Crunchy Agonistes
[Rod Dreher  03/08 08:57 AM]

A very thoughtful letter from a skeptical reader:

I've been trying to do a real examination of conscience of late, as I've noticed the visceral reaction of myself, and others like Mr. Podhoretz and Mr. Goldberg, to the discussions of your book on the CrunchyCon blog. More so then other debates on NRO, this seems to hit home in a powerful way. Perhaps it's because the life advocated by you and your fellow Crunchies is so wholly different from the life I have chosen, as a single, twenty-something graduate student living and working in Washington DC, far from my family in Upstate New York. In almost everyway, my lifestyle is as un-crunchy as you can get. I'd say I'm reasonably comfortable with my choices, but of course, the temptation for moral and spiritual laziness abounds in my life (as it does in any life, I imagine).

I've found that I'm both annoyed by some of the commentary on the blog (particularly the distrust and misunderstanding of economic liberty and the free market that seems to be so pervasive) and still somehow attracted to ? and to be honest, frightened by ? the ideas presented by your commentators. The arguments for the connection of the agrarian tradition, the simple life, community, and virtue are quite compelling. But, on the other hand, I'm a city boy, with little desire to go Green Acres. Perhaps that's what's causing me some distress.

For example, would you argue that the lifestyle advocated by, say, Mr. Stegall, represents a vocation that all are called to? I guess I've always found arguments for such a lifestyle interesting on an intellectual level, but frustrating at the same time. Mr. Stegall rails against higher education, processed food, technology, and, essentially anyone ever leaving the family farm, even as an adult. So should I drop out of school, move back home, and buy a couple of dairy cows? Find a willing girl and start reproducing children as fast as possible, whom I will never let leave and make their own way in the world? Even if such a life doesn't make the best use of my talents or have much appeal to me?
I'm not trying to be antagonistic or impertinent; I've really done some soul searching the last few weeks on these questions. Some of Mr. Stegall's and the rest of your bloggers' criticisms are no doubt justified, and things that most conservatives would agree with on some level.

But at the same time, it's hard to see how freeing the majority of humanity from the drudgery of 8 hours a day behind an ox-pulled plow or back-breaking labor in the fields should be universally condemned. The luxury we all enjoy to write and read books and blog entries about philosophical matters is in direct proportion to the God-given creativity and innovativeness employed by others to ease some of life's burdens. Again, there is always temptation in leisure, and if we use our free time for ill or in ways detrimental to our souls, perhaps we would be better off behind the plow. But I can't help but wonder what other actions against modern life some of you and your colleagues would have us take, and what we might have to sacrifice in pursuit of this agrarian ideal.

Should we pour out our antibiotics and smash our x-ray machines in some neo-Luddite rage, no matter how many lives they've saved? Or, like the totalitarian government in Atlas Shrugged, perhaps we should set annual limits on consumption and production, not just of material goods, but of books and ideas as well. And what of our scientific explorations, say of the solar system, which are no doubt a waste of resources that could be better spent in distributing garden hoes to every American, no matter if curiosity and a hunger to explore are hardwired into the human spirit (and, I suspect, were put there by a knowing God to lead us back to Him).

I'm afraid this letter is turning far longer and more vehement than I meant it to, which I suppose is testament to the fact that your book has hit a nerve. And the protestations of Mr. Goldberg aside, I think you have documented a real phenomenon — perhaps not a new conservative subgroup, but the re-emergence of some very old but very important ideals.

I guess basically my long-winded point is that this way of life may not be for everyone. Perhaps those of us not so interested in taking it up (while still attracted to its aims and objectives) are like the rich young man in the Gospels, and we will face divine justice for our obstinacy. Or perhaps, as I suspect, giving up the things of this world is an intensely personal struggle, one which each individual must go through on his own. For some, like you CrunchyCons or Thomas Merton, it may be going straight back to the farm or monastery (again, though, I wonder how far back some people think we should go). For others it may be a more circuitous path. Regardless, thanks for provoking some serious thought on these questions.