The American Scene is one of those blogs I find myself checking more and more often. About one out of every three posts is supremely thought-provoking, one is pretty good, and one leaves my head spinning. Anyway, a comment from an unnamed friend of the bloggers in this post got me to thinking:

And there is the phenomenon of people who are basically cosmopolitan in their cultural provenance turning themselves into cultural conservatives after they become political conservatives, which seems kind of backwards. (I totally understand this impulse, too. My conversion experience to conservatism provoked a serious re-thinking of my theological commitments (which didn’t take, finally).) I’m thinking of middle-age converts to Catholicism and orthodox Judaism, and of Eastern intellectuals who now rhapsodize about Toby Keith, New Yorkers who feel an urgent need to get right with Alabama, both the state and the band. These things suggest that the real ground for American conservatism in the main, the real fundamental fact, is not the set of deep conservative principles that intellectuals hew to and operators cynically deviate from, but this “ground” of battle understandable more in a structural-existential sense, the us-them dynamic, which has a real pull, evidently. 

Two points here. One is that there’s an argument to be made that modern conservatism is being defined by a set of cultural indicators — NASCAR, country music, cowboy boots (think of George Allen’s emphasis on wearing those boots, and the perception that his choice of footwear stands for something), gun ownership, knowledge of a peer in the military, maybe Fox News watching, putting out the flag on holidays and not using air quotes when you say Jesus.

Sure, each of those can be an indicator of a person’s conservative views, yet this is a bit of Rod Dreher-style Crunchy Conservatism, finding a political or cultural signficance to your choices in footwear, food, etc.

There are a slew of ways that the bunch of us wouldn’t fit these conservative criteria. (Looking down the checklist - I grew up in New Jersey, moved to Washington D.C., two of the bluest of places. Don’t own a gun (as a DC resident, wasn’t allowed to). Now living overseas. Works in the media profession, and wrote for the Boston Globe for several years. A church attendance record that is… spotty at best. Doesn’t follow NASCAR, owns maybe one country music CD, enjoys Hollywood products if the liberal preaching can be kept below a dull roar, uses Starbucks as an office, etc. In short, I’m a city slicker by any standard and a media elite by quite a few.)

Now, identifying conservatism (and Republicanism) with these traits — church attendance, gun ownership, country music, NASCAR, etc. – has been electorally wise for the GOP. But one has to wonder if this is a convenient shorthand instead of standing for… well, policies. Iraq, spending, entitlements, balancing the economy and environment, instilling children with the right values… these are tough issues to solve, and tougher still to come up with proposals that won’t alienate some portion of a governing coalition of 51 percent. Easier to say “I stand for your values” and wear cowboy boots, isn’t it?

Second thought - so the story with Kos has been enjoyed with relish around the right half of the blogosphere. We on the right do a pretty good job of reporting, following, analyzing, and dissecting the news, but when a story has a Moonbat for us to hate - Dan Rather, Kos, Michael Moore, Murtha, Cindy Sheehan — the righty blogosphere seems to bring out its A-game; posts multiply, and they are sharper, tougher, funnier. The passion comes out.

Why do our foes bring out the “best” in us? And is the core principle of the right half of the blogosphere anti-Moonbattery?

Is that enough?