Is Social Conservatism Finished as a Nationally Competitive Ideology?

gavinfielder said:

Liberals are only "against families" in the mythical land of religiously framed social conservatism.'

Click to expand...

That is sadly not correct - the family as an alternate power to the state has been a historical opponent of Progressives.

However, it's really immaterial. Whether or not that is their intent, it is their results. When you pay people to have children out of wedlock and punish them if they try to marry and raise children in two-parent households.... then they will have children out of wedlock and not marry to raise children in two-parent households. :shrug:

I'd also like to see evidence that liberal culture also promotes incarceration, child rape, or educational failure.

Click to expand...

Single Parenthood as a prevalent force in our society is a direct outflow of liberal social policy. Children raised by single parents are far more likely to go to jail, far more likely to be sexually abused as children, and far more likely to drop out of school.

cpwill said:

Well let's see. George W Bush ran as a social conservative and run twice. McCain and Romney ran without mentioning social issues and lost twice.

Yeah, obviously social conservatism is to blame :roll:

Click to expand...

Uh, that wasn't his primary platform. Dubya never ran on "I'm a social con, vote for me."

cpwill said:

The human wreckage of a socially liberal society are kids raised in single parent homes, children murdered before they get a chance to breathe, and a host of social ills (higher rates of incarceration, child rape, drug use, and educational failure). Entire generations in many area's have been lain waste because they have failed to heed the basic social conservative message of the centrality and importance of the family structure.

Even if our cause is doomed (and perhaps it is), it remains incumbent upon us to do the best we can with what we have to help those for whom we have the ability.

Click to expand...

Single-parent households are the result of liberals?

Drug use has been on the decline. And marijuana use is not as destructive as tobacco or alcohol use. Therefore, it only does harm to keep it criminalized.

cpwill said:

That is sadly not correct - the family as an alternate power to the state has been a historical opponent of Progressives.

However, it's really immaterial. Whether or not that is their intent, it is their results. When you pay people to have children out of wedlock and punish them if they try to marry and raise children in two-parent households.... then they will have children out of wedlock and not marry to raise children in two-parent households. :shrug:

Click to expand...

Where and how is this the case?

Liberalism does not promote single-parent households. That it does is nothing but social conservative fear mongering. It champions its own ideology without rational judgement of anything opposing it and perceives an opposition that doesn't exist.

gavinfielder said:

Liberalism does not promote single-parent households

Click to expand...

So much for personal responsibility eh

gavinfielder said:

Where and how is this the case?

Liberalism does not promote single-parent households. That it does is nothing but social conservative fear mongering. It champions its own ideology without rational judgement of anything opposing it and perceives an opposition that doesn't exist.

Click to expand...

Yes because two guys or two women can't be a family.

And it's better for a wife to stay in a physically abusive relationship for the kids.

Yeah.....sometimes I think social cons live on a different planet.

Who is punishing people for marrying and raising kids in a two parent household? Last I checked, our tax system favors marriage quite considerably. The LAST thing you want to do is file single. Married Filing Jointly is a huge incentive to get married.

obvious Child said:

Uh, that wasn't his primary platform. Dubya never ran on "I'm a social con, vote for me."

Click to expand...

indeed, bush ran on the platform of 'you'd rather have a beer with me than this global warming nerd and the guy who left his buddies to die in vietnam'

Liberalism, as we know it, tells people they can screw anyone and live with anyone they want as well as put anything in their body they want WITHOUT taking responsibility for the consequences, and then proceeds to take all real freedoms away.

Rainman05 said:

In Europe, social conservatism is a really big deal and many parties who are in power accept it as their platform.

Click to expand...

Not in the American sense. I live in the UK at the moment with a conservative (coalition government) & its probably left of Obama.

Mind you if I think back to Kennedy & his inaugural address in 1961, when the then Democrat president stood before the world & talked about things like "...the belief that the rights of man come not from the genorisity of the state, but from the hand of god" & "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country", you can see a fundemental shift in the country.

Kennedy was a Democrat but today he'd struggle for the GOP nomination, & as for his own party, some would likely dismiss him as a right-wing, racist, religious nut.

That clock wont be turned back, there will not be return to at least part of the unique experiment that was America, instead a different future awaits the nation.

As a kid, like many of my generation, we looked in wonder at America. Like the nations of Europe it was a western nation, but it was different, it had thrown off much of Europes history, taken a continental landmass & built the most powerful nation in the world on the back of a rugged independance, & a cherished love of liberty.

For better or worse a chapter in Americas history has now closed & for better or worse I mourn it simply because it was there, it was unique, & it offered a choice that wasnt on any other western table, & that choice wont return any day soon.

Yes, American conservatives could now adopt the European model, & might gain great success from it, but thats not the world they had in mind, & it does mean the passing of an age.

The sky wont fall down today, & the world wont end, but it has changed a little for ever.

Its not dead...but their extremism will never win

Paul Austin said:

Not in the American sense. I live in the UK at the moment with a conservative (coalition government) & its probably left of Obama.

