Crunchy Cons: How Birkenstocked Burkeans, gun-loving organic gardeners, evangelical free-range farmers, hip homeschooling mamas, right-wing nature ... America (or at least the Republican Party)

Generally speaking, I loved this book. I have always considered myself a conservative, with strong libertarian tendencies which sometimes struggle against a stronger Christian ethic. However, in the past few years, and much more strongly in the past few months, I've begun to question some of the old "conservative" dogmas such as: oil is inherently good, it makes all life possible, and oil companies must be protected no matter what the cost; the free market is good because it provides for opportunity and freedom, businesses drive the free market, and huge corporations are businesses, therefore they are good; environmentalism is one giant indistinguishable lie geared toward making my life more expensive and inconvenient; etc. With increasing frustration, I've begun to draw a line between "Republican" and "conservative," for lack of a better way of understanding/explaining the differences I felt between myself and the stuff generally touted by the pundits. This is where Dreher does an amazing job--highlighting how these dogmas fail to provide meaningful distinctions and often alienate groups of people who share much more in common than they disagree on (despite differing political affiliations).The first chapter is on consumerism generally. This was eye-opening for me in that it drew from the back of my mind to the forefront issues about which I had been vaguely concerned for some time. For example, our obsession with smart phones. While I use mine regularly, the need for regular short bursts of entertainment it provides is a significant weakness. Also, although lots of TV that I watch might not be "bad," it is far from uplifting and productive. Dreher's discussion of these types of issues provided me with a perspective that is lacking in public discourse generally. His other chapters cover some issues like environmentalism, food, "home" (which I expected to be more generally about families and home life, but which he seems to have intended more literally as a discussion of the building in which one lives), and education. Each of these chapters provided me with new ways of looking at some issues that I may have been ruminating on for a while, or perhaps hadn't yet realized I needed to worry about.The drawback to this book as I dove in was more in presentation than content. And it was more true of chapters closer to home for Dreher than others which covered more remote topics. In chapters discussing education and home, Dreher has taken very concerted steps in his own life to live deliberately. Therefore, he has more personal experience from which to draw. He also ended up using this experience to form a very substantial basis for these chapters. As a result, it came across as more of a preaching tone than simply a discussion of how “crunchy cons” do it. ("We do things this way because it is simply the best way to do it.") In other chapters, especially the one on environmentalism, and the one on food in so far as he discusses agriculture, his experience is less personal and therefore his discussion relies on the experience of others. These chapters were more enjoyable because there was less of a moralizing sentiment. All this being said, I don’t believe these criticisms decrease the substantive value of his book. But my concern is that someone who’s generally more liberal and exploring the conservative world through this book might be turned off by what might seem like a “we do it this way, which is the only good way to do it,” sort of attitude. Not all truly conservative families homeschool, or choose to live in an old craftsman-style home.This book is a great resource for primarily two groups of people: conservatives who sometimes feel like they’re wandering in the wilderness of political discourse, and liberals who feel similarly discontent with their liberal friends, dogmas, and community. I think a liberal can use this book to understand that many conservatives, who generally vote for Republicans, don’t mindlessly love all big companies (especially Monsanto) and any form of sub-surface mineral extraction. Similarly, a conservative can use this book to understand that being a conservative does not necessitate, and in fact, probably militates against, lock-step adherence to the usual Republican party line. Perhaps most importantly, this book can provide many of us, irrespective of political parties, the encouragement to start pushing friends, family, and representatives to start discussing critical issues without fear of being seen as too “liberal” or “conservative.”

