A commenter recently pointed me to Rod Dreher’s book (and blog) Crunchy Cons in response to my thoughts on the politicization of choosing an agrarian lifestyle. Truth be told, I’ve always had an uneasy feeling reading about this idea of “crunchy” conservatism. What does a political philosophy have to do with your choice of breakfast cereal and how do entire movements get identified with a brand of shoe? How have values connected to returning to the land, living more simply, considering where your food comes from and what happens to the waste that leaves your home become so connected with far-left ideology that a conservative feels uncomfortable expressing any of them?
Has conservatism so lost its sense of self that it, too, believes the hype about being soulless, mindless adherents to a consumerist culture of greed? The environmentalist movement with all its emphasis on “green living” has annoyed me for some time. Cleaning with vinegar and baking soda, turning out the lights, conserving water, considering purchases more carefully, reusing, recycling . . . these aren’t the sudden discoveries of a political class more concerned about the environment than your average gun-toting red stater. They are the tangible expressions of the values I grew up with: Work hard, remember what really matters and clean up your own messes.
When the World Wildlife Fund organized Earth Hour, an hour of “lights out” across the globe, I thought it a little hokey, and wondered what they really thought they’d gain by it. When conservatives stamped their feet and declared that not only would they not participate, but they’d turn on every light in the house, I was annoyed. Those types of temper tantrums are wholly reactionary, and completely disconnected from any coherent political philosophy. Being conservative isn’t about turning on lights, wasting resources and higher utility bills, so why the foot stomping? So the lights in Chicago dimmed and people enjoyed the stillness for an hour. Welcome to my world, where I can see the Milky Way from my backyard.
Russell Kirk, who gave shape to the conservative movement of the 1950′s wrote in The Politics of Prudence,
The best way to rear up a new generation of friends of the Permanent Things is to beget children, and read to them o’ evenings, and teach them what is worthy of praise: the wise parent is the conservator of ancient truths.
Permanent things. Like love, duty, justice, charity, hard work. To “conserve” means to save. To protect. To preserve. To economize. It is not synonymous with consumption, waste and the interests of major corporations.
Perhaps it would be well, most of the time, to use this word “conservative” as an adjective chiefly. For there exists no Model Conservative, and conservatism is the negation of ideology: it is a state of mind, a type of character, a way of looking at the civil social order. Ten Conservative Principles by Russell Kirk
This state of mind, this type of character, this way of looking at the civil social order can be accomplished in a variety of ways. But “returning to the land” certainly fits with the essence of all that is conservative, and connects us to part of America’s spiritual heritage. It is not inherently liberal, and I have no desire to separate myself from the label “conservative” with the addition of an adjective that implies that somehow what I’m doing really isn’t.
Welcome to Roscommon Acres, my little home in the country. I write here about life more abundantly, from the joy of a baby’s smile to the almost unbearable grief of losing a son. I am seeking beauty instead of ashes, the oil of joy instead of mourning, a garment of praise instead of the spirit of despair (Isaiah 61:3).
Just place "Tiggy" in the subject line.
Interesting post!
Last year or so when a Canadian friend of mine was bashing Republicans as rich, white bigots I did a quick, little Google research on the party to show her that Republicans actually formed as a means of helping to end slavery –ironic as that may seem now. Another interesting thing was that the original party concerned with the environment was the Republican party. Somewhere along the way, amid all the infighting, some things seemed to switch sides. And as you know Dana, I am not a Republican (nor a Democrat any longer, for that matter)–I just dislike misinformation being lauded as fact, and labeling Republicans as rich, white bigoted men was so harsh!
All of which brought me full circle to the label of crunchy–I too have struggled with it, was struggling with it. Not quite seeing myself as a tree-hugger I began to look into the ideas of environmentalist, conservationist, etc. Even came in close contact with it during our homeschooling experiment when we met Woldorf leaning families v Montessori leaning families v. many other leaning families. Where to place myself? As it seemed almost all of our homeschooling families were placing themselves. And I too saw a return to some very basic American values and ways of living, so why the need for a distinction?
I guess I placed myself somewhere along the lines of a conservationist–wanting to conserve some aspects of the simple life, the beauty and benefits of the natural world/outdoors, our resource whether they be water, aluminum, electricity or our hard earned money, time and values.
Am I crunchy–I a little bit. But to be honest, the idea of being the opposite of crunchy just didn’t set well with me: jello or oatmeal LOL
This post speaks to me because I live in another odd quadrant, whatever we might call a secular humanist politically progressive homeschooler –
“Choice” is the puzzle for me, not crunch. I don’t get why some choice advocacy is liberal and some conservative, and never the twain shall meet. I’m for it all. To me it makes perfect sense to be for individual private choice of all kinds or else to argue for an authoritarian society in which private choice is generally less valued (like China, say) but not to see government as a champion of MY freedom and the enforcer against YOURS.