Mind you if I think back to Kennedy & his inaugural address in 1961, when the then Democrat president stood before the world & talked about things like "...the belief that the rights of man come not from the genorisity of the state, but from the hand of god" & "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country", you can see a fundemental shift in the country.

Kennedy was a Democrat but today he'd struggle for the GOP nomination, & as for his own party, some would likely dismiss him as a right-wing, racist, religious nut.

That clock wont be turned back, there will not be return to at least part of the unique experiment that was America, instead a different future awaits the nation.

As a kid, like many of my generation, we looked in wonder at America. Like the nations of Europe it was a western nation, but it was different, it had thrown off much of Europes history, taken a continental landmass & built the most powerful nation in the world on the back of a rugged independance, & a cherished love of liberty.

For better or worse a chapter in Americas history has now closed & for better or worse I mourn it simply because it was there, it was unique, & it offered a choice that wasnt on any other western table, & that choice wont return any day soon.

Yes, American conservatives could now adopt the European model, & might gain great success from it, but thats not the world they had in mind, & it does mean the passing of an age.

The sky wont fall down today, & the world wont end, but it has changed a little for ever.

Click to expand...

FWIW, I credited you with this and used it as my FB status. Well spoken, friend.

Krhazy said:

For two consecutive elections now -- one in which Republicans won by large margins, and now one in which Democrats won despite the economy being heavily against them -- social issues seem to have cost Republicans major Senate seats in right-leaning states. The issue of abortion seems to be killing Republican candidacies. Gay marriage is turning a corner in popularity. And the demographics are shifting extremely quickly even further to the left.

I think it's usually a terrible idea to say "such and such an ideology is dead" after an election. These things have a tendency to turn around somehow or another. But it's hard to avoid the conclusion after the past four years that this country is shifting dramatically, social conservatism is no longer a winning ideology nationally, and it is unlikely to be one again for the foreseeable future.

What do you think?

Click to expand...

Possibly but maybe not. Interestingly key voting blocks who presently vote in democrat majorities are also staunchly socially conservative. The paradox is the GOP has made these voting blocks out to be "a problem", deeply offended them in some way or dismissed their interests in other areas that they have voted against their own values in many cases. At this point, I think the best chance social conservatism has going forward is for those values to be advanced within the democrat party. African Americans are strongly socially conservative and when asked to vote on just a socially conservative issue, they are the most reliable voting block out there for traditional American values. The growing Latino vote are culturally socially conservative with a strong allegiance to Roman Catholic values. However both groups have been so offended by the GOP I think getting to "vote Republican" to advance their values is an unrealistic fantasy. If the objective is exploit their values to recruit new voters into the GOP after all that's been done to drive them away, forget it. If the goal is simply to advance traditional family values even if that means from within the democratic party, maybe.

johnny_rebson said:

Maybe some people considered the last two GOP presidential nominees to be too moderate.

Click to expand...

Nope....I think people think they are extremeists....all or nothing...black or white...there are no real moderates and that is what they seriously lack and why they lost.

Krhazy said:

For two consecutive elections now -- one in which Republicans won by large margins, and now one in which Democrats won despite the economy being heavily against them -- social issues seem to have cost Republicans major Senate seats in right-leaning states. The issue of abortion seems to be killing Republican candidacies. Gay marriage is turning a corner in popularity. And the demographics are shifting extremely quickly even further to the left.

I think it's usually a terrible idea to say "such and such an ideology is dead" after an election. These things have a tendency to turn around somehow or another. But it's hard to avoid the conclusion after the past four years that this country is shifting dramatically, social conservatism is no longer a winning ideology nationally, and it is unlikely to be one again for the foreseeable future.

What do you think?

Click to expand...

I think abortion is more even than some liberals are willing to admit - but stuff like pot legalization and gay marriage are trending in a direction that is not favorable to social conservatives.

I wish people would quit calling them "social issues" and "social conservatives", they're religious issues and religious republicans.

BTW - I read a report this morning that claimed the margin of vote was all the "social conservatives" who stayed home because they couldn't bring themselves to vote for a Mormon.

I dunno. Social conservatives tend to have more children than social liberals, and then instill regressive attitudes in their children.

The answer is yes, obviously. So is advocacy of capitalism and opposition to tax increases.

Fiddy was on the money.

"Social Conservatism" isn't finished. However, certain POLICY POSITIONS and the specific focuses of said ideological pillar of Conservatism as a whole is likely going to need to change over the next decade for any type of future viability.

Krhazy said:

For two consecutive elections now -- one in which Republicans won by large margins, and now one in which Democrats won despite the economy being heavily against them -- social issues seem to have cost Republicans major Senate seats in right-leaning states. The issue of abortion seems to be killing Republican candidacies. Gay marriage is turning a corner in popularity. And the demographics are shifting extremely quickly even further to the left.

I think it's usually a terrible idea to say "such and such an ideology is dead" after an election. These things have a tendency to turn around somehow or another. But it's hard to avoid the conclusion after the past four years that this country is shifting dramatically, social conservatism is no longer a winning ideology nationally, and it is unlikely to be one again for the foreseeable future.

