While I have specific criticisms for all of them, my common critique of Bushian compassionate conservatism, Brooksian National Greatness, Buchanism [sic] and Crunchy Conservatism is the common sense of crusade to all of them. There are times for crusades, to be sure. But I don’t think conservatism should ever be redefined as one lest it become just another populist fever. And I’ll go a step further. The reason Bush pushed me toward libertarianism is because I think any agenda built on the logic of the crusade is either doomed to failure or destined to be very un-conservative. It’s in the nature of things that you will always leave some children behind. ~Jonah Goldberg

This does help to explain a few things.  Ross makes many of the right points, and I would add just a few more.  If you think (wrongly) that Buchananism and “crunchy” conservatism have something to do with crusading and redefining conservatism as a crusade, and you regard crusading as foolish and un-conservative (which is exactly the sort of thing that Buchananites/paleos say about “neo-Jacobin” democratists and Wilsonian foreign policy all the time), you will tend to look down on Buchananism and “crunchy conservatism.”  You have completely misunderstood the things you are criticising, but at least there’s a kind of internal consistency in the “common critique” being made.  It might help clarify matters if there were any sense from the critic about what the proper non-crusading conservatism might look like.  Ross proposes an explanation:

Andrew argued that Bush has gone wrong by being too Brooksian, Jonah suggests that Bush has gone wrong by steering too close to Crunchy Condom (and a Pat Buchananesque “conservatism of the heart,” for that matter), and the upshot for both Andrew and Jonah is that the reform-conservatives have been discredited, and only a purer small-government conservatism retains any credibility [bold mine-DL]. If innovation gave us Bush, then innovation must be a bad idea.
  

As Ross himself has pointed out, this is pretty cheeky of Sullivan, since Sullivan is in favour of a fairly large, intrusive and powerful government, and it is my impression that roughly the same thing could be said of Goldberg.  Criticism of these “reform” conservatisms gives the impression of some dedication to a pristine small-government vision (Goldberg at least spares us Sullivan’s repeated mentions of Goldwater), but the rest of the time that dedication is hard to find.  What all four of the conservatisms mentioned above seem to have in common (indeed maybe just about the only thing all four share) is that they are kinds of conservatism not endorsed by one Jonah Goldberg.  They may have some things in common (as I think Buchananism/paleoconservatism and “crunchy” conservatism do) or they may be completely different, but one thing that binds them all together is that they annoy this critic.  There might be reasons to object to parts of one or all of them, but there is no reason to think of all four of them as being related by a spirit of crusade, not least since only one among them–the “national greatness” one–makes any proposals that might be considered crusaderish.

Let’s remember that this latest discussion started when Rod said, quite reasonably, that conservatives overlooked Bush’s flaws and supported him when he was popular and have now started to bail out when he no longer commands the same levels of support.  Rod was saying that most conservatives had been enablers to one degree or another of Bush’s excesses and could not play the victim by complaining about all of the things that Bush had done to them.  This seems true.  Goldberg didn’t have much to say in response to this, and so resorted to complaining about the alleged deep affinities between Rod’s neo-traditionalism and “compassionate conservatism.”

Ross picks up on an important problem:

If Jonah wants to attack the utopian strain in contemporary conservative thought, why is he wasting his time on the putative links between No Child Left Behind, Rod Dreher, and Pat Buchanan’s “conservatism of the heart”?

Well, the cynic in me would say that he isn’t actually interested in attacking the utopian strain in contemporary conservative thought, but simply adopts this pose as a tactic to reposition himself as the real conservative whenever he comes across an argument by another conservative that he doesn’t like.  Yesterday he was concerned about crypto-fascist sacralisation of politics, today he is concerned about utopianism, and tomorrow he will be concerned about excessive populism, and he will somehow manage to discern one or all of these in everyone with whom he already disagrees on practical policy.  The one consistent theme seems to be that he is being progressively pushed in an ever-more libertarian direction, but even here the “libertarianism” in question is simply a shorthand for whatever it is that his current opponent does not support.  

To answer the question, it is not at all clear why Goldberg would be concerned with attacking the utopianism of Rod Dreher, when Rod specifically said in the “manifesto” of Crunchy Cons:

5. A conservatism that does not recognize the need for restraint, for limits, and for humility is neither helpful to individuals and society nor, ultimately, conservative….

6. A good rule of thumb: Small and Local and Old and Particular are to be preferred over Big and Global and New and Abstract.

Obviously, the errors of the Bush administration are related to rejecting or not heeding exactly these sorts of ideas.  Big, new and abstract are words that apply quite well to the character of Mr. Bush’s policies, and his policies might be taken as the main exhibits used to prove the truth of the statement quoted above.  The departures from humility and restraint are obvious to all.  Whether or not Mr. Bush’s disdain for restraint and humility has any connection to compassionate conservatism is a subject for another day.  What should be clear is that being a “crunchy” con in no way undermines or weakens criticism of administration policies.  On the contrary, it is on the basis of the principles laid out in that book that “crunchy” cons should be among the leading critics of the administration.  Goldberg’s response fails on every level. 

Looking through the book, one will be struck by the complete lack of anything that might resemble utopianism.  The only kind of crusading spirit that might be reasonably detected in its pages is one that, as in the original meaning of the actual Crusades, involves asceticism, repentance and pilgrimage.  This has to do with living a life of virtue inspired by religious faith.  Strictly speaking, it has no connection to political crusades of any kind.  Indeed, one of the principal complaints Rod made in Crunchy Cons was that conservatives had subordinated their principles to party political priorities–it was the temptations of power and the requirements of supporting the party in power that had contributed to conservative confusion.  If anyone was embarking on political crusading of a kind, it was the loyal party men willing to cut whatever deals they needed to cut to keep the GOP in the majority.