The Future of Social Conservatism

[Torie]

These things come and go in cycles. Economic bad times tend to foster social conservatism a bit btw. Folks feel like they can't afford libertinism. Thank heavens I can.  

I remember my dad telling me just how hard it was to get laid during the Depression. The women just wouldn't put out.

[lowtech redneck]

Different issues are different; gay marriage and (to a lesser extent) marijuana legalization are probably inevitable (which is a good thing in my book), but support for gun rights has increased, and support for unrestricted abortion has fluctuated and is currently in decline (I like these trends as well).  I don't think Roe v. Wade will last forever (personal stance aside, its just too problematic to hold up as a Constitutional interpretation without overwhelming public support).  That is not to say that abortion will be illegal in most states, but legislation will in most states likely reflect the general European stance (legal only for the first 2-3 months, and other restrictions).

Anyways, the issues that attempt to restrain human behavior which does not directly affect others are unlikely to withstand dedicated opposition unless an objective case can be made for its detrimental impact on society, particularly in countries with 'libertarian' foundations such as ours.  In some cases (like gay marriage), people are gradually coming to the conclusion that the negative externalities, if any, are insufficient to justify legal restrictions.  Other socially 'conservative' issues will not necessarily meet the same fate, particularly if they serve an objectively vital function for healthy societies.

[courts]

Different issues are different; gay marriage and (to a lesser extent) marijuana legalization are probably inevitable (which is a good thing in my book), but support for gun rights has increased, and support for unrestricted abortion has fluctuated and is currently in decline (I like these trends as well).  I don't think Roe v. Wade will last forever (personal stance aside, its just too problematic to hold up as a Constitutional interpretation without overwhelming public support).  That is not to say that abortion will be illegal in most states, but legislation will in most states likely reflect the general European stance (legal only for the first 2-3 months, and other restrictions).

Anyways, the issues that attempt to restrain human behavior which does not directly affect others are unlikely to withstand dedicated opposition unless an objective case can be made for its detrimental impact on society, particularly in countries with 'libertarian' foundations such as ours.  In some cases (like gay marriage), people are gradually coming to the conclusion that the negative externalities, if any, are insufficient to justify legal restrictions.  Other socially 'conservative' issues will not necessarily meet the same fate, particularly if they serve an objectively vital function for healthy societies.

Not only that, but some "social conservatives" may have very different attitudes on certain issues than others. Plenty of blue collar whites around MA/RI are pro casinos for example, but basically mainline social conservatives on everything else. Same with a lot of black voters: look at their stances on "law and order" type issues (drug war or death penalty) and then compare it to their views on say, something like homosexuality or religion in society. The problem in discussing "social conservatism" that a lot of people have is that they assume all social conservatism = white protestant voters trying to impose their value system on everyone else, which isn't entirely true.

[phk]

Different issues are different; gay marriage and (to a lesser extent) marijuana legalization are probably inevitable (which is a good thing in my book), but support for gun rights has increased, and support for unrestricted abortion has fluctuated and is currently in decline (I like these trends as well).  I don't think Roe v. Wade will last forever (personal stance aside, its just too problematic to hold up as a Constitutional interpretation without overwhelming public support).  That is not to say that abortion will be illegal in most states, but legislation will in most states likely reflect the general European stance (legal only for the first 2-3 months, and other restrictions).

Anyways, the issues that attempt to restrain human behavior which does not directly affect others are unlikely to withstand dedicated opposition unless an objective case can be made for its detrimental impact on society, particularly in countries with 'libertarian' foundations such as ours.  In some cases (like gay marriage), people are gradually coming to the conclusion that the negative externalities, if any, are insufficient to justify legal restrictions.  Other socially 'conservative' issues will not necessarily meet the same fate, particularly if they serve an objectively vital function for healthy societies.

Not only that, but some "social conservatives" may have very different attitudes on certain issues than others. Plenty of blue collar whites around MA/RI are pro casinos for example, but basically mainline social conservatives on everything else. Same with a lot of black voters: look at their stances on "law and order" type issues (drug war or death penalty) and then compare it to their views on say, something like homosexuality or religion in society. The problem in discussing "social conservatism" that a lot of people have is that they assume all social conservatism = white protestant voters trying to impose their value system on everyone else, which isn't entirely true.

