Anyway, interesting responses from Caleb and Rod. Let me just say I don't think I'm doing nearly the question-begging that Caleb insists I am. I think I am actually dealing with the subject at hand, i.e. Crunchy Conservatism and the things said in its support. He says I'm committing the No True Scotsman's fallacy, by which he seems to be suggesting I'm making trivial or irrelevent criticisms. I say I'm dealing with Crunchy Conservatism on precisely the terms Rod lays out for us. I don't think anyone here is really doing justice to how categorical Rod is in his book in his distinction between Crunchy Conservatism and Mainstream Conservatism. If I point to evidence which contradicts Rod's caricature of Mainstream Conservatives it is not a trivial thing because Rod, and not I, is the one who starts from absolutist premises. But more about that later.

Also, it is not a trivial point for me to say that no conservative defends promiscuity nor has any conservative I know of ever taken anything like the position Berry ascribes to conservatives in that post. We are a movement of arguments and ideas, right? This blog is dedicated to dealing with those arguments and ideas, at least as they pertain to Crunchy Conservatism. Well, the position Berry takes has no spokesman on the right anywhere as far as I know. That is hardly a trivial point.

Meanwhile, it is flatly not true that conservatives do not denounce promiscuity or try to tackle it. This administration puts real dollars behind its advocacy of abstinence, here and abroad. Christian conservative Churches speak out against promiscuity. Right wing groups launch boycotts, letter writing campaigns and propose legislation for things like the V-Chip. They oppose distributing condoms in schools, precisely because they think doing so will promote promiscuity. Conservatives criticize the popular culture. And so on. Now, they may not do it enough. That's a legitimate argument to make. But it's patent nonsense to say they don't do it. That is not a trivial point.

Oh, and if we're going by the composite of a "crunchy conservative" as drawn by Rod's book and this blog, I see no evidence that crunchy conservatives have been any more active or important to the above efforts than "mainstream Republicans." Indeed, going by superficial impressions alone, it seems to me that Crunchy Cons have been much less involved in these fights than those Rod refers to in his book as Republican women with big hair. That is not a trivial point either.

I agree with Caleb that Rupert Murdoch is an illuminating example on many levels. I often refer to him when trying to rebut what I believe is the myth that corporations are "rightwing." Corporations are opportunists and little more.

But let me be clear: I don't think Caleb is making bad points. I think he's making excellent ones. But I'm increasingly very sympathetic to what I think I will henceforth call Caleb's Dilemma: He wants to argue about conservatism qua conservatism but he recognizes that the crunchy part of Rod's analysis gets in the way.

But as I said, more later.