From reading this book, I discovered I am a Crunchy Con (i.e. conservative), for what that's worth. He discusses things I do: eat naturally, homeschool (in the past), value the environment and spend time in nature (he designates that we are stewards of responsibilities delegated by God), value the family and all human beings, born and unborn, question large corporations, hold other values higher than materialism, recognize the importance of standards of behavior (engaging in self-destructive behavior is not an option), value beauty, and produce it. Other things he advocates, we did not do. We didn't buy a small home in an urban area. We prefer to live in the country. But then, some of the authors' Crunchy Con friends also do that. In other words, individuality as a Crunchy Con is valued.His description of homeschooling discusses the serious reasons why a family should homeschool, and the many benefits it brings to the family and the child. His description of buying and living in a small home in an urban area is reminiscent of Ayn Rand's romanticism, though people who agree with Ayn Rand would hardly buy into many of his other views. He notes especially how having a front porch creates community in the neighborhood. The final chapter discusses how St. Benedict of the Catholic church inspired monastic communities, how these were a protection against tyranny, and why living near a monastic community might provide benefits.The one disappointing thing about the book is that he scarcely mentions genetically modified frankenfoods. These are a huge problem, causing major poisoning of the earth. They are bad for one's health. On the other hand, he mentions other problems with some large corporations. I would identify the following serious problems: poisoning the person and the environment with pharmaceuticals, all genetically modified organisms, artificial ingredients in foods and supplements (including common ingredients like magnesium stearate), immunizations, pesticides, etc. Some he discusses, some not. I choose not to use pharmaceuticals, but I have to buy bottled water to avoid getting them in my drinking water. Most people don't think about this. Who knows what kind of cocktail of drugs people get in their drinking water?Very large corporations are a serious problem. They promote many anti-life policies, for personal reasons, or to make money. I often tell people, especially libertarians, that any sufficiently large company becomes indistinguishable from government. When you are forced to deal with them, they set the terms, and these won't be favorable to the consumer. This is why pharmaceutical companies and companies that develop and sell genetically modified frankenfoods are such a serious problem. It is also why people like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, who finance population-reduction methods and fund abortion heavily, are such a danger to society. The author gets into some of these in a tangential way. Mostly he emphasizes a lifestyle that keeps involvement with such people to a minimum. He clearly values social conservatism, but at one point he mentions you don't have to agree with him to be a Crunchy Con. In fact, he mentions abortion by name. I'm sorry, but abortion is not negotiable. It is a crime against humanity, and all honest people oppose it.In terms of religion, he is a Catholic. Exactly what he means by that isn't entirely clear, though he emphasizes how orthodox he is in belief (while noting you don't have to be a Christian to be a Crunchy Con). And he uses a little bit of rather strange vocabulary for a Christian, i.e. the term "metaphysics." He calls living certain aspects of a Crunchy Con life a sacramental act. This confuses the issue of his personal beliefs, but I think he doesn't mean to tell us the details of what he believes anyway.This is an engaging and entertaining book, worth reading whether you are personally a Crunchy Con or not. As for Crunchy Cons themselves, it is time many conservatives adopt this perspective; we need to stop the leftists from hijacking these issues. They come up with the wrong solutions and make things much worse. Conservatives need to be vigorously opposing frankenfoods, pharmaceuticals, the bribery in the medical profession, and other issues. The more conservatives who read this book and learn from it, the better.

I've known about Mr. Dreher ever since his articles were published in my hometown's newspaper, back in 2004. And even though I don't agree with him on some issues (mostly social), I've always found him very interesting, stimulating albeit, at times, frustrating. His articles have stopped being published in my newspaper shortly after Bush's reelection but I kept reading Mr. Dreher's articles through his blog. I'm left-leaning but it's important, to me, to also get information from knowledgeable people on the right to have a better understanding of things and he, along with Andrew Sullivan and a handful of others,is one of those people. At least for me.In this book, I was surprised at times to see a certain naivete usually associated to people on my side of the spectrum (even though I see more and more, as I get older, this question of «side» as pure b*****it). And it was also frustrating to feel like he sees liberals all the same (especially when sex is concerned), when this book is about trying to make us learn about a different kind of conservatism, as opposed to what the GOP has offered for the last couple of years. But that being said, I was also pleasantly surprised to find myself agreeing with the author on a lot of subjects (mainly food, overconsumption and materialism).All in all, that book was to me what Mr. Dreher has been on a regular basis ever since I've known about him since 2004: frustrating, provoking, but also interesting, stimulating and refreshing.