I managed to get through most of the book this past weekend, and I was surprised by my overall reaction. While I find myself nodding in agreement with many of Dreher’s crunchy “sensibilities,” I was uncomfortable when presented with such a list. In many ways, we as a family adher to the crunchy manifesto, but Caleb Stegall’s point about over-articulation is well taken:

It is not that I disagree with crunchiness as Rod has described it. I think he has done an admirable job recovering some of the essential conservative truths out from under the banner of an ersatz conservatism of right-leaning liberalism. It is rather that I see the authentically conservative posture of man towards reality as one of those natural things that becomes highly unnatural and potentially turned against itself when articulated.

When viewed as a sensibility rather than an ideology, Dreher’s manifesto is appropriately conservative response to the disorders of the age. It is easy, however, to allow it to become nothing more than a membership checklist for yet another movement, which would likely doom it straightaway. The discussion on the blog has often veered away from the the fundamental points of the book–namely the sacramental nature of all of life, and the importance of our “little platoons” of family, community, and church–and focused on the particulars. Is it ok to shop at Wal-Mart? Can you be a Crunchy Con and argue on the internet? Do you have to buy organic food? The point that Dreher, Stegall, and others have made is that these questions don’t get at the heart of the sensibility. It’s not about where you shop. Not everyone has the opportunity to shop at a co-op, or live in old house in the city. It’s about how one views life, and what is truly important. Get that worked out, and the little questions will answer themselves.

Also, Stegall seems to have finally gotten that wrestling match he and the rest of tNP’s staff wanted with the NRO staff. He’s left a list of pointed questions for Jonah Golberg, and calls out the Classical Liberalism (as opposed to true conservatism) of Jim Geraghty. Stegall has obviously hit a nerve among the neo-cons and libertarians, namely that true traditional conservatism is not primarily concerned with the privacy of the individual above all else. Classical Liberals often place emphasis “family” and “values,” but as Stegall points out, these things can be set aside in the name of personal responsibility and privacy (though it should be noted that most neo-cons/Republicans are willing to draw the line at certain behaviors, namely homsexuality and abortion). Stegall may have overstated his case, but the point remains–why are neo-cons willing to call out some behaviors that are detrimental to the family, but not others?

Posted on 1 March 2006