The Future of Social Conservatism

[Likely Voter]

Another last line of defense is nudity and profanity on network TV. Of course in 50 years there probably wont be a distinction between network tv and cable tv so that may also be moot.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

It does seem that in the last century the traditional/social conservatives are running out of things to protect us from. They have already lost the battles on alcohol, porn, comic books, violent games/tv/movies, interracial marriage, birth control, sex education, homosexuality as crime, abortion, prayer in schools and even gambling (somewhat). 

don't know who you've been hanging around, but I've only been in favor of outlawing abortion...in fact, I don't want gay marriage to be illegal, I just dont want to condone it by having the state recognize it (there are a lot of things that are legal yet are not recognized by the state).

[Simfan34]

Another last line of defense is nudity and profanity on network TV. Of course in 50 years there probably wont be a distinction between network tv and cable tv so that may also be moot.

We're loosing that fast. Profanity particularly, and both in general terms in society.

[Likely Voter]

It does seem that in the last century the traditional/social conservatives are running out of things to protect us from. They have already lost the battles on alcohol, porn, comic books, violent games/tv/movies, interracial marriage, birth control, sex education, homosexuality as crime, abortion, prayer in schools and even gambling (somewhat). 

don't know who you've been hanging around, but I've only been in favor of outlawing abortion...in fact, I don't want gay marriage to be illegal, I just dont want to condone it by having the state recognize it (there are a lot of things that are legal yet are not recognized by the state).

I wasn't talking about you, i was talking about the history of social conservatism over the last century. Over that time there have been those who have fought change on all of those issues and every time they lose and within a generation or two the whole argument seems kind of silly. The arguments are usually the same. "We must ban this or that to protect children/tradition/etc. If we don't ban x/y/z then society will fall apart and there will be a slippery slope to [insert hyperbole]." But it turns out that society can handle change and diversity of lifestyles and choices.

[Simfan34]

My fear is that social conservatism will be rendered so irrelevant that all I'll be left with is railing against people wearing four-in-hand dies who deem it to be "black tie". I am a social conservative. I believe in morality, what is proper, what is right. Nuclear families, traditional marriage (with civil unions), a strong personal faith within organized religion, opposition to abortion, opposition to pornography and crudeness in the public sphere, topped with an admittedly rigid view of social etiquette and rules.

Combined with changes in the social dynamic thanks to the future, and the overall decline of the United States, I get pretty depressed thinking about the future these days.

No one in my generation thinks like that.

[Likely Voter]

My fear is that social conservatism will be rendered so irrelevant that all I'll be left with is railing against people wearing four-in-hand dies who deem it to be "black tie". I am a social conservative. I believe in morality, what is proper, what is right. Nuclear families, traditional marriage (with civil unions), a strong personal faith within organized religion, opposition to abortion, opposition to pornography and crudeness in the public sphere, topped with an admittedly rigid view of social etiquette and rules.

Combined with changes in the social dynamic thanks to the future, and the overall decline of the United States, I get pretty depressed thinking about the future these days.

No one in my generation thinks like that.

Well there is nothing wrong with feeling that way and I am sure that there will always be religious/social conservatives. The thing that is losing favor is the effort to use the levers of government to impose those beliefs on everyone.

As for the United States. I think it is a lot more resilient. I do find it ironic that so many of those who talk about American exceptionalism are also those who seem to think that the nation is so fragile that it will decline or collapse over these societal changes.

[Simfan34]

My fear is that social conservatism will be rendered so irrelevant that all I'll be left with is railing against people wearing four-in-hand dies who deem it to be "black tie". I am a social conservative. I believe in morality, what is proper, what is right. Nuclear families, traditional marriage (with civil unions), a strong personal faith within organized religion, opposition to abortion, opposition to pornography and crudeness in the public sphere, topped with an admittedly rigid view of social etiquette and rules.

Combined with changes in the social dynamic thanks to the future, and the overall decline of the United States, I get pretty depressed thinking about the future these days.

