I think that the author's running definition of "social conservative" is something of a straw man: he defines social conservatives very narrowly and implies that this narrow definition now fits for the (vast?) majority of social conservatives, and I'm unconvinced that this is accurate.
Too, his definition of conservatism in this context seems contrived. He does not differentiate between reactionary (who simply rejects elements of the evolving social contract, but does not have a clearly formed alternative) and conservative, and how they differ. How this difference informs the modern social conservative position in key. Conservatism seeks to preserve consensus values of a previous era, but it's important to note that if that previous era is no longer within the living memory of the majority, it is no longer conserving, but re-inventing traditions *as these "conservators" imagine them to be; in this sense, they are more like a reactionary with a good imagination.
A good example of a well-formed reactionary movement is Libertarianism. It shares many social values with contemporary conservatives, but Libertarianism in practice has never really existed within the majority's recalled experience--if indeed it was ever practiced in any orthodox sense. So it is against certain modern norms, but plugs in a sort of imagined and idealized norm of their own preference. It's a lot like imagining how Camelot must have been, for re-enactors.
But neither Libertarians nor Arthurian re-enactors are "conservative" since the reality differs from the imagined paradigm.
I'd argue that any contemporary conservative who justifies a ban on abortion, or open homosexuality, on the basis of religion is not for conserving an existing tradition, but is hearkening to the imagined norms--accurately or otherwise--of a previous era. Modern social conservatives, if they oppose either, must do it on other grounds.
Straw manning...Yes you took the words out of my digital mouth! Social conservatism as a concept is an umbrella label for a broad-brush mental/philosophical resistance to the competitive victimhood, gender-woo, therapy-woo and general narcissism that spread through the Western world in the second half of the 20th c. It takes quite a level of intellectual obtuseness and immaturity to fail to grasp that concept. Straw men?.....Steven Crowder...who's he?....Robert Dabney...who's he? Downs syndrome-in-thecommunity...what?.....Barbie....what? (I could only get a third of the way through this essay Sorry.)
Oddly, my initial reaction to the piece as I read it was confusion--the author described what he defined as conservatives of one stripe or another, in terms that were far beyond anything I'd experienced.
Here is a great example of what really threw me as I read it.
Referring to a person named Lila Rose, described as a "social conservative activist", the author says:
'Rose likewise praised Mattel’s toy as “real inclusivity.”'
Wow! Here are two very serious give-aways, and the author seems completely unaware of either.
1) No social conservative I have ever met or knew, would ever describe him/herself as an "activist" or engages in activities readily described as "activism". Therefore, "activism" is almost always in the progressive domain.
In fact political activity runs contrary to the conservative impulse to retain the status quo in as many cases as possible. Only when society undeniably departs from the status quo do you even hear from social conservatives--usually in the form of an individual protest, 06 Jan being a rare exception.
2) No social conservative would use the term "inclusivity" in the way it's used here, unless ironically. I think that at the core of every conservative is the deeply seated belief that inclusion or respect for an entity, is a *result* of natural and uncoerced social interactions. It is an organic result of the relationship, and cannot be externally assigned. This is why all efforts at legislating or otherwise forcing either respect, or the desire to include someone in one's social/work group never works and is doomed to failure. At most you'll get a minimal *appearance* of inclusion or respect that goes away once external enforcement is no longer present.
So inclusion, like respect, can only be earned; it cannot be assigned.
Yes...'inclusive, socially conservative activist'...que? This article's strange melange of seemingly random, beside-the-point personal preoccupations masquerading as an overview of social conservatism left me confused too. Struggling to find what to say about it. So much inability to see the wood for the trees packed into one essay.
> I'd argue that any contemporary conservative who justifies a ban on abortion, or open homosexuality, on the basis of religion is not for conserving an existing tradition, but is hearkening to the imagined norms--accurately or otherwise--of a previous era.
Yes. Opposing homosexuality or abortion in 2025 on the basis of religion is reactionary rather than conserving a general consensus that's within the memory of most of the populace.
It's the author's failure to discriminate between reactionary and conservative that made me begin to question what he meant by "conservative". The rational for the positions he describes as being held by contemporary conservatives were so alien to me that I was confused about who he was calling "conservative". It did not sound like any conservative I've known for the last 30 or more years.
Homosexuality used to be opposed on basis of natural law, not the Old Testament. Unnatural heterosexual acts were opposed for the same reason, and judging by the popularity of the "Hawk Tuah" meme among the trashier parts of the American right it doesn't seem they oppose them at all.
The Catholic attitude towards embryos isn't 'conservative' or 'trad' either. For most of European history it was thought that the fetus was ensouled when the mother started to feel it move and kick in the womb, and writers such as Augustine made a moral distinction between 'formed' and 'unformed' fetuses. In fact I'd guess the pro-life movement would not exist without microscopy and ultrasound imaging, making it profoundly modern.
