Lovely day in LI. Just enough time to check e-mail and dash out a quick post before I have to nuke some Trader Joe’s fish sticks and briani for dinner.
I’m a big fan of Trader Joe’s. I like their burritos and organic stuff. I can spend five minutes nuking some frozen cod and still feel warm inside for giving my kids the good stuff.
It’s also worth the trip just to see white people in dreadlocks. There is absolutely no counterculture out in here in the heartlands of New Jersey, and I’m craving it having lived on a Pottery Barn and Gap diet for far too long.
Actually, there doesn’t seem to be a counterculture anywhere. A couple of days ago, we drove down the Bowery on our way to Chinatown and found that they put a Whole Foods there. Now, there isn’t wrong with a Whole Foods. It just doesn’t belong there. I used to step over junkies on the way to poetry slams there back in the mid-80s. Of course, I was scared out of my mind that I was going to get jumped at the next corner, but that’s not the point.
Amidst my e-mail are two notes from my dad. He points to a new book, Crunchy Cons: How Birkenstocked Burkeans, gun-loving organic gardeners, evangelical free-range farmers, hip homeschooling mamas, right-wing nature lovers, … America (or at least the Republican Party)
I haven’t read it, but it appears that the main argument is that there are a group of conservatives who, like liberals, reject consumerism and embrace environmentalism, while retaining certain core conservative values. Has anybody else looked at it?
Dad then forwarded a comment by Jon Podhoretz about this book. It also provides a big-tent excuse for “sanctimommy” parenting, which is not so much about raising your own kids as you see fit but more about finding other mothers and fathers wanting because they’re not as austere and controlling as you are. There’s a lot of sanctimommying over at the Crunchy Con blog.
Two points for JPod for giving me the term “sanctimommying.” Snort.
UPDATE: I’m looking forward to reading what Russell has to say about the book.
UPDATE2: OK, so I’ve been getting up to speed on the conservative blogs about this book. I’m enjoying the debate about crunchiness sans politics avec class. Read Ross Douthat:
Sure, the three dollars extra for the free-range chicken isn’t a lot, but over time the cost of a Whole Foods (or “Whole Paycheck,” as a friend calls it) lifestyle tends to add up, especially when you’re talking about the kind of working-class families that are most likely to have the kind of traditional instincts we’re interested in cultivating. There’s a reason that birkenstocks and free-range chickens and rambling old Victorian houses and energy-efficient cars tend to be associated with the lifestyle of upper-middle-class liberals, and it’s that somewhere in the last half-century, the “crunchy” lifestyle got really expensive. And I think this is one of the dangers hidden in the whole “crunchy” meme (if I’m allowed to use a Richard Dawkins-coined word on a “crunchy” website), which is that it runs the risk of being assimilated too easily into the culture of consumer capitalism, as just another “lifestyle choice” for upper-middle-class people who like that sort of thing, and can afford to choose it.
Apt. 11d 
Oooh, I know a lot of crunchy cons here in Ann Arbor. And sanctimommy is a great word.
LikeLike
Look at it this way: it’s progress when organic food is considered mainstream, and not part of the counterculture. Big progress.
Besides, everyone I know down on the LES — and that includes many old timers since my relatives have lived down there for 100 years thru good times and bad — is pathetically grateful to have a decent supermarket nearby, even if it is overpriced like Whole Foods.
LikeLike
That is a great word. Sometimes I find myself walking on glass around other mothers, but I really try not to judge. But I do….I do. Then I remember that this is America and everyone’s allowed to breed and parent as they see fit…Apparently not as well as I do, though.
LikeLike
Umm, not so sure i completely agree. Sure, its progress from an individualist standpoint. It is a progessive step towards better health for the persyn eating organic foods (and healthier for the farmworker, too). But i would beg to differ that it is big progress.
If the organic movement stays within the confines of the dominant capitalist culture, then nothing really changes except for the individual’s health (and even that isn’t certain). For example, look at what the diary industry was recently able to do with organic standards for milk. They are making the term organic as worthless as the term natural. And huge agribusiness is still destroying soil, rivers, rainforests, and the livelihood of numerous communities, even if it is organic. And lets look at the company Hain Celestial. I’d say most folks who eat organic foods have eaten their products at least once. In addition to making their money off of organic foods they also make money off of defense contracting. While they claim to care about your body, they are making money off the slaughter of other humyn beings.
I’m not convinced that organic foods will really lead to any sort of revolution.
11D: i may have missed the sarcasm, but i would also disagree that White folks with dreads are a part of any counterculture. I’d say they fit pretty nicely within the dominant culture that co-opts resistance movements led by people of color.
LikeLike
Thanks for the plug, Laura. I’m really digging the whole crunchy con meme, and not just because it’s an excuse to wax philosophical about my usual hang-ups regarding America’s need for a religious left, “conservative” challenge to corporate capitalism, etc. No, I also like it because it brings forward a lot of stuff that ought to be front and center in any proper conservatism, but which hasn’t been post-9/11.
