This morning's opposition research turned up something interestingly nonsensical: the Crunch Cons weblog over at the National Review Online. They really do have the big tent dialed; they apparently have no problems making room in the movement for people whose principles are completely and 180 degrees at odds. The weblog is annoying - it's a kind of writing I see a lot on NRO's site, these mostly self-referential discussions between three or four people that never seem to go anywhere, and are mostly disconnected from any recognizeable version of reality. Maybe they don't realize how hostile to new readers that style is. Of course, there are no comments.
I was thinking of responding point by point to the crunchy con manifesto, but I'm not sure it's worth it. There are some things to agree with, of course: if these ideas were to somehow gain traction, maybe there will be some common ground on real conservation and pro-family policies, not "voluntary compliance" and the hatred strewn garbage that the James Dobsons of the world spew and label family values.
But one problematic angle with it is the overall focus on culture. It's easy to try to move the focus away from economics if you're economically privileged, but go back and look at some pictures from Katrina or Sudan and tell me again how we still don't have political or economic issues. And given that these people are ostensibly conservatives, one has to wonder what they propose as cultural remedies. Book burnings? Edicts against degenerate art? Lots of fingerwagging and sermonizing? The mind boggles.
Leave a comment