Re: Crunchy oppression
[Rod Dreher  03/09 11:59 AM]

The last thing I want to do is start another endless round of back-and-forth with those determined not to take any of this neotraditionalism seriously, except as an occasion to have a laugh. I’m going to let this e-mail from a reader in Georgia — a guy who is not altogether sold on CC — speak for me. And then I am going to go back to talking about food, culture and tradition:

I've been following the discussion on the Crunchy blog and in The Corner with interest. Haven't had the time to do more than get the tiniest taste of the book itself yet, but shall soon.

Your "frat-boy sneering" remark zeroes in on the worst feature of the anti-crunchy commenters. I don't know what is driving this exactly: the tendency of seculars to be freaked out by the intensely religious, East-coast urbanite myopia, transmogrified hippie-hatred, touchiness about criticism (real or imagined) of one's own lifestyle, or something else entirely. But I have been taken aback by the intense, and sometimes flat-out nasty, reaction. I am a longtime enthusiastic NR/NRO supporter (and donor, to the extent my limited means allow). Last week, for the first time, I had had enough and regretfully sent in an e-letter of complaint.

Now I myself am hardly an uncritical fan of the crunchy movement. I have reacted to the blog with equal parts vigorous nodding and rueful head-shaking, and appreciate much of the thoughtful-yet-tough criticism. At least half of what Jonah had to say in his anti-Crunchy magnum opus the other day seemed right on target to me. It was a valuable contribution, setting out some wise "you don't want to go there" warning signs and highlighting areas where the Crunchy-Con idea is, at least so far, quite frankly a mess.

But there's good in it too. I see in the Crunchy Con idea the makings of a useful corrective to tendencies that need curbing; and plenty of ideas that may not always be new, but are certainly in need of rediscovery, reworking, and where necessary reclaiming from the Left. Yes, there is much that needs further development; and there are some aspects to it, some trappings here and there, that would be best discarded down the road. That some folks would disagree vigorously with this point or that is healthy and expected. That the very raising of those points so gets under their skin is just odd.

I mean, look at the National Review family more generally. It strives to be a broad church; and while it is rarely in the tank for anybody, disagreements with fellow conservatives (and even many centrists) are often carefully and respectfully — even regretfully — expressed. Especially compared to some of the crunchy-baiting I've seen going on around here.

Yes, setting up the blog on NRO was a very good thing, and is much appreciated. But just look at all the snark that's been directed at the blog. *This* is how you demonstrate that all of Rod's good ideas are already warmly accepted within mainstream conservatism, rendering his book and concept unnecessary? Sorry...blog or no blog, I'm not buying it.

Thanks for getting the debate started, giving folks like me plenty to agree with, disagree with, and gnaw on.

Of course, if you print this e-mail, I fully expect a response taunting us for being touchy-feely crypto-Lefties who just have our feelings hurt too easily...sigh...