No one in my generation thinks like that.

Well there is nothing wrong with feeling that way and I am sure that there will always be religious/social conservatives. The thing that is losing favor is the effort to use the levers of government to impose those beliefs on everyone.

As for the United States. I think it is a lot more resilient. I do find it ironic that so many of those who talk about American exceptionalism are also those who seem to think that the nation is so fragile that it will decline or collapse over these societal changes.

I hope it's resilient. By the way, by the time I'm complaining, most people won't wear ties... sigh.

[Likely Voter]

By the way, by the time I'm complaining, most people won't wear ties... sigh.

That reminds me of THIS

[Yelnoc]

Technology will create new things for social conservatives to oppose.  Genetic tampering such as designer babies and cloning come to mind.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Another last line of defense is nudity and profanity on network TV. Of course in 50 years there probably wont be a distinction between network tv and cable tv so that may also be moot.

Fixed your post.

[Likely Voter]

Technology will create new things for social conservatives to oppose.  Genetic tampering such as designer babies and cloning come to mind.

Don't forget sexbots.

And of course marrying your sexbots

[courts]

It does seem that in the last century the traditional/social conservatives are running out of things to protect us from. They have already lost the battles on alcohol, porn, comic books, violent games/tv/movies, interracial marriage, birth control, sex education, homosexuality as crime, abortion, prayer in schools and even gambling (somewhat).  I agree that marijuana and gay marriage will join the list soon enough.

I think the last lines of defense may be around hard drugs, prostitution and perhaps gambling becoming even more available. And then there are the legal ages and other regulations for all of the above activities (which is how they are fighting abortion now).

"Social Conservatism" as protestant-based social engineering might decline but I'm not that optimistic. It might diminish in some areas but just look at the perpetuation of blue laws and similar nonsense in liberal, enlightened New England. If anything, a lot of social 'liberalism' is really not that different from conservative protestantism. Just look at the puritanical attitudes of so many feminists, moralizing from gun control advocates and 'liberal internationalists', supporters of speech codes and ever more ridiculous work place 'sensitivity' and regulations, etc.

Also, the abortion issue is far from dead. I don't know why people keep saying that, if anything my generation is slightly more opposed to it than the norm from what I've seen. It's probably never going to go away.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Bizarre thread. Anyway, is the title a deliberate Crosland reference?

[Napoleon]

well i hope that social conservatism has been effectively killed. That's the reason I am a democrat anyways. I believe in the decriminalization of marijuana, am a pacifist, support reproductive rights (although supporting banning partial birth abortion), and am a deist. 

I think you're probably very close to me ideologically.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

basically, there is a difference between social conservatism that attempts to legislate morality (eg outlaw homosexuality), and social conservatism that attempts to protect the rights of others (eg the unborn).

[Mechaman]

Social conservatism by definition can't die. The issues that are "socially conservative" will just change.

well, what exactly comes next...bestiality, necrophilia?

Surely you can see the difference in consensual sexual activity between two adults and sexual activity between an adult and a horse or a dead body.

what if the dead person gave his consent before he died...is it then ok in your eyes?

[memphis]

It takes a very strange idea of ethics to look at the past with its epic wars, slavery, disregard for the legal rights of women, etc and declare that we are in some sort of moral decay because two gay men want the same legal rights as everybody else. I can't figure out nutters.

[Mechaman]

But seriously folks............

I was half way done with a very sarcastic post when I decided to just come out straight (no pun intended!) with my thoughts on this matter:

Like Lief said before me Social Conservatism doesn't ever really ever die it just evolves into different issues.  Issues that didn't matter before.  I mean yeah sure to a lot of people here you might immediately start joking "ha yeah the f***ing of baby horses isn't an issue that I thought about much before!".  But hear me out for a second:

In the early days of the republic, let us say sometime during the Articles of Confederation (in the 1780's) when our forefathers drank untold amounts of liquor that would probably be enough to kill off an entire college fraternity, how many people thought Prohibition would be an important issue for debate.....much less be made into a Constitutional Amendment?

