March 10, 2006
WRTA
 Brown
Shoes Diary
Crunchy Con-fusion
In a recent wrta.com essay [Consider Yourself a
Conservative?], Patrick Irwin implies that true conservatives are of the
crunchy variety as described in Rod Dreher's book,
Crunchy Conservatism. The
short of Mr. Dreher's complaint against conservatism is its trust of markets
and freedom. True conservative and liberty-lover that I am, I have a problem
with his complaint. And based on Mr. Dreher's Crunchy-Con Manifesto, I would
say it has nothing coherent to say about conservatism. Let's look at the
points of the Manifesto to see how little sense they make for anybody, least
of all conservatives.
Point 1 is the assertion that Crunchy-Cons are outside the mainstream and
therefore see things more clearly. I suppose if you're sitting on the bank of
a river you can see the river more clearly than someone kayaking or swimming
in it, but I think the kayaker and swimmer have the better perspective on what
a river is all about. In any case, the assertion of point 1 is just an ad
hominem argument of no real merit.
Point 2 of the Manifesto is that modern conservatism has become too focused on
money, power, and the accumulation of stuff, and insufficiently concerned with
the content of our individual and social character. That may or may not be
true. In fact, America has had a strong Calvinist strain that suggests that
material wealth stems from moral worth. As a general statement of principle,
that's better than anything in Mr. Dreher's Manifesto. Some folks who claim
the conservative label, however, do care a lot about money and not so much
about character and values. That says nothing about true conservatism; it
just means that hypocrisy is not a sin reserved to the left. Obviously, many
of the wealth-creators in society are sympathetic to the idea of property
rights, a hallmark of the conservative philosophy. What's so awful about
that?
Point 3 of the Manifesto says that Big Business deserves as much skepticism as
Big Government. Well, not hardly. Large corporations are not only in
competition with other large corporations, but with a bunch of small
businesses too. Checks and balances are inherent in the free market
production of goods and services unless, of course, the government
interferes. Big Government, by definition, has a fearful monopoly of force.
The national government of the United States directly controls 23% of GDP and
indirectly another 10% to 15% through law and regulations. No business, not
even Evil Wal-Mart and Eviler ExxonMobil combined, has anywhere near that
power. Plus, government?s job is to protect our property, but if it runs
roughshod over it, as it often does, we have nowhere else to go short of
revolution. Big Business needs as much skepticism as Big Government? Only if
you think a jaywalker is as serious a public threat as a serial murderer.
Point 4 states that culture is more important than politics and economics. So
maybe Crunchy-Cons do understand that Big Government deserves more skepticism
than Big Business after all. Government has the power to shut down both
culture and economics. But keep in mind that there is no conflict between
culture and economics since economics is simply the science of how humans go
about achieving ends through particular means.
Point 5 is the essence of Crunchy Conservatism: A conservatism that does not
practice restraint, humility, and good stewardship -- especially of the
natural world -- is not fundamentally conservative. But there are lots of
things to conserve besides the natural world. Why does it get priority? The
time, energy, effort, and costs of recycling, for example, can be worth a lot
more than whatever natural resource is "saved." That can be and often is a
bad tradeoff. True conservatives understand the fundamental problem of
conserving resources always involves tradeoffs and these tradeoffs are better
evaluated in private markets rather than through the corrupt and coercive
process of politics.
How about point 6: Small, Local, Old, and Particular are almost always better
than Big, Global, New, and Abstract? Think about that the next time you need
medical attention or you want to buy a car or you want food to eat or you want
an education or you want to travel to appreciate other cultures or you want to
? Yes, point 6 is a good one if you?re Amish, but I think most of us,
conservatives and non-conservatives alike, want a culture that?s a wee bit
richer than that.
Point 7 says beauty is more important than efficiency. But that?s like saying
baseball is more important than TV. These are two vastly different things
that are not comparable. Beauty is always in the eye of the beholder, while
efficiency is the careful use (think conservation) of resources to reach a
particular goal. Anybody who thinks point 7 is coherent has a short-circuit
in his brain. And anybody that thinks efficiency is incompatible with
conservatism doesn't understand the terms they're using.
I can?t argue with point number 8: The relentlessness of media-driven pop
culture deadens our senses to authentic truth, beauty, and wisdom. But what
does that have to do with conservatism? Still, I have to ask, is the media
driving the culture or merely responding to it? How could we tell if the
media is capable of manipulating everyone in society or it's merely a tool
used by various peoples? And what exactly is ?authentic? truth, beauty, and
wisdom? Without a free market to argue over these things, we would have to
put some authoritarian in charge of truth, beauty and wisdom. How long would
they last then? Read George Orwell?s 1984
to get an idea. Without liberty you can forget about having anything of
permanent and lasting value.
I also can't argue with point number 9: The family is the most important
institution in society. But how it's defined makes all the difference and I
have a lot more confidence in the traditional understanding of family than
some of the ideas being pushed today.
Finally, point 10: Politics and economics won't save us; if our culture is to
be saved at all, it will be by faithfully living by the Permanent Things,
conserving these ancient moral truths in the choices we make in our everyday
lives. Notice the words "save" and "faithfully" as if this is a religion Mr.
Dreher is advocating. But I think we all agree the ancient moral truths are
worthy of conserving. And that begins with the truth of the intrinsic worth
of every human being, which can only exist in a regime of liberty. That is
why the free market is indispensable in a true (non-crunchy) conservative's
view of the world.
The opinions and ideas expressed in this essay are those ONLY of John D
McGinnis and should not be considered representative of WRTA.com, any
institution with which McGinnis is associated, or anyone else. He can be
contacted at zoiprof@atlanticbb.net.
Contact John D McGinnis
Back to
Main Page of Brown Shoes Diary
|