that the free market has created the wealth and leisure time that makes possible many of the very counter cultural choices Dreher embraces.
Small, Local, Old, and Particular” are great but if these were the only choices his beloved Birkenstocks and host of other products and services would not be available. Dreher makes no effort to reconcile this seeming contradiction.
In fact, Dreher shows little sign of having wrestled with the complexities at the root of the problems he discusses. Yes, a dynamic economy can be upsetting to local businesses and customs. But it is difficult to temper or restrain the free market with out unintended consequences. Yes, our values should inform our economic decisions, but what does that mean in practice?
Dreher’s adoption of questionable theories like Peak Oil, alarmist global warming scenarios, and his assertion that particle contaminates are causing asthma rates to skyrocket (not to mention his willingness to endorse a pro-choice Democrat over a pro-life Republican because the issue) make it hard to believe that he is offering much beyond liberal ideas dressed up as crunchy.
His call for conservatives to move to the urban center, rebuild old houses and home school their children is laudable but unlikely to be appealing or feasible to most. There are larger problems than the fact that suburbanites have lost their appreciation for fine architecture or that we are all consumed with owning bigger and bigger houses.
He touches on what he believes is the unethical nature of the factory farm system but offers few details for those who are skeptical or unfamiliar with the arguments. He remarks that supporting local agriculture is a “moral good” but fails to unpack the argument. On these issue and others Dreher seems to offer simple solutions for complex problems.
I don’t want to sound as if there is nothing of value in Crunchy Cons. All of us would do well to consider how our ideals and beliefs impact our daily lives. It is all too easy to become passive and to allow the world to shape our lives rather than the reverse. Strengthening our communities, defending our families, and wisely using our resources should be important to all of us.
In Crunchy Cons Dreher offers some thought provoking and challenging examples of ways people are choosing to live their lives. The issues he raises are worth talking about.
But the book’s often-strident tone, its conversational style, and its anecdotal structure undermine its effectiveness. If you want to start a discussion you shouldn't build it on a carricature of the other side. As a result, it seems that rather than successfully reach out to mainstream conservatives, Dreher has written a sermon to the crunchy con choir.
« Hating James Dobson: To Heck With His Qualifications, He's a Meanie — Comments (14) | Spanish-Language Media Promoted The Protests — Comments (56) »
Crunchy Cons by Rod Dreher 32 Comments (0 topical, 32 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
some of what he recommends might be laudable under some circumstances but it is just crazy to think this constitutes some branch of conservatism.
I like silent films and organic raisin bran, the New York Yankees and the New American Bible. Does this speak to my ideology?
Curious.
Under his definition, I could very well qualify as a "Crunchy". And, I too have seen people that think this way on a far larger scale than I had thought existed before. This is one of the main reasons I advocate not attacking members of the party publically, gives the "Crunchies" the hebbee jebbe's, even if the attackers are correct.
I think he is refering to a time and place and thinking that takes note of all the things that make up a conservative American, from the point of view of these people. Compassion, wisedom, strength, leadership, "true life experiences" and more, that constructs that special "American" bred that he is identifying with.
"More refined" would be the word I think he is so careful not to use because it seems so arrogant, but that is exactly what he is talking about I think.
Birkenstocks and an organic food co-op have nothing to do with any of those values.
But I don't go so far as to define the components of someones life completely as a "lifestyle choice, (and) not a philosophical choice".
Placing a "Jesus Loves You" bumper sticker on my auto isn't a philosophical choice or a lifestyle choice completely, but one choice based on another and a combination of both, and it can work either way. Something else I think he tried (poorly) to convey.
Then there are tastes and preferences that come into play. These factors won't truly reveal someones political or philosophical outlooks, only thier truly political actions would reveal that.
that Dreher is not equating a series of lifestyle choices with a political philosophy? Because, if so, I would refer you to the story above and the lengthy debate on the subject over at National Review.
I like... the New York Yankees
Clearly, you are a disciple of Satan.
Yankees come to Miller Park, and the Brewers take two outta three from them. :)
pendulum, side to side, never altering, no that wouldn't be it.