Conservative then and now is generally the same in spirit. Republicans were and has always been the party for conservation, civil rights, and prosperity for all. The little guy in particular. The guilty (left) always use the art of transference to make themselves seem less suspicious. If they make enough noise, false accusations and propaganda about their political opponents it deflects suspicion from them for it is really they that are the guilty ones. I have seen it all my life. When you see a leftist point a finger it is always to make himself look innocent. He never fights using truth (or should I say fact since the definition of truth has been changed to mean what ever you want it to mean).
It’s the movement thing that gets me. Does everything have to be a movement? Do we have to constantly be joining things and marching with lock step with others? And why do movement leaders tend to think their the first people in the history of the world who care, who get it, who can save the world?
Bleh.
Adjective
Political labels are moving targets. To say conservativism has always been this or always been that is inaccurate – it has changed as the times have changed. The conservative policies of one Republican president are very different from those of another one decades later.
The previous Administration essentially denied the existence of global warming, even as scientists all over the world were measuring the shrinkage of the polar ice caps. That is mostly why people do not associate conservatives these days with conservation and other environmental issues. Hopefully that will change and leaders of both political parties will agree that these issues are a priority for our country.
Warren, there are liars on both the left and the right. There are also people who speak truth on either side. Let us not demonize those who disagree with us. Let us instead find a middle ground from which to move America forward into the future.
I read Dreher’s book a few years ago and found it rather shallow. Not because he didn’t say compelling things, but he had yet to really live out those things for any great length of time. He talked about homeschooling, buying local, organic living but the transformation in his own life was in its infancy, untested by time and circumstances. It wasn’t too long after that, Dreher announced he gave up homeschooling. Understandable in its place, many start off homeschooling and decide it’s not for them but what to do with the decision in light of his book? How many other “crunchy” ideas were promoted but also abandoned?
Dreher would have been better to muse on his blog about this a little bit more before writing his book. I think that over time what is truly “conservative” would have emerged (many of those you mentioned in your post) making the adjective “crunchy” unnecessary.
My apologies for not participating in my own discussion yesterday. I was wandering around lost in northeastern Nebraska all afternoon.
Shawna, your comment made me laugh. You can write a book about Jell-o conservatives.
JJ Ross, I agree with you there. I don’t really understand how certain activities get politicized, whether it is a simple garden, a flock of chickens or homeschooling.
Warren, I don’t know what to say except that it feels weird to call you by your first name, so hi dad! Thanks for dropping in and commenting!
Thanks for the grammar check, suburbancorrespondent! Had my mind still stuck on conservative being an adjective from the quote. I don’t really accept Bush as conservative, so he isn’t really the best example. He was in some areas, but he, too, chose to qualify the term “conservative” with his brand of “compassionate conservative.”
I certainly agree that there are liars and honest people on both sides of the aisle, but I’m not so sure I agree with seeking a middle ground. Our political system is designed to temper extremes and push us toward the middle, which is fine, but continual compromise really only seems capable of pushing us in one direction, and perhaps one that no one really wants to go in.
Thanks, Spunky! I suppose I should be clear that I haven’t actually read his book, though I want to. I was only responding to the idea and the essays he’s written online. I think we should be examining what conservatism really is and communicating that rather than continually reacting.
I think the theoretical definition of conservativism is pretty known, but the operational definition is more fluid. How does a conservative live?
Dreher identifies lifestyle choices that are more often seen with liberals but increasingly by conservatives and thus declares these conservatives are “crunchy.” But buying organic foods or homeschooling are choices that come from one’s worldview and both liberal and conservatives can arrive at the same concluding action but from vastly different perspectives on life.
For me I don’t ask how a conservative must live, but how must a Christian live? Out of that question will flow both political and practical applications.
I so enjoyed this post. I don’t have time right now, though, to explain why.
Here’s my take on Rod Dreher: he’s a yuppie and he began noticing a significant minority of fellow yuppies who, like him, are turned off by both of the predominant strains of yuppiedom- the country club set of Big Business conservatives and what Bill O’Reilly calls “the secular-progressives”. So he dubs them “crunchy cons” and writes a book about them to a yuppie audience. He lives in a yuppie bubble so he doesn’t really see that what may be new to yuppies isn’t so new after all among regular folks.
I can say this because I’m one of those “crunchy con” yuppies
BTW Dreher and his wife did resume homeschooling after trying a private Christian school. Their son has some sort of learning disability (ADHD perhaps?) so it’s understandable why they were unsure of the best placement for him.
Great post. I was thinking of you today, and loved having a moment to drop in and see the photo of the farm.
For me I don’t ask how a conservative must live, but how must a Christian live?
Even harder to stereotype than conservative-liberal, wouldn’t it be? I have to agree with suburbcorr’s very civil comments about not lumping all people together by one factor to be dehumanized and dismissed as liars and thieves. That sort of one-dimensional labeling doesn’t fit anyone well, not feminists or traditionalists, ethnicities, parties, religions, profession or lifestyle type.