As everyone else with eyes to see knows, the supposedly pro-family and pro-marriage Republican party has not exactly been falling all over itself to praise stay-at-home dads, or people who have cut back on consumption so as to spend more time with the kids, or groups fighting for better parental-leave policies and health coverage, etc., etc. Dreher’s book doesn’t really directly get at much of that; he’s too busy being fascinated with the free-range-farming, homeschooling, back-to-nature conservative counterculture. But more power to him, I say; partly because I embrace a fair amount of all that, but mostly because I’d like to think that, the more such folks are given a voice, the greater the chance that all these nitty-gritty social and economic issues might finally really penetrate the corporate-heavy Republican platform. (Well, one can hope.)
As for “sactimommying”–I’d rather it be out in the open then pretend it’s something we don’t need in free societies. Sure, it’s demeaning when that kind of power is handed over to social workers and bureaucrats. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t acknowledge its place, in families and communities. Nosy neighbors are annoying, but they do at least as much good as otherwise.
LikeLike
Vegankid, I don’t disagree with you in the least. I just also believe that the organic food movement could have stayed “pure” but that it would have been very limited in scope. I’m just grateful my mother can now buy better quality food within walking distance of her home, something she could not do previously.
LikeLike
don’t worry, vegan. I may be hungry for counterculture, but I was also laughing at the white folks with dreads. I was also laughing at myself for feeling warm inside for nuking burritos with a big organic tag on it. When in doubt, assume that I’m being a jerky smart ass.
Russell – I just don’t GET this book. I haven’t read it and I’m just trying to piece together the point from National Review and your post. Jonah Goldberg is just going on about how he wears a tie and I’m very confused.
I am interested in the discussions about crunchiness and counterculture, because I dig that stuff. But the politics in this book makes me scratch my head.
My dad is sort of a crunchy con. In the early 70s, he turned our small suburban front lawn into an organic orchard. I ate wormy peaches for years. He went from championing environmental causes and going to anti-war protests to voting for Republicans in 1980 mostly because of the Catholic stuff. Now, I don’t get why he votes with a party that he sides with only 30% of the time. Why doesn’t he and all the other crunch cons vote with Democrats, which they are 70% in agreement with, and try to sway the Dems to embrace the other 30%?
I also don’t get why the author thinks that the Republican party needs saving. They’ve got both houses, the presidency, and maybe even the SC.
Sorry, Russell, not with you on the sanctimommying. I get enough backseat mommying from my mother. I’m on a hair trigger. If anybody else insinuates that my kid can’t talk, because I baby him, there will be body bags and a CSI team on my porch.
LikeLike
Dreher isn’t out to save the Republican party’s electoral prospects; he’s out to save its soul. He thinks that “conservatism” ought to mean conserving locality, family, the environment, rural life, etc. He’s come to realize that the sort of conservatism which his National Review buddies advocate doesn’t do any of that: on the contrary, it praises high finance, big money, suburban sprawl, zero regulations, etc., etc. So, he’s pushing the voice of those marginal “conservatives”–the counterculture he’s talking about, which is mostly a Christian counterculture–who, he believes, have the right take on these things, in hopes of making them Republican players. (As I said before, one can only hope.)
Jonah’s whole hang-up with the crunchy con thing, in my view, comes down to his sense that “conservatism” means growing up and taking responsibility for yourself. It’s very “establishment”: you put on your tie and walk out the door and make your own way in the world, pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps. I suspect that Jonah sees in “crunchiness”–sticking close to family, tending your garden, getting together at the neighborhood organic food co-op, supporting your local church–everything he hates about (his uninformed stereotype of) liberalism: it’s weak, it makes you dependent on others, it’s cloying, it lowers your horizon, it’s for wusses. So there’s where the stylistic and substantive criticisms meet, I think.
Why doesn’t your dad and all the other crunchy cons vote for the Democrats, who they obviously mostly agree with anyway? The same old reason: all those hot-button moral/religious/family/sexual issues. (Come back, Robert Casey!) I guess that means your dad has given up on his old hope of converting the Democrats to a pro-life position, which is sad.
As for “sanctimommying”–we may have to agree to disagree. Of course, everything is in the definition. Do I think we all ought to live in environments where everybody we meet has the perogative to nose their way into our lives like our mothers (and mothers-in law)? Nope; I’d hate that. But maybe it’s just because I lived for a while in a small town in the South, where–in one case I remember well–a friend of mine, a schoolteacher, spotted some kids throwing some trash around the school grounds, and he went outside and yelled at them, “Clean that up or I’m telling your mothers!” (whom he all knew, because they all lived within 2 miles of each other anyway), and they all said “Yes sir,” and did it. Did I like that kind of “sanctimony”? I have to admit, I kind of did.
LikeLike
I read something like Douthat’s or Vegankid’s complaint about consumer capitalism and frankly, I’m flabbergasted.
Douthat’s claim that “somewhere in the last half-century, the crunchy lifestyle got really expensive” reverses the truth. What actually happened in the last 50 years is that the percentage costs of food for average families has dropped substantially (see here).