What do you think?

Click to expand...

I think that social conservatism should be dead. I can't see how the Republican Party can miss the signs that Americans are sick and tired of hearing about abortion and same-sex marriages. Being opposed to these issues is not going to win votes. It's going to cost votes. It's clouding the real issues and challenges that face our country today: fiscal disaster.

Krhazy said:

For two consecutive elections now -- one in which Republicans won by large margins, and now one in which Democrats won despite the economy being heavily against them -- social issues seem to have cost Republicans major Senate seats in right-leaning states. The issue of abortion seems to be killing Republican candidacies. Gay marriage is turning a corner in popularity. And the demographics are shifting extremely quickly even further to the left.

I think it's usually a terrible idea to say "such and such an ideology is dead" after an election. These things have a tendency to turn around somehow or another. But it's hard to avoid the conclusion after the past four years that this country is shifting dramatically, social conservatism is no longer a winning ideology nationally, and it is unlikely to be one again for the foreseeable future.

What do you think?

Click to expand...

These things are cyclic, but the cycles include many variables. Conservatism has been declared dead several times before and seen a resurgence; liberalism has also been declared dead only to come back strong a decade later.

At the same time, the definitions of what is "conservative" and "liberal" also change.

A lot of conservatives are starting to step back from some of the more extreme policy positions like outlawing abortion entirely, or doing away with the social safety net altogether.

OTOH a lot of liberals are becoming relatively pro-Second Amendment, and the notion of fiscal responsibility in deficit spending is gaining support.


Todays conservatives may be tomorrow's liberals, and yesterday's liberals the next generations' libertarians. The Dixiecrats became Republicans and John F Kennedy would be considered a staunch conservative by modern standards.

It is what it is, and the only constant is change.

This election was the last gasp for social conservatism. If they could have gotten Romney elected, they would have been able to pack the Supreme Court with activists who would implement the right-wing social agenda. As it stands now....Obama will get at least 1 possibly 2 or 3 more Supreme Court picks. It is likely that Ginsburg and Breyer will both retire within 4 years. It is even likely that Kennedy might retire, but he might hold out til the next election. Even so, Obama will be able to save our Supreme Court from falling into the hands of activists which was the only hope for social conservatism....because social conservatism is dying out in the electorate as evidenced by the gay marriage votes in this election, the marijuana legalization votes and changing attitudes across the country as evidenced by polling on these and other social conservative issues. It is likely that the GOP will re-evaluate its party in the next year and very likely that they will recognize that the social conservative agenda is bringing them down. Social conservativism will not die out entirely, but it will be limited to a handful of Southern States and the fly-over plains states.

No, what the Republicans have isn't social conservatism, the entire party isn't conservative, they are neo-conservative, something entirely different. Social conservatism is just fine. Religious-wingnuttery, which is all the Republicans do these days, ought to be dead and buried.

Unfortunately yes

As a form of personal belief, no it's not finished, we'll always have diverse views informed by a range of different things.

However, as a national or political strategy, conservative politicians need to get with the times and stop pulling the nation back to the 1900s. I think it will take a few more years to solidify the end to this incredibly regressive and restrictive ideology, and it will take some time for radical folks to truly realize that, but for the most part, this is done.

Here's what people need to understand about social conservatism that Zyph and I have highlighted, but I will do so with a historical perspective.

Social conservatism is a tendency, and impulse, not a platform.

In Western culture, it has existed since Ancient Greece and the Roman Republic. Cato the Elder led a social conservative movement against the spreading influence of Greece culture and its intellectual heritage on the Roman Republic. In the United States, you have had continued waves of social conservatism that impacted not only culture, but also the laws. It can be divided by geography, decade, and so forth. In the Pacific Northwest during the late 19th century, for instance, you saw a continued recoil surrounding the proper duties of women and men. There was a reaction against "The New Woman" and her increased independence, not just by the men, but also by women who grew up as that pioneer generation. In France, after the first World War, there was a social conservatism that became established after young men came back home from the War and perceived a lull in the creation of children (who were seen as the health of a nation) and the blurring of the sexes in terms of dress, social customs, and so forth. If you look at the American south during the 1920s through the 1950s, you see a continued redefinition of what it meant to be socially conservative, and how that influenced their laws: miscegenation laws, specific policies that tried to react against the increasing rebelliousness of young people (especially women) during the 1920s and 1930s. Each decade had a different set of perceived problems, a reaction against them, and proposed solutions.

Many of these things are subject to what liberals consider that linear definition of History in the capital sense: onward and upward progress experiencing temporary roadblocks by foolish obstructionists. Yet much of it can stick. For instance, even though some of the laws protecting women in the workplace were created through a conservative progressive and liberal progressive means, they were defined in socially conservative terms, and still are. Women, despite being seen as more of that blurred group that are equal peoples to that of men, the legal protections are still largely defined in terms of her "natural condition" and can often give them more protections/rights than men based entirely on social constructions that are based on socially conservative philosophy. I'm not suggesting that women have more rights than men in general, but there are occasions where the gendered language and assumptions of the times carried over and benefited them.