How much concern did northern WASPs have about Catholic immigrants in the 1820's?  Would somebody, in 1828, who suggested barring non-protestants from running for office be given the same amount of attention as those who would in 1854.........or would they get criticized for ignoring those damned Masons?

In mostly rural and underpopulated 1804 America, which just made the Louisiana Purchase, was the argument for immigration restrictions as strong as it was in modernized urban 1924 America?

In 1938, how many people thought about declaring war on drugs?

In 1960 how many people, even the devoutly religious or black fearing southerners, worried about a "homosexual agenda"?

In 2011, how many people were worried about "clone rights"?  How about massive illegal immigration from Quebec?  Or how about the evils of Rastafarianism?  Or how about internet censorship as part of the "War on Anonymous"?

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

I constantly worry that in the future my type will be viewed just as horribly as Jim Crow segregationists are now. After thinking that, I wonder "what's the point? Everything I believe, whether right or wrong, will be rendered "wrong" in public morality as this worl eventually drifts leftward" and I'll even wonder sometimes if I'm just an impediment to the unstoppable march of time. Liberals, whether for better or for worse, have the direction of the world on their side, it seems. As for social conservatism evolving, that still is no comfort. I'll bet the segregationists of the 1950's are pleased that social cosnervatism evolved into fighting over abortion after the decades they fought for the right to segregate. In the same vein, why should I be happy that in the future, social cosnervatism evolves away from the issues I've believed in as they're rendered irrelvant and onto regulating sexbots?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

It takes a very strange idea of ethics to look at the past with its epic wars, slavery, disregard for the legal rights of women, etc and declare that we are in some sort of moral decay because two gay men want the same legal rights as everybody else. I can't figure out nutters.

yeah, there are some nutters who believe just because people were wrong in the past, we shouldnt stand up for morality today.

[The Mikado]

Abortion as a political issue isn't going anywhere.  Several times I've been asked if I thought that gay marriage was the abortion of the 21st century, to which I reply that abortion is the abortion of the 21st century.

[tpfkaw]

It does seem that in the last century the traditional/social conservatives are running out of things to protect us from. They have already lost the battles on alcohol, porn, comic books, violent games/tv/movies, interracial marriage, birth control, sex education, homosexuality as crime, abortion, prayer in schools and even gambling (somewhat).  I agree that marijuana and gay marriage will join the list soon enough.

I think the last lines of defense may be around hard drugs, prostitution and perhaps gambling becoming even more available. And then there are the legal ages and other regulations for all of the above activities (which is how they are fighting abortion now).

"Social Conservatism" as protestant-based social engineering might decline but I'm not that optimistic. It might diminish in some areas but just look at the perpetuation of blue laws and similar nonsense in liberal, enlightened New England. If anything, a lot of social 'liberalism' is really not that different from conservative protestantism. Just look at the puritanical attitudes of so many feminists, moralizing from gun control advocates and 'liberal internationalists', supporters of speech codes and ever more ridiculous work place 'sensitivity' and regulations, etc.

Also, the abortion issue is far from dead. I don't know why people keep saying that, if anything my generation is slightly more opposed to it than the norm from what I've seen. It's probably never going to go away.

New England is pretty much the ur example for how 'social liberalism' essentially is puritanical WASP morality/snobbery in the form of legislation.

[TJ in Oregon]

I constantly worry that in the future my type will be viewed just as horribly as Jim Crow segregationists are now. After thinking that, I wonder "what's the point? Everything I believe, whether right or wrong, will be rendered "wrong" in public morality as this world eventually drifts leftward" and I'll even wonder sometimes if I'm just an impediment to the unstoppable march of time. Liberals, whether for better or for worse, have the direction of the world on their side, it seems. As for social conservatism evolving, that still is no comfort. I'll bet the segregationists of the 1950's are pleased that social conservatism evolved into fighting over abortion after the decades they fought for the right to segregate. In the same vein, why should I be happy that in the future, social conservatism evolves away from the issues I've believed in as they're rendered irrelevant and onto regulating sexbots?