This.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Different issues are different; gay marriage and (to a lesser extent) marijuana legalization are probably inevitable (which is a good thing in my book), but support for gun rights has increased, and support for unrestricted abortion has fluctuated and is currently in decline (I like these trends as well).  I don't think Roe v. Wade will last forever (personal stance aside, its just too problematic to hold up as a Constitutional interpretation without overwhelming public support).  That is not to say that abortion will be illegal in most states, but legislation will in most states likely reflect the general European stance (legal only for the first 2-3 months, and other restrictions).

Anyways, the issues that attempt to restrain human behavior which does not directly affect others are unlikely to withstand dedicated opposition unless an objective case can be made for its detrimental impact on society, particularly in countries with 'libertarian' foundations such as ours.  In some cases (like gay marriage), people are gradually coming to the conclusion that the negative externalities, if any, are insufficient to justify legal restrictions.  Other socially 'conservative' issues will not necessarily meet the same fate, particularly if they serve an objectively vital function for healthy societies.

Not only that, but some "social conservatives" may have very different attitudes on certain issues than others. Plenty of blue collar whites around MA/RI are pro casinos for example, but basically mainline social conservatives on everything else. Same with a lot of black voters: look at their stances on "law and order" type issues (drug war or death penalty) and then compare it to their views on say, something like homosexuality or religion in society. The problem in discussing "social conservatism" that a lot of people have is that they assume all social conservatism = white protestant voters trying to impose their value system on everyone else, which isn't entirely true.

Exactly. This is actually something I've been trying to say to various people for a long time, though in my area (western Mass) there's an oddly common (not extremely so, but more present than you might think) phenomenon among white-ethnic blue-collar Catholics wherein they are at least open to LGBT issues, due to either having gay relatives or simply the experience of living in places like Holyoke or Chicopee that are in relatively close proximity to the gay enclaves in the Pioneer Valley, but straight-down-the-line believers in Catholic social teachings on pretty much everything else. My family, for instance, is pretty much all at least somewhat pro-gay, but I have some very anti-abortion and anti-euthanasia, sometimes even anti-contraception, relatives, particularly in the older generations.

[TJ in Oregon]

Exactly. This is actually something I've been trying to say to various people for a long time, though in my area (western Mass) there's an oddly common (not extremely so, but more present than you might think) phenomenon among white-ethnic blue-collar Catholics wherein they are at least open to LGBT issues, due to either having gay relatives or simply the experience of living in places like Holyoke or Chicopee that are in relatively close proximity to the gay enclaves in the Pioneer Valley, but straight-down-the-line believers in Catholic social teachings on pretty much everything else. My family, for instance, is pretty much all at least somewhat pro-gay, but I have some very anti-abortion and anti-euthanasia, sometimes even anti-contraception, relatives, particularly in the older generations.

I wonder if this has something to do with it:

Source: http://publicreligion.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Millenials-Abortion-and-Religion-Survey-Report.pdf

Notice how the Catholic Church on the local level has pretty much ignored homosexuality entirely. I don’t mean to ‘muddle’ Catholic teachings on the subject to misconstrue the Church’s view to be anything other than that homosexual acts are sinful. The catechism is explicit as is the Vatican and the National Council of Catholic Bishops. But, the Church hasn’t tried harder to change its followers view on homosexuality. On abortion, the exact opposite is true: the Church has focused its political energy on abortion more so than any other religious group.

The views on abortion of individual Catholics are very dependent on whether or not the person is practicing, with those who follow the Church’s teaching on attending Mass weekly generally agreeing with its teaching on abortion (which at my church in Cleveland is mentioned almost every week), and those who rarely attend have more or less the same views as those who identify with no religion.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

That's very likely, since Massachusetts Catholics actually tend to have a reasonably good attendance rate. That combined with ghost_white's analysis applied to the social and political dynamics of the state in general I think explains it pretty well.