In general the implicit belief in the infinite worth of every single human, potential or real, as a supposedly Christian value seems to be a post-1960s phenomenon too.
Depends what you mean by “modern” and “trad.” Is modern characterized by empirical knowledge gained by industrialization, or it characterized by the philosophical extremes of scientistic empiricism and postmodern idealism as opposed to the traditional platonic or hylomorphic view of reality. Because if it’s the former than yes the Catholic position on abortion is modern because knowledge has increased, but if it’s the latter than it’s clearly not and the position makes perfect sense from a natural law point of view and to dismiss it as a relic of the “culture war” is totally incorrect.
"Social conservatives like to put people with Down’s Syndrome in the public eye."
Yes, that is keeping with the extreme religious right that believes nothing should be done to stop the birth of a fetus with Down's Syndrome or any other severe deformity.
"My own view, incidentally, is that homosexuality does not have to be totally removed from society but should not be presented as normal in the public square."
We're not saying that consenting adults should be forbidden from doing homosexual acts. Like you said, it doesn't really matter if it doesn't affect others.
We're just saying that it shouldn't be presented as normal. Why? Because it's not normal. Homosexuality is maladaptive behavior.
Well, my question is how EXACTLY do you expect people to react to it? To anyone not religious making a big deal about it whether its "abnormal" or not does not make sense. What does it mean to treat something as normal or not in the "Public Square"?
You talked about not caring about what people do "behind closed doors" but the original comment was about what people do in "the public square". You see the contradiction, right?
Western Civilization since the Enlightenment is a constant march towards the Left. If Donald Trump ran for president in the 1950s he would have been considered a Cultural Marxist
Exactly. The key is the “social conservatives” he’s arguing against are trying to conserve the 1920s meanwhile the modern day Catholics who oppose liberalism are trying to conserve the 1290s
It's not, at least not unless you use a circular definition of the left.
The most obvious way it's not is that leftism has been entirely defeated in economics. For most of the last two centuries, leftism was obsessed with economics and social class. The failure of communist economics was so extreme and so discrediting that the left basically abandoned it and had to reform from scratch around wokeness. There are still some "old left" kicking around but they can mostly be found sulking about how modern leftists aren't really left because they support privatization.
Another huge defeat for the left in recent times was pacifism. It's easy to forget now, but the left was historically very anti-war. People who praised and protected the defense industry were almost automatically right wing. Since Ukraine that has totally changed, and now many on the left have discovered a newfound respect for armaments manufacturers.
Just two examples.
I don't know how long it will last; the left isn't great at learning lessons long term. But nonetheless, if Trump ran in 1950 he'd be considered astoundingly economically libertarian (the idea of DOGE in the 1950s, a time of enormous respect for govt institutions, would have been unthinkable).
Very interesting piece. I like essays that tease similar things, or at least similarly named things, apart. I certainly find myself lining up behind old America conservatives as opposed to social/Christian conservatives.
Kids with Downs Syndrome were pretty visible at St. Francis de Sales church in Sherman Oaks, CA in the 1960s-70s. It was not unusual for big Catholic families to have one Downs child and they were by no means covered up or hidden away. They were acknowledged and generally appreciated for their friendliness.
“Should we really celebrate genetic disorders?” = no.
I generally align with where this piece goes. The critical comment garnering likes is fine, it’s not hard too to criticize something for being incomplete, that can be said for most essays, but I think misses your general point: their is value in understanding the history of conservatism, how it has become distorted, and that doing so can help bring about positive cultural change.
Aren’t they just uptight about sex and obsessed with abortion for personality reasons, “low openness”, “high disgust response” etc? They are generally boring people.
Well, not sure if you’re being sarcastic, but there is not a lot of openness among liberals and there is an awful lot of puritanical pearl clutching these days.
Liberals have gone completely insane. Never met a conservative who wasn’t curious to discuss opposing views. Haven’t met a liberal who can handle simple disagreement.
I understand why this author categorizes gay marriage as a non issue and solely a win of a defiant system. But marriage also confers several other benefits beyond tax relief. The reason that legal marriage became a problem for the gay rights movement is not in fact a cohabitation issue which this author seems to suggest but because the families of gay men who had throw them out for being gay were coming in to places where gay men were dropping like flies and kicking them out of residences, taking all of the mutual possessions etc and because the law didn’t recognize their marriage the partner was excluded and could do nothing. In some cases partners were kept from funerals and the bedside of their dying loved ones. In a free society it shouldn’t matter if two consensual adults choose to be family to each other and as an American, no one should be able to take that right away from me. You don’t have to like that choice, that’s your right as an American. It’s my right to ensure that even if I can’t speak my family can’t turn out the one I choose to speak and care for me. My doctor, the funeral home, and everyone else has to respect my marriage license. It also means my partner can’t be forced to testify against me in a court of law, and that I can’t be held in contempt for refusing to speak against them. If you’re going to discuss the argument, please be sure to use this context as I would call this misleading.
