|
Thursday, March 02, 2006As someone who has drifted libertarian (small-l, thank you) in response to Christian and compassionate conservatisms' desire for government to do more in certain areas, I think Jonah Goldberg is right on target in his criticism of crunchy cons.If asked, I identify myself as a libertarian conservative. This assures that I will not be mistaken for a conservative, and conservatives will not be mistakenly accused of thinking like me. Ditto for libertarians. Here's the thing: Just as George W defined himself consciously as not one of "those conservatives" (his father did the same thing with the "kinder, gentler nation" riff), I'm consciously defining myself out of mainstream conservatism. Rod and the crunchy cons are too. Once you stop being part of a mainstream and join a separate if purportedly associated ideology, you deserve to be subject to intellectual scrutiny: what's the use in having an intellectual movement if no one cares to scrutinize your thoughts? Jonah's scrutiny, in this regard, is invaluable: it takes the crunchy cons seriously enough to notice that the fruits and veggies aren't the only organic stuff in abundance. Get out your kneeboots, because being a crunchy con defines against two groups: it tells the left that you're not one of "those conservatives," but it's real foundation is an effort to assure the right that you haven't become another damn hippie. Otherwise, why align yourself with a movement you malign? Though I live in California, have been known to eat healthy food - even from Whole Foods! - and for the most part eschew television and radio as wells of poison, I'm not about to become a crunchy con. Being of the conservative bent in the old style, the last thing I want is some otherwise right-thinking chap to come up and tell me why I should be shopping at stores that care. Being of the liberal bent (old style) on economic matters, the last thing I want is some otherwise right-thinking chap to start telling others where to shop. I'd be curious to know what a truly great conservative like Florence King would think of the crunchy cons. I can't imagine her feeling comfortable with their levels of enthusiasm or their desire to share the good news, even on the points with which she agreed with them. I think that here we're getting to the base of Jonah's argument - though please read it: it's sharper and more historically informed than this scribble - Rod seems so hell-bent on proselytizing for his "better way" that he's turning his old crowd into a vague and displeasing other in order to highlight his shiny new ideas. But in truth, being a crunchy con can only mean one of two things: being a conservative who enjoys the marketplace's ability to provide the stuff of living an individual life crunchily - i.e. a conservative with a unique and personal temperament, i.e. a conservative, end of story - or being something other than a conservative. If being a crunchy con begins and ends with hoping that the crunchy life comes out on top in a free market of ideas ordered within a democratic society rooted in law, bully for the crunchy cons. If being a crunchy con means hoping for government to push or incentivize crunchyism, that, to me, is about as conservative as being "conservative" because you want the country ruled by judicial fiat from the right instead of from the left. 
posted by gbarto at 2:51 PM |
Archives
|
Day By Day© by Chris Muir.Old TurkeyBlog here.