[Frodo]

In a way, it is in the interest of social conservatives to support liberalized immigration laws -as a general rule, recently arrived immigrants (particularly those from what was once called the 'Third World') are religiously devout and thereby very socially conservative regardless of whether they are Muslims, Christians, or Hindus.  If and when we get another huge wave of immigration within the next few decades, it could give social conservatism a new lease on life.  Assuming, of course, that the native white Protestant standard bearers can get over the fact that the future of their cause rests on those with darker skin color than theirs.   

[courts]

In a way, it is in the interest of social conservatives to support liberalized immigration laws -as a general rule, recently arrived immigrants (particularly those from what was once called the 'Third World') are religiously devout and thereby very socially conservative regardless of whether they are Muslims, Christians, or Hindus.  If and when we get another huge wave of immigration within the next few decades, it could give social conservatism a new lease on life.

Voting blocs like Mexicans or Blacks or Muslims might turn out for things like prop 8, but they'll still pull the lever for 'liberal' white Democrats. Besides that you're ignoring they're not evangelical conservatives, there are genuine cultural differences within those groups and resulting from those groups even if they agree on some issues.

[Person Man]

...and if I am not mistaken, as some immigrants' children and grandchildren assimilate into US culture, some of the socially conservative ideas water down to around the national median.

[Gustaf]

I think a common mistake is to muddle "traditionalist" versus "progressive" moral opinions with the issue of government intervention into private life, as opposed to a libertarian view on such issues.

In the US people assume that social conservative means imposing certain moral values on people, while social liberalism means letting people do what they want. Yet, in a more progressive country like mine it's the other way around, typically. Conservatives fight for their rights to have some of their stuff while progressive moral values tend to be imposed.

All people have a tendency to push their notions on others and the majority will always attempt this (with the minority fighting for their right to retain their lifestyle).

Personally, I believe in moral progression on issues like homosexuality. As people get more reasonable and open to debate positions that have no rational foundation fade away.

However, some issues lack this aspect (such as abortion). Or the general issue of government intervention in private life. There I don't think social conservatism is going anywhere.

We might also note that certain social liberal positions have also lost over time. If you look at the sexual revolution of the 60s and 70s a lot of their stuff (such as the popular position that incest was awesome) have become a lot more obscure today.

[Mechaman]

We might also note that certain social liberal positions have also lost over time. If you look at the sexual revolution of the 60s and 70s a lot of their stuff (such as the popular position that incest was awesome) have become a lot more obscure today.

When the f*** did this happen?

[courts]

We might also note that certain social liberal positions have also lost over time. If you look at the sexual revolution of the 60s and 70s a lot of their stuff (such as the popular position that incest was awesome) have become a lot more obscure today.

When the f*** did this happen?

Even something fairly mainstream like sex with cousins is looked down on today, even though it was basically the historical norm (for obvious reasons).

[Brittain33]

We might also note that certain social liberal positions have also lost over time. If you look at the sexual revolution of the 60s and 70s a lot of their stuff (such as the popular position that incest was awesome) have become a lot more obscure today.

When the f*** did this happen?

Yeah, what the hell? Gustav, when was that ever the case?

[Mechaman]

We might also note that certain social liberal positions have also lost over time. If you look at the sexual revolution of the 60s and 70s a lot of their stuff (such as the popular position that incest was awesome) have become a lot more obscure today.

When the f*** did this happen?

Even something fairly mainstream like sex with cousins is looked down on today, even though it was basically the historical norm (for obvious reasons).

Oh I thought he was referring to siblingf***ing, not cousinf***ing.
Honestly, I never really considered cousin intercourse that taboo.

[BugsBunny]

I think that some socially conservative positions will die out (like opposition to gay marriage and weed legalization, as you previously mentioned). However, I think that some socially conservative positions such as support of gun rights and opposition to abortion will stay mainstream in the U.S. for the long run.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Social Conservatism will continue to remain strong in the outer white suburbs ("exurbs") of Southern and Western cities.