Eunomia

The "Crunchy Commune", as Jim Geraghty calls it on his own National Review blog TKS, makes for fun reading. I don't think Rod Dreher is a true believer in all the cunchy stuff. After all, on the blog itself he advertised his appearance at Borders.

And Borders is a perfect example of the big-is-beautiful capitalism Rod says he dislikes: 1,200 stores and $3.5 billion in annual sales. And the company peddles some interesting products on its web site, like the all-nude workout video for gay men. So much for the anti-capitalist, anti-promiscuity line Rod peddles.

This actually makes me think better of Dreher, because he doesn't take his nuttiness to an extreme. But Caleb Stegall appears to be a true believer, intent on telling us how to live. He even challenged fellow NR staffers on their family lives, then took the challenge down. Maybe somebody leaned on him, maybe he had second thoughts. But Stegall has said enough other disturbing things to make it clear he believes Father Caleb Knows Best for you and your family.

Just to avoid sounding like an old grump, or even a new grump, Nick Schulz just posted the best thing that's yet appeared on the Crunchy Commune. It's a tremendously sensible reminder that the market is hardly the threat to the so-called "permanent things" the crunchies say they venerate.

So Rod can do his Borders appearances with a clear conscience. (Oops, sorry, a grumpiness eruption.) Still, many thanks to Nick for such a beuatifully phrased recognition that the failings of the human heart are not the fault of capitalism, but the fault of our ever-fallible humanity.

Yes, Mr. Abell, there's nothing so troubling as people who actually take their beliefs seriously and entertain the notion that moral truths are well, true and morally binding. Very inconvenient. Far better to be the sort of man who mocks the entire enterprise, right?

So Mr. Abell believes that Rod is out to do what exactly--make a quick buck off of those silly counter-cultural people he writes about? I suppose if we were all really counter-cultural, we wouldn't buy the book in the first place, lest we submit to some sordid publishing empire. That attitude would, of course, be foolish. When someone uses the structures he criticises to undermine those structures, that is ironic, not contradictory.

Apparently that alleged opportunism (which I feel sure Rod would resent and reject vehemently) would be better than taking these things seriously. I have never understood how someone speaking intelligently about the requirements of a sober and virtuous life can be "disturbing." Then again, I suppose they should be disturbing to those who have so far missed the point of valuing the permanent things.

I also don't quite understand people who recognise the fallibility of human nature, but see no value in making the best effort possible to restore ourselves to our proper nature as much as is humanly possible. That is simply the attitude of a modern cynic, and it is a shame that anyone puts stock in it. But someone who refers to "so-called permanent things," as if these did not exist or were not worth venerating, never had any interest in anything Rod had to say in the first place.

"When someone uses the structures he criticises to undermine those structures, that is ironic, not contradictory."

I don't mind repeating myself. I LIKE Dreher using Borders to sell his book and make more money. By the way, he's plugging his Borders appearance again on the Crunchy Commune.

I have no problems at all with Borders, a large capitalist enterprise that generates wealth and offers a wide variety of products to its customers. If Dreher offered his book exclusively through mom-and-pop Christian bookstores - something he could easily do - than I'd actually get a little worried. I don't mind a little hypocrisy. It's much better than a lot of zealotry.

Oh sure, Dreher's use of Big Amoral Capitalism to make more money might be mildly irritating to fellow ideologues. But to repeat myself again, I really don't mind it at all...because I'm not one of Dreher's fellow ideologues. It's that simple.

As for Stegall, he has commented that people who move away from their family are "selfish" and parents who use day-care centers are "negligent." Yes, I do find these statements disturbing and priggish judgments on other people. We'll just have to agree to disagree on him.

I'm not going to call Rod appearing at a Borders hypocrisy. It is bringing a much-needed message to the tables of the money-changers, if you like, borrowing a reference from the not-very-compelling Nick Schulz post.

A lot of zealotry? If that's what you find in Caleb's posts, you must be zeal-intolerant to detect any. I suppose Caleb does discern something wrong with moving away from your family for reasons less substantial than real economic necessity (hence he calls it what it seems to be, selfish), and he regards day-care as negligent because, well, it is the organised, deliberate neglect of children by both of their parents. That latter point is an assessment based in conviction that handing children off to such institutions is wrong and actually harmful in some ways to the children. We could dispute over whether it is harmful or not, but if it is it begs the question why people who espouse a particularly strong fidelity to family subject their children to this (especially if it is not strictly "we need the extra income to avoid penury" necessary). The conservatives Caleb critiques accuse themselves by their own actions--complaining about Caleb's alleged priggishness does nothing to change that.

There are prigs in the world (though I hardly find Caleb to be one of them), and perhaps for their own spiritual well-being they ought not to judge, but if we're going to have a debate about a practical conservative ethics and the habits required to practise it there will be no avoiding critiquing how other people live. Complaining about someone being judgemental or complaining about "telling someone how to live his life" only confirms to the crunchies and their friends out there that the critics represent the very sorts of attitudes Rod critiques in the book.

As I said, I find Stegall's comments disturbing and unjustified condemnations of other people. We can't and won't convince each other on this.

I moved away from my family to serve in the Peace Corps, which was hardly a case of economic necessity (to put it mildly). I've also moved away from my hometown to find a better job to support me and my family. If these moves makes me selfish in Stegall's priggish view, I honestly could not care less.

I've also used baby sitters to look after my children, though not organized day-care centers. If that makes me negligent in Stegall's view, again I absolutely don't care. I won't be quite as harsh towards Stegall's comments as Jim Geraghty is on National Review's TKS. But I can understand the frustration with somebody who meets out such lordly condemnations to people whose lives he knows nothing about.

Finally, if you prefer "irony" to "hypocrisy" for Dreher making money from Borders, no problem. I don't know why you bother with the quibble because the hypocrisy is hardly horrible, in my view. Once again and for the last time, I honestly hope Dreher makes as much money as possible from his book. I like capitalism.

You are signed in, . (sign out)