Evangelicalism or environmentalism or pro-life activism doesn't fit neatly into the packages that ideologues and the media design for them. One family may opt to have one parent stay home to teach the children without "disapproving" of "mothers who work outside the home." Nor is any attitude towards immigration necessarily implied by crunchy conservatism.
I think the point is more that many of these beliefs are detachable and can be combined in ways that people think right. Viewing Dreher's beliefs as "funky" or "crunchy" or "right-wing hippiedom" or "anti-modernism" is just falling back into the same tired old categories of thirty years ago or more. I don't know if Dreher understands it himself but Kirkpatrick surely doesn't. His article is another example of looking at something so far from the outside that you don't see what it's really like.
"Modernity" is a pretty problematic concept. I don't think one can write environmentalists or evangelicals or birkenstock wearing-hippies out of "modernity" any more than one can make the modern the exclusive property of secular liberals or corporate executives or scientific rationalists.
National Review obsesses about "crunchy conservatism" in their crunchy blog. Those interested may find it worth a look.