The point above, however unclear it may be (and it is to some extent), is that the connection cannot be quantified so easily.
Philosphical, theological, idealological, lifestyle choices, socialization, regional influence, etc..,etc.., are not definable in solid, black and white conditions.
In fact, all of them play a roll at "any" given time as to, "What style socks do I want to buy"? Maybe the quesion is "Briefs or Boxers"? The decision on these things won't only be affected by these two catagories, but by a multitude of others, all at the same time.
"Democrats eat more spicy foods", I read recently. Just because I pick up some Chili Rejano's from Chico's tacos, doesn't make me a Democrat, that absurd.
No, I wouldn't define it as governed by a choice between Philosophical, and lifestyle choices. But would say, all that, mixed and more.
answer the question of Dreher's possible conflation of the two. I simply cannot imagine a philosophical reason for preferring Birkenstocks over other types of footwear.
However, if, for example - to leave aside the purely scientific questions - one believed that industrial farming were in some sense contrary to the natural order of such things - as some of the CC contributors apparently do - one might then prefer organically pruduced fruits, vegetables, and meats, and that on a basis derived from a fundamental philosophical or religious commitment. Or, if one believes that industrial farming has been destructive of small communities which served as incubators of certain virtues, one might strive, to the greatest extent feasible, to buy local, and that on the basis of a fundamental commitment.
If someone is claiming the CC mantle as a justification for establishing a lifestyle choice utterly ungrounded in some more fundamental commitment as the symbol of some cultural trend or movement, then, yes, it would be grotesque and incoherent. But much of what CCs claim as distinctive - rightly or wrongly - can stand either as a manifestation of an alternative consumerist lifestyle, or as a reflection of a philosophy of living. It simply is not always possible to distinguish the two from the standpoint of an outside observer.
of the Antichrist - that is what Yankees fans are!
who has, foolishly or wisely, read just about everything posted on or about CC over at NRO, I would have to demur, observing that there has been more than enough smugness to smother all concerned.
especially when combined with silent movies. That combination makes a deadly mixture known as the "silencer". "Silent Bran". Wives, children, small farm animals are all terrified, not to mention the damage to the environment.
Clearly, your liberal outlooks are a threat to all humanity.
Which Yankees? The 1963 yankees, or the 1996 yankees? If the former, then you are sufficiently Old and Particular (although for local you'd have to dodge back another half-century or so).
Choosing the "New American Bible" over the "New American Standard Bible" is pretty Crunchy of you, although using the "American Standard Bible" would be even better.
Organic raisin bran...now that's a toughie. The organic raisin bran was probably created at least partially by large mechanized farm corporations, which is definitely a strike against you with Rod, but it's probably sold for twice the price at some barn-shaped organic/herbal food center (plus it's called "organic", which is alternative by definition, kinda like calling yourself a "crunchy conservative" rather than simply a "conservative"), so it might even out.
Silent films are definitely crunchy. All in all, it looks like you're about +1.5 crunchy. Maybe.
Disclaimer: I don't call myself crunchy, although I sympathize with and share some of Rod's espoused values.
...why the Mets (of whom I am a hapless fan) keep losing. There are too many crummy teams in New York. We tried to sell our souls into a buyer's market.
As a pro-Yankee billboard near Shea Stadium once said: "Flushing. How appropriate."
I agree that there are some real philosophical issues that are raised but, IMHO, the book is such a mess that they get lost.
The problem is one of perspective and emphasis. Many of the things Rod describes are motivated and inspired by conservatism. The people who act in these way claim conservatism and make their case for these activities from conservatism.
A descriptive book noting these people and making the point that it is wise not to judge without thinking about the underlying motivations and issues would have been helpful. Any criticism of other conservatives would have been indirect.
Instead, Rod argues that mainstream conservatism has given in to a consumerist mindset that worships efficiency, ignores, beauty, undermines the family, etc. The tone of the book makes it seem like conservatism requires certain cultural choices.
