I’ve been following the discussion over at the Crunchy Con blog with a sort of morbid fascination. The blog is there to expound upon themes in Rod Dreher’s new book (also called “Crunchy Cons”, with the world’s longest sub-title).
From what I’ve been able to gather, Crunchy Cons are granola-eatin’, environment-lovin’, home-schoolin’, church-goin’, pop culture-rejectin’, morality-preachin’ Amish.
Take this post for example:
It is truly strange when people like Wendell Berry — and others, consider the case of Dorothy Day described by Lukacs below — are ascribed to the left by our schizophrenic political taxonomers. People who are rooted by a love of the permanent things; who are loyal above all to the tradition and membership of their “little platoons;” people who are willing to defend what they love from encroaching destruction via spaghetti-interchanges, foreign entanglements, mega-corporations, technological developments, mass media, etc., all of which are designed to take their local capital — intellectual capital, social capital, fiscal capital, cultural and agricultural capital, and most especially, generational capital in the form of their children — as far away from home as fast as possible.
Now, if you can even decipher what the heck is being said here, more power to you. What I take it to mean is that even something as benign as the interstates are designed to remove the local capital away from us.
But what the Crunchy Cons forget is what we get in return. Yes, the wheat in Kansas gets shipped to New York. But the Birkenstocks made in Germany get shipped to Kansas so Crunchy Cons can wear them. The same holds true for intellectual capital. If mass media and mega-corporations are such a bad thing, Rod might want to rethink his strategy of having Crown Forum publish his book. In fact, he might want to rethink working for the Dallas Morning News. (yes, I know, the quote doesn’t come from Rod, but from one of his Crunchy Compatriots).
The idea of Crunchy Conservatism is bizarre to me. I’m a practical conservative. I don’t read conservative philosophers, much less spend a lot of time thinking about Burke vs. Berry. Hell, I don’t even know if that last sentence makes sense. For all I know, there IS no difference between Burke and Berry.
I believe in less government, less taxes, and more freedom. That’s my bottom line. Let me quote Rod in his book:
The problem with too many of us conservatives is we think holding the politically correct (from a right-wing point of view) position, and faithfully voting Republican, is enough to guarantee our conservative bona fides. We talk the talk, but do we walk the walk? Not if we’re consumerists first, and conservatives second. The two cannot be reconciled.
…
Consumerism fetishizes individual choice, and sees its expansion as unambiguous progress. A culture guided by consumerist values is one that welcomes technology without question, and prizes efficiency. A consumerist culture also tends to cede authority to the secular priesthood of scientists and other professional experts. Its idea of liberty involves the steady increase of the individual’s sovereignty (the choice thing again). A consumerist society encourages its members both to find and express their personal indentity through the consumption of products. Its ultimate goal is the spread of happiness and well-being through the improvement of material conditions, and the creation and general increase of wealth.And if moral and spiritual values get in the way of that, well, hey babe, you can’t stop progress.
How can you be a traditional-values conservative in a society whose very economic structure is designed to separate you, your kids, and your community from those values, and each other? That is the question at the heart of this book.
Any philosophy that argues freedom isn’t a good thing is a) not really my idea of conservatism and b) not something I’ll be signing on to at any point in the near future.
Rod sounds like nn extraordinarily dispeptic individual! so more freedom and choice are bad??!! choice allows one to decide to be a “comsumerist”(whatever that means!),or not!without freedom their is no chance to decide to be dispeptic
or conservative(or,heaven forfend)
liberal!
Could you point me to where these people are saying they are against freedom?
From what I read, they are decrying the failings of consumerism which leads to the satisfaction of the perceived needs and wants of the individual at the expense of society (and its virtue) as a whole. In other words, they’re saying it sucks to be selfish, and a society fueled on consumerism creates selfishness.
And aren’t they Catholic, not Amish? Several of them were described as Catholic and quoted John Paul II more than once. I’ll go out on a limb and say these are probably orthodox Catholics, who go so far in rejecting “modernism” that they attend Church where the Mass is still said in Latin.
A sort of yang to fundamental Christians yin. Substitute their Birkenstocks and granola with hunting boots and Cheerios and the outlook is quite similar. Both sides espousing a distrust of change, but neither having a solution except to disengage themselves from the parts of the modern world that doesn’t make their lives too difficult. Witness the irony they themselves recognize in their use of computers. Do Amish Yahoo!?
I’m sorry, his rhetoric SCREAMS anti-capitalist/socialist.