I think that the author's running definition of "social conservative" is something of a straw man: he defines social conservatives very narrowly and implies that this narrow definition now fits for the (vast?) majority of social conservatives, and I'm unconvinced that this is accurate.
Too, his definition of conservatism in this context seems contrived. He does not differentiate between reactionary (who simply rejects elements of the evolving social contract, but does not have a clearly formed alternative) and conservative, and how they differ. How this difference informs the modern social conservative position in key. Conservatism seeks to preserve consensus values of a previous era, but it's important to note that if that previous era is no longer within the living memory of the majority, it is no longer conserving, but re-inventing traditions *as these "conservators" imagine them to be; in this sense, they are more like a reactionary with a good imagination.
A good example of a well-formed reactionary movement is Libertarianism. It shares many social values with contemporary conservatives, but Libertarianism in practice has never really existed within the majority's recalled experience--if indeed it was ever practiced in any orthodox sense. So it is against certain modern norms, but plugs in a sort of imagined and idealized norm of their own preference. It's a lot like imagining how Camelot must have been, for re-enactors.
But neither Libertarians nor Arthurian re-enactors are "conservative" since the reality differs from the imagined paradigm.
I'd argue that any contemporary conservative who justifies a ban on abortion, or open homosexuality, on the basis of religion is not for conserving an existing tradition, but is hearkening to the imagined norms--accurately or otherwise--of a previous era. Modern social conservatives, if they oppose either, must do it on other grounds.
It is an incredibly lazy article. The fact the writer calls the idea of life at conception "extreme" shows the blinders in his ideology.
Straw manning...Yes you took the words out of my digital mouth! Social conservatism as a concept is an umbrella label for a broad-brush mental/philosophical resistance to the competitive victimhood, gender-woo, therapy-woo and general narcissism that spread through the Western world in the second half of the 20th c. It takes quite a level of intellectual obtuseness and immaturity to fail to grasp that concept. Straw men?.....Steven Crowder...who's he?....Robert Dabney...who's he? Downs syndrome-in-thecommunity...what?.....Barbie....what? (I could only get a third of the way through this essay Sorry.)
Yes.
Oddly, my initial reaction to the piece as I read it was confusion--the author described what he defined as conservatives of one stripe or another, in terms that were far beyond anything I'd experienced.
Here is a great example of what really threw me as I read it.
Referring to a person named Lila Rose, described as a "social conservative activist", the author says:
'Rose likewise praised Mattel’s toy as “real inclusivity.”'
Wow! Here are two very serious give-aways, and the author seems completely unaware of either.
1) No social conservative I have ever met or knew, would ever describe him/herself as an "activist" or engages in activities readily described as "activism". Therefore, "activism" is almost always in the progressive domain.
In fact political activity runs contrary to the conservative impulse to retain the status quo in as many cases as possible. Only when society undeniably departs from the status quo do you even hear from social conservatives--usually in the form of an individual protest, 06 Jan being a rare exception.
2) No social conservative would use the term "inclusivity" in the way it's used here, unless ironically. I think that at the core of every conservative is the deeply seated belief that inclusion or respect for an entity, is a *result* of natural and uncoerced social interactions. It is an organic result of the relationship, and cannot be externally assigned. This is why all efforts at legislating or otherwise forcing either respect, or the desire to include someone in one's social/work group never works and is doomed to failure. At most you'll get a minimal *appearance* of inclusion or respect that goes away once external enforcement is no longer present.
So inclusion, like respect, can only be earned; it cannot be assigned.
Lila Rose is a Pro-life activist. She runs an organization called Live Action.
Yes...'inclusive, socially conservative activist'...que? This article's strange melange of seemingly random, beside-the-point personal preoccupations masquerading as an overview of social conservatism left me confused too. Struggling to find what to say about it. So much inability to see the wood for the trees packed into one essay.
> I'd argue that any contemporary conservative who justifies a ban on abortion, or open homosexuality, on the basis of religion is not for conserving an existing tradition, but is hearkening to the imagined norms--accurately or otherwise--of a previous era.
This is the exact argument the essay makes.
Yes. Opposing homosexuality or abortion in 2025 on the basis of religion is reactionary rather than conserving a general consensus that's within the memory of most of the populace.
