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

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.