The same thing is happening now with organic food. Stop n’ Shop now sells their own brand of cage-free eggs. Five years ago I had to pay a premium at Whole Foods. The more people buy organic foods and free range meat, the cheaper it gets, and the more widespread its benefits.
Complaining that organic foods are becoming too mainstream is like complaining that too many people are going to make it to heaven and crowd the place up.
LikeLike
Sam’s random ideas on why crunchy cons are conservatives.
Laura, I think you and Russell Arben Fox may miss one of the big drivers of conservatism in the “crunchy” population. That’s costs and regulations, as opposed to religious issues. Here are several examples.
One big issue for the independent farmers in my state (and everywhere else) is the strangling effect of regulations. This isn’t organic vs inorganic–it’s big vs small. To sell homemade bread and jam, you have to have an inspected, commercial-licensed kitchen. That costs at least $10,000. To sell milk, legally and easily, costs $250,000 or more. To sell meat is even harder. This year, a bill was proposed exempting farm products, sold on-farm, from those licensing laws. It died in committee–but its sponsor was a Republican. A bill was also proposed to require licensing of anyone selling poultry in any form (live or butchered, off-farm or on); it was proposed by the Democratic administration and sponsored by a Democrat. Is it any surprise that back-to-the-landers don’t see Democrats as friendly?
Similarly, environmental regulations and building quality standards have dramatically increased the cost of small homes. I’m in the process of building a small cabin to live in; to comply with all the permitting and waste disposal codes will cost about $7500–for a structure that will only cost about $10,000 to build. Much of that is driven by water quality regulation–you have to have a licensed soil scientist approve your land for a septic system, and a licensed contractor build it. So where a “habitable construction” used to be able to be built for $5000, now it costs at least $15,000. Again, the environmental regulations are largely perceived as a Democratic initiative.
Even more globally, people who want to opt-out of the rat-race of normality object to having to pay more and more and more to enable others to have the things they are opting out of. If you opt to have one parent stay home, and to homeschool, doubling property taxes to improve the schools can be a real financial strain; increasing income taxes to subsidize day-care similarly, although on a smaller scale.
LikeLike
Sam – see, I thought that the crunchy cons would be in favor of measures like costly enviromental protections. Yeah, I don’t know many crunchy cons. I’ll have to skim the book in Barnes and Noble.
Russell – I think that JPod was using “sanctimommying” to mean correcting other parents, not the stray kid who is being an idiot. Sanctimommying is about tut-tuting about other parents who let their kids watch too much TV or eat their cookies before dinner.
LikeLike
The whole thing missing from the NRO’s Crunchy Con-versation is how it differs from Liberalism. You won’t see Dreher mutter the words class, inquality, or race. He spends a lot of time patting himself on the back for living in an urban neighborhood, but shows total indifference to the effect he and his gentifiers have on the poor, non-white people who live in his neighborhood. It appears his concern for community ends at his front door.
LikeLike
Russell, you’ve got Rod Dreher’s position exactly right, but I don’t think you’re doing justice to Jonah Goldberg, who is the conservative theory and history traffic cop at NRO. Goldberg frequently tickets libertarians, and he is just giving Rod Dreher the same treatment. The discussion between Goldberg and Dreher has been going on for years now. Here are some quotes from an October 8, 2002 piece by Goldberg, showing what Goldberg finds fault with in “crunchy” conservatism:
“Conservatism is only a partial philosophy of life. I admit it is less incomplete than, say, libertarianism (which can’t persuasively answer what a society should do about children and foreign policy — two pretty big shortcomings for a political movement), but conservatism doesn’t necessarily tell us what our tastes should be. It doesn’t hold that politics should ooze into every nook and cranny of life…Indeed, this crunchy-con stuff smacks, to me, of a mixture of Stockholm syndrome and Clintonesque triangulation. The Stockholm syndrome refers to the desperate need among many conservatives (and I do not mean Rod here) to prove to their liberal captors that they’re really “okay.” See! I like Elvis Costello and the Indigo Girls! I’m not one of those conservatives. I’m like you! The Left is winning too many battles as it is — homeschooling, for example, is nothing but a strategic retreat from the battlefield — without conservatives surrendering so much territory without a fight. I’m not immune to this temptation myself — how could any conservative who makes so many women’s-prison-movie jokes claim otherwise? But, in my defense, I use that sort of humor in part to persuade hostile readers that they’re wrong in their assumptions about conservatives. I don’t do it in order to denigrate conservatism generally.
And that’s where the Clintonian triangulation comes in. Crunchy conservatism reeks with the implication that mainstream conservatives really are the caricatures and stereotypes the left claims.”
LikeLike
Also, after reading him ever since he was just a baby pundit, I know that Goldberg would be the first to sing the praises of mediating institutions between the citizen and the state, so no, he isn’t the bootstrap-loving individualist that Russell is making him out to be.
LikeLike
On a different note, could someone share what ‘briani’ is? Did you mean ‘Biryani’?
LikeLike