To me, the entire idea of social conservatism and social liberalism as we understand it today was mostly irrelevant before the 1960s and the sexual revolution. The gist of the argument boils down to sex, drugs, and religion, and how they shape our laws. I believe in an absolute morality; that is to say that what is right is right and what is wrong is wrong regardless of my opinion. In my imperfection I am wrong, not misunderstood. The morality of an act can of course vary depending on the circumstances but is largely time-independent (with exception of how changed circumstances vary with time, ie. the need to capital punishment fits this and sex doesn’t because the rationale for sex being reproduction is largely invariant). Racial discrimination was wrong then and is wrong now because it is a sin against the virtue of charity and fails to love others as oneself. Many people were wrong about it back then, but they were truly wrong.

So what will happen in the future? I do think most people besides a small and shrinking minority will take the liberal position on most sexual issues that come up. I don’t expect the socially conservative side in today’s arguments to be vindicated; quite the contrary. I expect that by opposing gay marriage I’ll be reviled by almost all who read this in 100 years. But, I believe in an intrinsic morality, that it doesn’t matter what other people think. Maybe I’m wrong about an issue or two, but if I am then my entire belief system is in conflict. I can’t last in such a contradictory state and something would have to give. I am an all-or-nothing man when it comes to beliefs. I always have been and I always will be.

So how does all of this affect the law? That’s the question we’re on this site primarily to address, not my view or someone else’s view of morality. I’m a pragmatist when it comes to the law rather than someone who takes political views according to some idealistic philosophy on the proper role of governance (though I have limits here as to what I will find acceptable). In general I support a law that will lead to fewer people doing bad things and oppose a law that will lead to more people doing bad things. At the moment, social conservatives are fighting to retain governmental control of drugs and marriage, which the left feels is an imposition. Sometimes I wonder if we’d be better off trying to fight for our positive rights to disagree with the increasingly popular liberal views instead of fighting to stop them from taking hold. This would help us some with the libertarian-types. But, it’s also been my experience that most people view the law and morality to be closely linked in many scenarios. Very few people will crusade to legalize gay marriage while trying to “rehabilitate” or “fix” gays. It’s hard to imagine someone taking that route: the politically libertarian and morally conservative approach. This whole thread is a problem I don’t know how to fix (I’ve always been a “How?” sort of guy, it’s the engineer in me). If I did, I wouldn’t be wasting my time studying chemical engineering; if I knew how to fix it, I’d be out there screaming it from the hilltops. Instead, I’m relegated to dealing with the simple tasks at hand, trying to keep the faith (literally and figuratively) as I go onward day by day.

[Simfan34]

I constantly worry that in the future my type will be viewed just as horribly as Jim Crow segregationists are now. After thinking that, I wonder "what's the point? Everything I believe, whether right or wrong, will be rendered "wrong" in public morality as this worl eventually drifts leftward" and I'll even wonder sometimes if I'm just an impediment to the unstoppable march of time. Liberals, whether for better or for worse, have the direction of the world on their side, it seems. As for social conservatism evolving, that still is no comfort. I'll bet the segregationists of the 1950's are pleased that social cosnervatism evolved into fighting over abortion after the decades they fought for the right to segregate. In the same vein, why should I be happy that in the future, social cosnervatism evolves away from the issues I've believed in as they're rendered irrelvant and onto regulating sexbots?

Thus is essentially my view.

[courts]

Thus is essentially my view.

Even ignoring abortion (which is silly) you still have affirmative action, hate speech/crimes, gun control, immigration, anti-globalization/globalism, father's/men's rights, etc. that you can argue without ever bringing up religion. Those issues aren't going away any time soon.