I agree that my dilemma is that I'm being strawmanned. It's fascinating to me how people in this blog have bought into the assumption that crunchy conservatism is synonymous with good or true conservatism and therefore any objection to it must rest on trivial objections or my own misunderstanding rather than on any sound or serious objection to Rod's thesis or his analysis. So much of the argumentation in here is premised on the idea that to disagree with Rod is to disagree with, say, Russell Kirk or even traditional conservatism qua traditional conservatism. Sorry, but I'm not buying it.
