CRUNCH: Last night Shamed, Russo and I went to one of those AFF deals (free food! fun people!), where Rod Dreher talked about “crunchy conservatism.” I have to say that I am not very sold on the importance or coolness of this particular accumulation of preferences and beliefs–I’m not into communitarianism, for one thing. But there are two aspects of “crunchy conservatism” that I do find interesting and worthy of notice: First, Jon Adler pointed out that in large part the “crunchy” concern for stuff like “authenticity” (eep) and groundedness is a reaction against prevailing relativism. That rings true to me, and it’s admirable.

Second, the crunchies’ attitude toward stuff and consumer culture is troubled, I think–to what extent is “shabby genteel” simply its own demographic? to what extent is crunchy conservatism merely another market niche, with its associated accessories and branding? The more self-consciously “crunchy” people become, I think, the more commodified their dissent will be. However, that said, there’s a tendency especially among Reason-style libertarians to assume that all dissent is ultimately commodified (and that’s a good thing)–that all attempts to distance oneself emotionally from one’s consumer goods are merely masquerades, that detachment from the passing things of this world is simply a preference for building one’s identity around certain less-popular consumer goods, rather than a radically different stance toward the value of consumer goods and the source of personal identity. In other words–sorry for the abstract language there–it really is possible and necessary to be not just someone who prefers Gruyere to Velveeta, but someone who prepares himself to sacrifice even the best consumer goods for the sake of disciplining the will, raising more children, keeping in mind the evanescence of this world, and putting God first.

And finally, the crunchy-con thing made me think about rocknroll conservatism. Specifically, it made me think we really need a new name for it! RNRC makes it sound much too much like a description of a consumer demographic, a la bobos, rather than an analytic lens for viewing political problems. I do believe in labels–as “The Big Lebowski” notes, you need an ethos; and consciously having a philosophical framework makes it a lot easier to understand new concepts and new problems–but this particular label seems less than maximally helpful. Suggestions?