I think what has struck me about some of the reaction to the CC thesis is that, as Bruce points out, every challenge, no matter how mild, seems to be regarded as an intrusion. I don’t like being challenged, but I don’t consider it a violation, so I’m curious about this reaction. (I don’t think you were suggesting this, but I’ll just say I don’t think I’ve made invidious comparisons between CCs and “mainstream” conservatives.)

I suppose I’m thinking of Crunchy Conservatism in the same terms in which Mark Henrie has described “traditionalist conservatism”: “It might be said that traditionalist conservatism is not yet a political theory but rather a tradition of social criticism that is working its way to a political philosophy adequate to its deepest moral intuitions.” Mark points out that just as liberalism doesn’t seem to have a satisfactory account of the moral life, traditionalist conservatism doesn’t seem to have an adequate account of politics, so there is, in a real sense, no traditionalist political program.

There are, of course, debatable ideas and principles behind Rod’s arguments, but I don’t know that they amount to a philosophy. That’s why I assent to the use of the term “sensibility”, though perhaps it’s not quite accurate. I’m reminded of V.S. Naipaul’s (insulting, granted) description of one of his characters: she had a lot of opinions that didn’t add up to a point of view. In the same way, I think one can have a coherent point of view that isn’t its own philosophy.