(Vanity) Confessions of a Crunchy Con, or, You Can't Judge a Conservative by his Birkenstocks

If I recall correctly, the term “crunchy con” does not refer to someone who has stolen a box of Captain Crunch. It refers to the term “crunchy conservative” and was popularized (if not invented) by Rod Dreher of National Review. For a sample discussion, check out this link. Yes, I know what you’re thinking—“First William F. Buckley comes out for legalization of drugs, and now supposed conservatives are talking of Birkenstocks! Fifth Columnists, all of them!”

I wouldn’t blame you for thinking like that. I used to think that way myself. But that was before I joined the ranks of the crunchy cons. And, like so many others, it was not a snap decision or crisis conversion; nor was it the result of long, arduous soul-searching. It was rather, in the words of C.S. Lewis in Perelandra, “the moment at which a man realises that what had seemed mere speculations are on the point of landing him in the [Crunchy Conservatives] -- the sense that a door has just slammed and left him on the inside.” There were a number of small, almost playful indulgences I allowed myself; these hardened into habits; and before long, I found myself surrounded by so many little things that (had I but admitted it) my entire lifestyle was different.

Perhaps a couple of examples will help. The first one was going to school in Minnesota. Yes, I know, big mistake. But growing up on the East Coast, all I knew was that Minnesota was in the Midwest—the home of traditional values. And of course, the land of 10,000 blondes. I married one alright—but it turns out she wasn’t even native Minnesotan. Last time I checked, we were married 20 years. (Hi, Rabbit!) But, to return to the point. Minnesota actually voted for Mondale (favorite son) for President as opposed to Reagan. And the main political party there is the DFL (it stands for Democrat Farm-Labor, not \Dumb Friggin’ Liberals, by the way). So in an environment like that, and with all the abundant nature and wildlife, was it any wonder my stereotypical commitment to right-wing appearances began to waver? My first step was when my wife bought me a pair of Birkenstocks. No harm, I just wanted to not stand out so much—and besides, she assured me it made my legs look great. And if you don’t know, Minnesota is one of the few places where it is common to see people sporting shorts and a parka at the same time. Strike One!

The second change happened late during my time in Minnesota and has since gotten worse. I have developed a love for bicycling. (Yes, I realize it sounds strange to speak of bicycling in a place where the average temperature seems to be about freezing for six months of the year. But let me assure you, those two days of summer are heavenly.) It was not a matter of trying to become an eco-weenie, or to save the planet. It was a way to save money on transportation while a young, starving student. But after doing it for awhile, I realized it suited me. It was a way to get time alone; it made the commute relaxing instead of a disaster for the blood-pressure; and it was a way to exercise without chewing up my knees. (Did I mention I only have one car—it is amazing how much money you can save by only having ONE car payment, one insurance payment, ONE gas tank to fill…) I have continued cycling to this day; my record was commuting to work 15 miles each way during a cold snap on the East Coast, when I got up at 5:30 with lights, wool hat under a helmet, and gloves to pedal 15 miles in 15-degree weather; and here in Arizona, biking home 20 miles in 110 degree heat. Uphill. Both ways. Strike TWO!

The final, and most important, event, in my transition to crunchy-conship (you didn’t really expect me to say “con-dom”, did you?) was an indirect result of my wife’s job. This happened after I had reluctantly moved to Arizona for a new job (I hate the heat and my wife is a snow bunny.) With all of the retirees down here, the health care industry is rather important; and my wife took a job in a wellness-related firm. This firm emphasized treating people as custom-designed works of craftsmanship: rather than wait for them to break, and ordering expensive repairs, why not engage in regular “preventative maintenance” as it were? Naturally, this rubbed the conservative (and to some extent, the scientist) in me the wrong way: why, the approach practically reeked of such heresies (and liberal-leaning) practices as chiropractic, yoga, yogurt, and other tomfoolery. Beef, beer, and potatoes forever! …right?

Well, I went in for the reduced-cost evaluation (as a family member of an employee). I had an interesting discussion of diet, exercise, and the like, and was given rather an odd recommendation for supplements. They suggested I take fish oil capsules. Fish oil? What in the world, I already eat tuna fish several times a week. But what made me decide to do it was that they gave me a couple weeks’ worth for free. So I had nothing to lose by trying. I stalled for a couple of days. Later in the week I had been up at work quite late—around midnight, and had got to sleep around 1:00 AM. I figured that was a good time to try the fish oil. (Not that I was stacking the deck or anything, you understand. I just wanted to make sure any placebo effect would be minimized.) To my amazement, my energy came roaring back. It was as though my batteries had been recharged! Like I hadn’t stayed up in the first place. I could tell that it wasn’t like Red Bull or anything, I wasn’t running on nervous energy which would leave me even more exhausted—instead, I had a feeling of being cleansed and restored…and of course, being a scientist, I had to admit that if I had been wrong about so many other things, maybe more of this non-traditional stuff was worth another look. STRIKE THREE!

