"Dismissive" indeed
I just LOVE this from Dreher's letter to NRO complaining about Jonah Goldberg: "But the fact that he [Goldberg] dismisses a neo-traditionalist critique of the contemporary Right and of American life as mere 'popular liberal-Left assumptions' and even 'narcissism' says more about him [Goldberg] than it does about my book." Umm, who was dismissing whom here? Talk about dismissive - here is the sum and substance of Dreher's response to Goldberg, as published for all to read on the Crunchy con blog:
3/20: I’m not going to open up that “debate” here again.
3/9 The last thing I want to do is start another endless round of back-and-forth with those determined not to take any of this neotraditionalism seriously.
3/3: I’m just not interested in debating whether or not this sensibility exists, at least not in the few weeks this blog is going to be up on NRO....Just count me out. I’m not mad about it, just bored with it.
3/1: Jonah, honestly... I don’t want to get sidetracked into an endless discussion of right-wing tribal politics.
In other words, Dreher picked up his marbles and said, "I not playing!" Newsflash to Dreher: real, substantive critiques are meant to be challenged. Those who claim to have formulated such critiques are meant to respond directly to such challenges. If the formulator is incapable of such a response, such failure demonstrates the critique is so flawed as to be entirely without substance.
3/20: I’m not going to open up that “debate” here again.
3/9 The last thing I want to do is start another endless round of back-and-forth with those determined not to take any of this neotraditionalism seriously.
3/3: I’m just not interested in debating whether or not this sensibility exists, at least not in the few weeks this blog is going to be up on NRO....Just count me out. I’m not mad about it, just bored with it.
3/1: Jonah, honestly... I don’t want to get sidetracked into an endless discussion of right-wing tribal politics.
In other words, Dreher picked up his marbles and said, "I not playing!" Newsflash to Dreher: real, substantive critiques are meant to be challenged. Those who claim to have formulated such critiques are meant to respond directly to such challenges. If the formulator is incapable of such a response, such failure demonstrates the critique is so flawed as to be entirely without substance.
posted by kathleen at 5:33 PM
7 Comments:
I knew you guys really weren't gonna' close down shop. Not with Rod on the loose and Jonah twittin' him every chance he can.
They seem to have a real problem with honest debate and moderate challenges. I've learned this both from reading the CC blog and personally in my very brief email dialogue with a member of that blog. If they can't answer something, they get "bored with it" and drop the discussion.
In the crunchier times of the medieval villages debates were welcomed and objections were met with replies. Dreher missed his chance this time around, but maybe his next work could be a Summa Cruncilogica in the style of Aquinas' great work. Should sell well.
Thanks, HJ, that was definitely worth a listen. I understand Jonah's point and about narcissism better now. He goes a good ways toward explaining why purist ideologues on both sides get so pessimistic about their parties.
Jonah just pointed out this critique of Crunchy Conservatism by Joseph Rago on the New Criterion website.
pshaw. New Criterion -- another bunch of "mindless slobs". right Rovira/Neal Liszt?
Damn! That was such a beatdown Dreher's grandchildren are gonna have bruises.
Yeah - I feel mild in my criticisms of CC compared to comments like this latest one at the Right Reason post from a commentor named Dave:
My guess is that in 20 years, Rod will look at CRUNCHY CONS and say, "What the hell was I thinking?" Either that, or he'll be known as L. Rod Dreher, head of the Church of Crunchology.
Ooooooooooooh! and Tom Cruise's grandson will be on "Good Morning America" touting Granola as a cure for mental illness.
Post a Comment
<< Home