Crunchy Cons made a big media splash when it appeared and—as expected—attracted a good deal of contumely from neoconservatives, some of it thoughtful, most of it hysterical. Many right-wing Americans cannot conceive that there was any such thing as conservatism B.R. (Before Reagan) or that uncritical worship of the free market undermines the foundations of the social order. Despite the intentionally hyperbolic claim in its subtitle that the book’s ideas would save the Republican Party, Crunchy Cons did not suggest a political program but rather called for conservatives—especially religious conservatives—to rethink their way of life in light of first principles and reform accordingly.
So, did it work? The evidence is not strong that Crunchy Cons made much difference, politically or otherwise. The one area in which it seemed that a crunchy-con sensibility might have some impact—the nascent enthusiasm of young Evangelicals for environmental protection—has largely dissipated amid continuing economic anxiety.
Realistically, there never was a real chance that crunchy conservatism was going to take off. For one thing, it lacked a defined program or a clear constituency. For another, Americans don’t like to be told to live within limits, even if you can justify that stance by reference to traditional religion and conservative political philosophy. In a country whose approach to religion has become therapeutic, not prophetic—oriented toward feeling good about oneself rather than doing the right thing—a Kirkian conservatism is bound to be a hard sell.
From The Greening of Conservatism
What ever happened to the Birkenstocked Burkeans?
More from Rod Dreher: Egalitarians vs. gifted kids
What would Mencken have done to Limbaugh?
Mead: Fear the Identity Wars (a response to Mead by Daniel Larison)
No comments:
Post a Comment