Social conservatism isn't dead

Is social conservatism dead? That seems to be the conventional wisdom among do-what-you-feel millennials and American liberals of all ages. And indeed, Gallup keeps providing reasons to think social conservatism is at least on life support.

First there was a poll showing that the percentage of Americans identifying as social liberals equaled the share of social conservatives for the first time ever. Then came a more detailed survey showing Americans moving left on what the pollsters called "key moral issues," ranging from gay sex to embryonic stem-cell research.

Finally, on abortion, a rare moral issue where there wasn't statistically significant leftward movement, Gallup concluded that those who describe themselves as pro-choice outnumber those who say they are pro-life for the first time in seven years.

Subscribe to The Week

Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.

SUBSCRIBE & SAVE

Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

Sign up

This follows other polls showing Christians declining as a percentage of the U.S. population and a national public outcry against an Indiana religious liberty law backed by social conservatives. The United States could end up like Catholic Ireland, which voted overwhelmingly in favor of gay marriage despite the Vatican's objections.

But here's the thing: The demise of social conservatism in American politics is frequently predicted, but somehow it never happens. This is partly because social conservatism is a relative term.

It might have once been considered socially conservative to kvetch about women in the workplace. It isn't anymore — in fact, one of the faces of social conservatism since the early 1970s has been Phyllis Schlafly, a woman who is still working in her 90s. And social conservatism continues to exist.

Similarly, it has long been considered socially conservative to oppose marijuana legalization. Indeed, that's still true. But the rise of libertarian Republicans suggests perhaps it won't always be. The very definition of social conservative has changed and will continue to change.

Of course, some parts of social conservatism haven't really changed, and probably won't. Many of the issues that have been associated with social conservatism for decades remain hotly contested. More than 50 years after the Supreme Court ended organized school prayer, there is still significant support for daily prayer in the classroom. Sympathy for teaching creationism in public schools also remains stubbornly high.

We need perspective. In 1992, when even the conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer was arguing that the abortion debate was settled in favor of the pro-choice side, abortion opponents would have salivated over poll results now considered the worst for the pro-life side in seven years. Identification with the pro-life position is up 11 points over where it was in 1995, according to Gallup. Adherence to the pro-choice label is still down six. The same poll showing a pro-choice plurality also finds a majority of U.S. adults believe abortion should be "legal in only a few circumstances" or "illegal in all circumstances."

Abortion remains a live political issue. So do most of the hot-button topics concerning religion in the public square.

So does that mean all is well for my fellow social conservatives? No. We are clearly losing ground on the so-called sexual revolution. There is more support for out-of-wedlock births, divorce, and most forms of sex outside of marriage besides adultery. Dan Quayle may have been right about two-parent families, but his ideas aren't popular.

The defeats social conservatives are suffering on gay rights in particular could threaten their other positions. Here social conservatives aren't simply seen as out-of-touch defenders of outdated mores. They are increasingly regarded as advocating something morally equivalent to racism.

Through the prism of the gay rights debate, social conservative pleas for religious liberty are being viewed as a rearguard defense of discrimination against gay people. At the very least, these religious liberty claims are no longer considered something necessarily more sacred than sexual identity.

While people have been offended by social conservative pronouncements on a number of moral questions — think the war on women — on gay marriage, social conservatives are seen as being motivated by hatred.

Can strong support for a robust presence of religion in the public square survive the perception that religion is a cover for anti-gay hate? What will happen to the pro-life cause if many of its champions are seen as analogous to segregationists in the debates over gay rights and marriage?

Public opinion has shifted so swiftly many social conservatives haven't contemplated these questions. They had better start.