Saturday, February 25, 2006

"Crunchy Con Manifesto" Needs Work

There's a very interesting conversation going on over at the National Review on the release of Crunchy Cons by Rod Dreher.

"Crunchy" refers to crunchy granola, a snack that is generally associated with the political left.

Why? I dunno. I like popcorn. Ronald Reagan liked jelly beans. Other conservatives I know like everything from "goldfish" crackers to pistachios to dried apricots. I'm not aware of any political connotations attached to chewy granola, although if I had to guess I'd say that chewy granola probably is preferred by moderates, or liberal Republicans like Arlen Spector. That's pure guesswork, however. There is no pattern as far as I can tell, but trust me, crunchy granola is associated with liberals. But now there are "crunchy granola" conservatives like Rod Dreher, who insists there's something more going on than a broadening of snack preferences in the Bush-voting demographic. I'm not convinced.

Since we'll probably be hearing more on this whole "Birkenstock-Wearing Burkeans" thing, I'd like to begin by taking on Dreher's "Crunchy Con Manifesto", more or less point-by-point:

1. We are conservatives who stand outside the conservative mainstream; therefore, we can see things that matter more clearly.

This is not a good way to start. Leaving aside the self-congratulatory aspect of this statement, romanticizing the outsider -- assuming that one sees more clearly by being apart from the mainstream -- is in itself a fallacy. One may, indeed, be an outsider because one is uniquely aware of the flaws of the mainstream, be it a social group or an ideology. Or one may be an outsider because one is a bore, a pedant, or a killjoy.

Romanticizing the outsider is also, in a not so subtle way, a means of devaluing the community: one must be outside it to see clearly, there are no insights to be gained from being in the community. Because crunchy conservatism places a high value on community, this is an odd pose for Dreher to strike.

2. Modern conservatism has become too focused on money, power, and the accumulation of stuff, and insufficiently concerned with the content of our individual and social character.

I hope Dreher understands that this problem is not unique to conservatism. In fact, there are a wide range of conservative groups that focus almost entirely on issues of character and morality. If one listens to Rush Limbaugh or reads National Review (the best two indicators of where "mainstream" conservative thought lie) one will inevitably come across comments on the importance of individual and social character. Maybe the right could and should be even stronger here, but this is not our unique vice and I would dare say we are better about this than our political rivals.

3. Big business deserves as much skepticism as big government.

I agree, with one caveat: as conservatives we face political enemies who treat big business with extreme skepticism but are reluctant to question the motives or effectiveness of big government. That said, there is something to be said for a political and social movement that is ready to hold both under the microscope.

4. Culture is more important than politics and economics.

Over the long haul this is undeniably true. Most conservatives (and to be fair most liberals too) would at least give this notion lip service.

5. A conservatism that does not practice restraint, humility, and good stewardship—especially of the natural world—is not fundamentally conservative.

It's the hyphenated section --especially of the natural world-- that catches my eye here. The devil is in the details, of course, but why the natural world? As opposed to what? The civilized world? The developed world? The artificial world? Unfortunately most of humanity lives in a world that is to some extent, man-made and therefore not natural. Shouldn't that be where the bulk of our attention lies? After all that is the world that we have created, for better or worse.

Point 5 is where Dreher begins to lay down his claim for "crunchy" conservatism's unique insight and unique position as the fulfillment of true conservatism, as opposed to "mainstream" conservatism or "Christian" conservatism. But in the end the crunchy granola, birkenstocks, and preference for organic food that sets the "crunchy" conservatives apart from the rest are not a matter of conservative ideology but a matter of personal taste. Not that there's anything wrong with that -- I switched over to organic milk about a year ago and I can report no ill effects or liberal political leanings. But there's little new in this and nothing that mainstream conservatives would consider objectionable.

The virtues Dreher lists: restraint, humility, good stewardship, these are all good traits that conservatism should promote. I don't see why they are any less important in cities or suburbs than they are in the farms and forests.

6. Small, Local, Old, and Particular are almost always better than Big, Global, New, and Abstract.

All I'll say is I'm glad he put that "almost" in there, because otherwise we'd have a pretty sweeping generalization that isn't always true.

