In a way I've not recovered, and the reason why ties in a bit with the subject of the moment. But first, let me take on a couple of other matters forthrightly.

I think Rod has raised quite important issues via this book, and I'm grateful. I can see some of the objections, but part of my problem is that I sit at a certain distance from the project and the conversations here, simply because I have little to no interest in how ideological conservatives define themselves. It's not *my* fundamental identity, not even politically. It's not that I don't find myself in agreement with many elements of conservative ideological self-identification, but at the end of the day, the arguments about the definition of "conservative" and its subgenres is not someting I can get really, really invested in.

If Rod interprets his conservativism in a Crunchy way, and sees his Crunchiness as rooted in conservative principles - so what? Personally, it makes a lot more sense than the whole South Park Republican subgenre, but then again, at a certain level I can see that too.

Contra much of the discussion here and comments in certain reviews, I didn't experience Crunchy Cons as work in which the emphasis was on telling other self-identified conservatives how to live. It was, for the most part, an explanation of how the life that the Drehers and others like them lead is rooted in conservative principles. It all comes back to the intial experience of being at the end of "conservative" scorn for shopping at the food co-op and wearking Birkenstocks. "Wow, that's liberal of you." "Well, no it's not, and let me explain why."

Granted, Rod does get in the prophet groove, and it's strong, and it's challenging. But given the flux within conservatives and the constant conversations about conservative identity, I see this as one more interesting ingredient to the mix.

But as I said, that is a wrap-up digression, so on to religion.