Im still looking up the meanings of those fancy words
RE: “…Its ultimate goal is the spread of happiness and well-being through the improvement of material conditions, and the creation and general increase of wealth…And if moral and spiritual values get in the way of that, well, hey babe, you can’t stop progress.”
I would challenege this backward logic on display. Can you name a socialist country that supports religion? Please, someone expound to me the “spiritual values” of China and N Korea! Wasn’t it was Lennon that thought “spiritual values” got “in the way”?
On the other hand, can you name any country in which religion has flourished more than under the capitalist banner of the United States? Religion does far more in the way of charitable giving, lifting, and assistance to those in need than any other unit in society (I haven’t seen too many soup kitchens run by the Athiests Club). Wealth from free market capitalism tied with our deep spiritual values is what enables America to give more total aid than any other nation.
Some use people to make money.
In America we use money to help people.
You must define first what is a socialist country. Germany, France, Italy, England, and Canada, can all be considered socialist countries, and all of them support religion at least as well as America. China and N. Korea are communist, not socialist. But China becomes increasingly more capitalistic every day. I wonder if the Crunchy Cons will soon take issue with consumerism in China?
Christian religion may flourish in the United States, but it certainly flourishes even more in most any country in Latin America. And lest we forget, it’s the flourish of religion that’s at the root of our trouble in the Middle East. Religion certainly has its place, but it’s not at the reins of government. Unlike our Middle Eastern friends and enemies, America does an exceptionally fine job of maintaining the proper balance.
Some religions are known to be more generous than others. Seven out of the top ten contributing nations are predominantly Roman Catholic. Some examples are Austria, France, Luxembourg, and The Netherlands. America is predominantly Protestant.
America does give more total aid than any other nation, but we also have the biggest economy. On a per capita basis we lag behind eight other nations, all of which that could be defined as socialist European nations. Yes, America is a great and generous nation, but there is no corollary between capitalism, or socialism, and the generosity of a nation’s citizens.
My point is, again, that the free markets of America to not trample on “spititual values” as stated by the Crunchy Cons. It appears to be exactly the opposite. I say that Socialism is the cause of lost spirituality - where government takes the place of charitable acts normally perpetuated by religion.
The United States has a higher level of church attendance than any other country which is “at a comparable level of development.”
- 53% of Americans consider religion to be very important in their lives.
- This compares with 16% in Britain, 14% in France and 13% in Germany.
- Attendance in East Germany continues to decline, having dropped from 20% in 1991 to 9% in 1998.
- Five of eight ex-communist societies show an increase in church attendance.
(Institute for Social Research at the University of Michigan periodically conducts the World Values Survey.)
Here is another little tid-bit for crunching: Unemployment rates:
Canada - 6.8% (2005 est.)
Germany - 11.6% (2005 est.)
Italy - 7.9% (2005 est.)
France - 10% (2005 est.)
European Union - 9.4% (2005 est.)
United States - 5.1% (2005)
Those damn capitalists are just soo greedy!
I believe it is not so much the free market of America the Curnchy Cons have issue with, as it is consumerism. While consumerism may be a byproduct of a free market, it does not have to be. Compare the state of our social values prior to the 1980’s. Today, even the medicines we take are sold to us like the wares of a traveling salesman. We are repeatedly told we must have this, or we must have that, to achieve happiness. My understanding of the Crunchy Cons is that we should reject this idea of the possession of material things providing our happiness. While I might agree with many of their other ideas, I don’t find this a particularly bad idea.
The study quoted http://www.religioustolerance.org/rel_rate.htm which states “The United States has a higher level of church attendance than any other country which is “at a comparable level of development.” contains several other interesting bits of information of interest. Not least of which is the actual percentage of adults who attend religious services at least once a week. You can read the information yourself, but Nigeria topped the list at 89%, followed by Ireland at 84%. Neither of these made the top ten in terms of generosity. Of particular note is one of the old socialist nations, Slovakia, in which 47% attend regular services compared to the United States at 44%.
I won’t say that any of this matters much in terms of overall generosity, although Roman Catholicism does seem to be the biggest factor when comparing religion and generosity. Interesting that that is the religion of the Crunchy Cons.
I still posit that it is economic prosperity, i.e. wealth, that is the biggest corollary to total (not necessarily per capita) charitable givings. And it’s the United States, with it’s free market, capitalistic, consumer-based economy that leads in this category.
Japan, which is similarly blessed with capitalistic prosperity, sits near the bottom of most any generosity index. Are we to assume that is due to their lack of spirituality? Possibly, as they are at the bottom in weekly church attendance as well.
I say there is no easy answer.