Friday, February 24, 2006

Crunchy Cons-here, there, and everywhere

You are either for them or against them or have no opinion or just don't understand what they are. But the talk of Crunchy Cons are everywhere you go: here, and here and here and here and here and... And the Crunchy Con blog looks like it would be a full-time job to keep up with. I don't know much about it myself, but am a bit jealous, in a friendly sort of way (and congratulatory, by the way), of any book which garners so much attention and publicity among the St. Blogs parish (oh how do I get our message out like that?).

Seriously though, I haven't read the book so I don't know if I will ever really comment on it, but I will say that those who think Rob Dreher is restating the obvious in some of his 'manifesto' points may need to take a look again at those on the national scene who call themselves conservatives and also on a personal level among those whom you know. Do they really practice the conservatism they preach or that people associate with convervatism? OR are these conservatives really only concerned financial prosperity and only give those "Permanent Things" lip-service?

More Flannery O'Connor....Now that I've read a couple books, I just can't seem to get away from her. William Luse posts an essay analysis of one of her most disturbing short stories and explains the redemption enclosed therein. At the same time, in conversation with one of my sisters, she exclaimed, "Finally someone else who doesn't like reading Flannery O'Connor". This sister told me that either Plato or Aristotle said that reading should be both edifying and entertaining. My sister admits that you may make the case that Flannery O'Connor may be edifying, but much harder case for the entertainment aspect. Oh well, she (F.O.) may haunt me until I acquire that taste....

From Bethany, the small holding in Bethune...Oremus pro invicem!

5 comments:

TS said...

My gosh I'd have to quit blogging if I only mentioned things on my blog that I perfectly lived up to. Well, I could blog comedy pieces, which is one area where I don't have to worry about paying only lip service. Hmm...might not be such a bad idea! *grin*

JCurley said...

TS-Point well-taken. I think I was trying to attack real (let's say premeditated) hypocrosy for votes and not simply human weakness. (and BTW-some of your recent comedy pieces/parodies are hilarious-true rivals to the Curt Jester).

JCurley said...

TS-Actually I will have to take that back (that I was only talking about premeditated hypocrisy) at least in part. I think that many Republicans call themselves conservative because most Republicans do identify themselves that way (as well as many independents who vote Republican). Yet I think (no scientific data here) that many, many Republicans who identify themselves as conservative, either knowingly or not, don't really share to great extent let's say Russell Kirk-type conservatism. They may tend that way, but they really have their hearts elsewhere. Of course this demands a definition of "conservative". There is a battle over what is "really" conservative: Neo, Paleo, now Crunchy...

I don't particularly want to weigh in on the debate or identify myself in any camp. I'm not a Republican or Democrat. (I'd probably come out in pieces: 22.5% Neo, 26.7% Paleo, 29.6% Crunchy, 11% Liberal, and the rest just looney.

TS said...

Well I know that I do feel hypocritical with some of what I post. Which is why I titled my blog what I did. I was trying to defend conservative ideals while recognizing that some of them are difficult to live up to (of course Christian ideals are much higher - i.e. 'be perfect as thy Heavenly Father is perfect').

But there is no question that Russel Kirk conservatism has been on the wane in recent years. And thanks for the Curt Jester comparison btw!

TS said...

And you're right about it being sad that that book is getting so much more publicity than your books. I read that theology of martyrdom not too long ago and loved it. Plus I've got Shaw's book on deck.