Tuesday, April 25, 2006

Sinless Cons

In considering Dreher's arguments in Crunchy Cons, I realize his failure to define "crunchy" lies in the fact that if he defined it, the outrageousness and presumption of his ideas about conservatism -- actually about everything -- would be brought to light. For to replace every use of the word "crunchy" in Dreher's writing with the word "sinless", or "virtuous", changes Dreher's points not. a. whit. So there you go: Crunchy = Sinless = Virtuous.

Discerning this true meaning of "Crunchy" gives the lie, once and for all, to Dreher's repeated insistence that his vision is merely a "sensibility, perhaps even a critique, not a philosophy or a political or religious program". (Muncy, NRO crunch blog, Feb 24). But we knew this already. "[I]t is not a pallid work of sociology", as George Nash observed in his WSJ review of Sinless Cons/Crunchy Cons, but "a rousing altar call to spiritual secession from an America that Mr. Dreher sees as awash in materialism...." In other words, the sinless con/crunchy con argument can be summarized thusly: MAINSTREAM CONSERVATIVES ARE SINNERS! REPENT! REPENNNNNNNT!

Replacing "crunchy" with "sinless" is even more fun when reading that Dreher refers to his wife as "Mrs Crunch" (dreher, 2/24, NRO crunch blog)! That must make him Mr. Crunch, and if A=B, then Mr. Crunch = Mr. Sinless = Mr. Virtuous. Mr. Virtuous. That's our Rod.

mad libs for sinful/contra crunchies. kind of.

5 Comments:

Blogger Pauli said...

Nice call. Also note: "The ROD of correction imparts wisdom" (Proverbs 29:15)

6:40 PM  
Blogger Bubba said...

"Indeed, one could go through the entire book and simply scratch out the phrase 'crunchy conservatives' and replace it with 'good conservatives' and Rod's meaning would rarely, if ever, change. Because, you see, crunchy cons are the ones who 'get it,' they are in the know on the Gnostic insight to the good life. Everyone else has blinders on. Rod even writes that he 'doesn't expect conventional liberals and conservatives to get crunchy conservatism.'"

Jonah Goldberg, beating around the bush when our Kathleen pulls no punches -- mixaphorically speaking.

7:18 PM  
Blogger kathleen said...

Sheesh, i'm the Doris Kearns Goodwin of the contra crunch blogosphere. It was unintentional! I swear!

7:17 AM  
Blogger Pauli said...

Well, Rod just weighed in on the Tony Snow appointment in classic Rod style.

Maybe I'm dense, but I've read the criticisms Snow made about Bush and I don't see how they're "nasty", and maybe I'm naive, but I just don't see the administration as a bunch of paranoid critic-silencers with an enemies list including the likes of Tony Snow. Isn't that kind of a liberal stereotype? Weren't/aren't conservatives more irritated that Bush was not being critical enough of former Clintonian's in top positions? Oh - sorry, those are mainstream conservatives I'm thinking of, whoops.

I've said it before - as much as the guy knows about NFP and vegetables, he just doesn't get politics. He still hasn't responded to my question about crunch ratings.

9:50 AM  
Blogger kathleen said...

thanks for the laugh of the day rayrod:

"moral preening? Moi?!"

11:21 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home