Let's focus on that "new" versus "old" thing because I am pretty confident that the reverse is true. Think about it: would you rather drive a car produced sometime after 2000 or sometime before, say, 1930. Just to be fair, lets assume that the 1930 car has been perfectly maintained and getting spare parts is not a problem. Still, that 1930 car will not have an automatic transmission, power steering, air conditioning, it might not even have a heater. The newer car, even setting aside the problems of wear-and-tear, will be faster, safer, more comfortable, and easier to drive -- in short, better. I think the same can be said for a lot of other things.

Now this probably isn't what Dreher is talking about, but given the wide sweep of this statement, I can't say what Dreher is talking about. Is it about politics? Culture? Architecture? Does Dreher want to condemn international trade? His use of the word "global" would certainly imply that.

Let me tell you what I think Dreher might be trying to get at here. Christ warned that there would be false Christs, and I think that there's a more general principle to be drawn out of that. If enough people believe in something, there are bound to be imposters. As Americans we have a strong belief in "progress". It is almost inevitable that there will be false "progresses", technical or social advances that are more destructive than constructive. I would put Marxism, radical feminism, and the sexual revolution in this category, as would Dreher, I suspect. But the existence of false progresses does not negate real advances (such as early feminism, or civil rights) any more than the existence of false messiahs negates the reality of Christ.

A strong statement about the dangers of unquestioned faith in "progress" would certainly be justified, and would easily fit in the conservative tradition. What Dreher has written here borders on silly. There's an important point in here somewhere. Point 6 desperately needs to be rewritten.

7. Beauty is more important than efficiency.

Again, another broad, wild generalization, easily disproved on its face. After all, doesn't form follow function? I mean, would Dreher prefer to heat his home with a furnace that's beautiful or a furnace that's efficient? How about air conditioning?

Are these examples too narrow? Not related to public policy? Okay, how about law enforcement? Do you want a police force that's artistic and elegant or one that is efficient? What would "beautiful" law enforement look like, anyway? More cops that look like Heather Locklear in T.J. Hooker?

Again, there might be a serious thought in here somewhere, but Dreher needs to think this through and give some context.

8. The relentlessness of media-driven pop culture deadens our senses to authentic truth, beauty, and wisdom.

A pedant might criticize this as another broad generalization, but I won't go on about that (at least not this time) because this statement, if not always true, is true often enough. But again, this not not a new observation, and certainly not new to conservatives.

This is an area that requires careful thought and new approaches. For at least the last fifty years parents have bewailed the musical tastes of their children, to little or no effect. When I was young youth ministers and pastors of the evangelical and fundamentalist churches and schools I attended were foresquare against that evil rock and roll music. And Led Zeppelin gave way to Madonna, who gave way to NWA, who gave way to Nine Inch Nails, who gave way to Eminem, and so on and so on.

The first step, I would argue, is to give a little ground: encourage parents not only to listen and criticize but also to compliment. Not all new music or art is dreck, and if we can acknowledge the good material that is out there, it will be easier for us to isolate the crap.

9. We share Russell Kirk’s conviction that “the institution most essential to conserve is the family.”

For once, Dreher gives credit, where due, to prior conservative writers.

10. Politics and economics won’t save us; if our culture is to be saved at all, it will be by faithfully living by the Permanent Things, conserving these ancient moral truths in the choices we make in our everyday lives.

This is hard to argue with. Points 9 and 10 are strong, and if they are not original, they are the sorts of things that are frequently forgotten and bear regular repetition.

The question is, are Birkenstock shoes and crunchy granola "Permanent Things"? Probably not. In his rebellion against a consumerist culture, Dreher ironically winds up hoisting consumer goods as his symbols. That these particular consumer goods are not normally associated with conservative sensibilities is more a matter of marketing, than of political or social insight.

But irony is part of life, as is marketing. Much of the resistance to conservatism comes from people with a poor understanding of what we are about. If crunchy conservatism allows people to rethink what conservatism means, opens minds to our understanding of social, economic, and political issues, then it could do a lot of good. But let's keep straight what we have here: it not so much a new product, it's new packaging.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home