I don't think Rod's arguments are strong enough, or developed enough in the book, to convince those not already on his side. The fact that everything he mentions in his book could be accepted by a liberal makes it hard to argue that conservatism requires these kind of actions.
before I rush off to yet another appointment at a doctor's office:
First, I believe that much of what is objectionable in the tone of the book can be laid at the feet of the original CC kerfluffle from a few years ago. Rod essentially made the argument that many of these lifestyle choices could, in fact, be more than mere consumer affectations, and instead could be grounded in conservative philosophy; moreover, he argued, there strains of conservative thought within which these choices would appear to have much to commend them over other choices. Some of the reaction to those original explorations justly could be characterized as fulminant protestations that no conservative could question the rectitude of Wal-Mart or suburban sprawl, often on the grounds that many of those who do so are lefties. So, I think that Dreher already had his hackles up, and tried to anticipate many of the less substantive objections by just dishing it out on his own.
Second, and briefly, which conservatism? Conservatism is a house of many rooms, alas; and there are rooms within that mansion the decor of which just clashes with much of the decor in other rooms. The small-is-usually-better conservatism of a Kirk or Nisbet certainly suggests, and in some cases entails, that many of the CC options would be superior to the alternatives, for reason of the fact that community and families fare better on the local scale. So some expressions of the conservative ethos do at least suggest certain lifestyles as preferable, if possible; others are indifferent; and othere still may suggest something contrary. And no, Dreher's arguments are not strong enough to persuade the unconvinced adherent of other strands of conservatism. But there are stronger arguments than Dreher's, and, perhaps, if all of the recriminations which have soiled the debate could be laid aside, conservatives might be able to consider the underlying argument of CC: that there are patterns of contemporary life that make the realization of goods all conservatives hold in common more difficult of attainment. I think that we can handle this discussion if we leave the lefties out of it.
So I am sure you realize that this is really a very very old philosophical question. Aristotle remarked on the moral superiority of the farmer, who was close to the land, as opposed to the merchant and city dweller.
Likewise some of the founding fathers had similar views. My own views have nothing to do with what I eat, but I am very concerned with enviromental issues. This puts me in conflict with some conservatives who seem to enjoy denigrating any enviromental concerns. It's just that I am quite certain that the far left do not have any good answers to these problems.
I, also have withdrawn from much of modern society, I still have a television, but only watch news shows. I do not think however, that I am superior to anyone else, I am only superior to what I was before.
the organic raisen bran can only be enjoyed at the expense of poor exploited illegal migrant workers.
the label 'Crunchy,' Dreher lost the battle before it was even started. It's nearly impossible for any on the right to take something called "crunchy" seriously, given its association with hippie and bobo patterns of consumption. It's just been a term of abuse for too long. This is a shame, because there is a great deal of value to his criticism, but it gets lost at the outset, and Dreher's pop-anthropology approach can't rescue it from its own faulty defintion.
his case before beginning to make it.
His title should have indicated that conservatives are being more truly conservative when they support certain agricultural practices, or oppose certain development projects, not that they are being both conservative and leftist/crunchy.
but in the end, decided that I'm not ready at the moment to deal with the gloomy, mystical and preachy side of the author.
I have followed Dreher on and off for some years, and while he's an engaging writer and probably personally very likeable, he frequently goes off the deep end. My favorite examples are his homeschooling-related criticisms of Catholic schools (not pure enough theologically), and his assertion that the root cause of the priest abuse crisis was the disobedience of rank-and-file Catholics to the Church's birth control teaching.
On the other hand, a critique of capitalism and globalization would not do mainstream conservatives any harm. I just don't think it will be very effective coming from the organic theo-bubble that Mr. Dreher seems to idealize.
for a more thoughtful (and Catholic) critique of capitalism.
Anyone else have recommendations for books criticizing capitalism?
Any suggestions which are NOT Marxist?
you may want to try Iriving Kristol's Two Cheers for Capitalism.
First, I'm on record saying this is a lifestyle choice, not a philosophical choice.
Second, let's remember that Dreher actively campaigned, according to his book, for his newspaper to endorse a pro-abortion liberal over a pro-life conservative because apparently his local air quality was more important than the life issue.
I really, really like Dreher. But I think there is a certain level of self-centeredness to view a lifestyle choice as a philosophy.