So that was the beginning of my status as a crunchy-con. In a later piece I will endeavor to lay out (in Republican or libertarian-friendly terms) some of the things which the crunchy part of me feels may have gone awry within American culture—and some surprising solutions.

http://www.nationalreview.com/dreher/dreher071202.asp

Here's the link to Dreher's original National Review article. In my opinion, and I speak - as I said - as a person who makes granola and takes dietary supplements, and runs, and homeschools, and breastfeeds, and dreams of a goat farm in Missouri ... the article is a total snob-fest.

Come back and talk to me, Mr. Dreher, when your other choice is living in an apartment with eight kids. (Hint - nobody will rent you an apartment when you have eight kids!)

"Conservative" and "Liberal" are largely meaningless terms across any temporal boundary.

What was liberal twenty years ago is now moderate and what was conservative twenty years ago is now fascist. As I mentioned in our discussion on the NC board, liberal has largely been co-opted for something nearly diametrically opposed to its original meaning. Conservative is even worse. I offer that conservative as a political descriptor doesn't even last a full generation. Ten or fifteen years ago, any introduction of neocons, let alone "crunchy" cons into a serious political discussion on the right would have met (rightfully so) with utter derision.

To that end, Dr. Sowell's use of the terms, "anointed" and "unenlightened," as well as his characterizations of the constrained and unconstrained visions are as locally accurate as and far more temporally durable than "conservative" or "liberal." The only trouble with them is that they require a lot of overhead. I guess that's the cost of avoiding the blurring that goes along with colloquial understanding.

Adopting stricter attitudes toward diet and health, more liberal modes of dress, and communing with nature does not a political stance make. It is the fact that those we call liberal behave in these ways as a collective imperative that makes the political statement. It is when one attempts to impose the behavior on others by governmental fiat that makes a political statement. Once one has begun to abet the process of banning tobacco and trans-fats and driving with cell phones in order to impose one's vision of "the greater good" on one's neighbors, every bit of conservatism, as we know it now, is long gone.

Hi Tax-chick.

Yes, I read the article, and I see what you mean about snob-fest.

There are points I agree with implicitly ("What hooked me then, and continues to hold me, and what is the underlying theme of the contemporary liberal side of this aesthetic, is authenticity," she said. "I read a piece in American Demographics a few years ago about this, that the hook for progressives is this concept of 'authenticity,' the distrust of mass-produced sentiment or materials.")

That will be a large part of my Part II, though not perhaps in the way that you think.

In the meantime, to assuage your feelings, I enclose a quote from Garrison Keillor(*) (ugly liberal extraordinaire and host of Prairie Home Companion), from his book Lake Wobegeon Days:

"I pour a round of light Lowenbrau, being careful to not to pour along the side but straight down so the beer can express itself, and they say, 'Did you ever try Dockendorf? It's made by the Dockendorf family from hand-pumped water in their ancient original family brewery in an unspoiled Pennsylvania village where the barley is hauled in by Amish families who use wagons with oak beds. Those oak beds give Dockendorf its famous flavor.'..."

I think that is the type of snobbish air you mean. Wonderfully authentic on the inside, boring from the outside...

(*) I used to think he had a great insight into human nature. As it turns out, he just has an uncanny ability to mimic and portray representative scenes, behaviour, and dialog. When you realize that he is remembering or imitating, rather than inventing, his work loses much of its power....

Virtually every word of your most excellent post agrees with what I think. :-)

Let's recap. I've been on the crevo threads and it's nice to find someone to *agree with* for a change.

Ten or fifteen years ago, any introduction of neocons, let alone "crunchy" cons into a serious political discussion on the right would have met (rightfully so) with utter derision.

Minnesota's own Hubert Humphrey (a flaming liberal in his day) would now be derided as a "mind-numbed robot" by the left.

To that end, Dr. Sowell's use of the terms, "anointed" and "unenlightened," as well as his characterizations of the constrained and unconstrained visions are as locally accurate as and far more temporally durable than "conservative" or "liberal."

I prefer "self-annointed" or, even better, "precious".

Adopting stricter attitudes toward diet and health, more liberal modes of dress, and communing with nature does not a political stance make. It is the fact that those we call liberal behave in these ways as a collective imperative that makes the political statement. It is when one attempts to impose the behavior on others by governmental fiat that makes a political statement.

Joe Sobran referred to the left collectively as "The Hive".

One of the most insightful articles I have ever read.

I think the separation of the values of diet, health, dress, and communing with nature, ("crunchy") with a free-market, government-hands-off approach ("con") is what does it. The problem is when one gets so...well, *frustrated* with people (say chronic smokers who sue over lung cancer) that the temptation to intrude government becomes unbearable. Think of, who was it, Rousseau? His line "forced to be free" has a certain chilling logic.

About to start that vanity now, I promise.

Thanks for the wonderful, thought-provoking, and DEAD-ON comments. :-)

Cheers!

Dr. Sowell's use of the terms, "anointed" and "unenlightened," as well as his characterizations of the constrained and unconstrained visions are as locally accurate as and far more temporally durable than "conservative" or "liberal." The only trouble with them is that they require a lot of overhead. I guess that's the cost of avoiding the blurring that goes along with colloquial understanding.

Excellent summary of the last few days' points. Dr. Sowell is America's Greatest Living Intellectual, of course, and the rest of us (including Rod Dreher) are chopped liver in comparison :-).

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.