It's the author's failure to discriminate between reactionary and conservative that made me begin to question what he meant by "conservative". The rational for the positions he describes as being held by contemporary conservatives were so alien to me that I was confused about who he was calling "conservative". It did not sound like any conservative I've known for the last 30 or more years.
The entire culture has shifted so far towards individualism and indulgence that most of the change is invisible to us now.
https://jmpolemic.substack.com/p/vassal-of-the-boomer-regime
Homosexuality used to be opposed on basis of natural law, not the Old Testament. Unnatural heterosexual acts were opposed for the same reason, and judging by the popularity of the "Hawk Tuah" meme among the trashier parts of the American right it doesn't seem they oppose them at all.
The Catholic attitude towards embryos isn't 'conservative' or 'trad' either. For most of European history it was thought that the fetus was ensouled when the mother started to feel it move and kick in the womb, and writers such as Augustine made a moral distinction between 'formed' and 'unformed' fetuses. In fact I'd guess the pro-life movement would not exist without microscopy and ultrasound imaging, making it profoundly modern.
In general the implicit belief in the infinite worth of every single human, potential or real, as a supposedly Christian value seems to be a post-1960s phenomenon too.
Depends what you mean by “modern” and “trad.” Is modern characterized by empirical knowledge gained by industrialization, or it characterized by the philosophical extremes of scientistic empiricism and postmodern idealism as opposed to the traditional platonic or hylomorphic view of reality. Because if it’s the former than yes the Catholic position on abortion is modern because knowledge has increased, but if it’s the latter than it’s clearly not and the position makes perfect sense from a natural law point of view and to dismiss it as a relic of the “culture war” is totally incorrect.
Thanks for an informative article.
"Social conservatives like to put people with Down’s Syndrome in the public eye."
Yes, that is keeping with the extreme religious right that believes nothing should be done to stop the birth of a fetus with Down's Syndrome or any other severe deformity.
"My own view, incidentally, is that homosexuality does not have to be totally removed from society but should not be presented as normal in the public square."
Agreed.
"Agreed".
Why? Does not really make sense why people should care about what consenting adults do behind closed doors.
We're not saying that consenting adults should be forbidden from doing homosexual acts. Like you said, it doesn't really matter if it doesn't affect others.
We're just saying that it shouldn't be presented as normal. Why? Because it's not normal. Homosexuality is maladaptive behavior.
You seem to have missed the "in the public square" part.
Well, my question is how EXACTLY do you expect people to react to it? To anyone not religious making a big deal about it whether its "abnormal" or not does not make sense. What does it mean to treat something as normal or not in the "Public Square"?
You talked about not caring about what people do "behind closed doors" but the original comment was about what people do in "the public square". You see the contradiction, right?
No. None whatsoever. I just asked a simple question. You didn't answer.
"Why? Does not really make sense why people should care about what consenting adults do behind closed doors."
I don't care what consenting adults do behind closed doors. But homosexuality is abnormal behavior.
Yes it is not the norm.
Being fluent in differential calculus is also abnormal.
Normal is not a useful heuristic here.
"Normal is not a useful heuristic here."
Speaking of useful, differential calculus is, heterosexuality is, homosexuality is not.
Western Civilization since the Enlightenment is a constant march towards the Left. If Donald Trump ran for president in the 1950s he would have been considered a Cultural Marxist
Exactly. The key is the “social conservatives” he’s arguing against are trying to conserve the 1920s meanwhile the modern day Catholics who oppose liberalism are trying to conserve the 1290s
It's not, at least not unless you use a circular definition of the left.
The most obvious way it's not is that leftism has been entirely defeated in economics. For most of the last two centuries, leftism was obsessed with economics and social class. The failure of communist economics was so extreme and so discrediting that the left basically abandoned it and had to reform from scratch around wokeness. There are still some "old left" kicking around but they can mostly be found sulking about how modern leftists aren't really left because they support privatization.
Another huge defeat for the left in recent times was pacifism. It's easy to forget now, but the left was historically very anti-war. People who praised and protected the defense industry were almost automatically right wing. Since Ukraine that has totally changed, and now many on the left have discovered a newfound respect for armaments manufacturers.
Just two examples.
I don't know how long it will last; the left isn't great at learning lessons long term. But nonetheless, if Trump ran in 1950 he'd be considered astoundingly economically libertarian (the idea of DOGE in the 1950s, a time of enormous respect for govt institutions, would have been unthinkable).
So true!
Very interesting piece. I like essays that tease similar things, or at least similarly named things, apart. I certainly find myself lining up behind old America conservatives as opposed to social/Christian conservatives.
Kids with Downs Syndrome were pretty visible at St. Francis de Sales church in Sherman Oaks, CA in the 1960s-70s. It was not unusual for big Catholic families to have one Downs child and they were by no means covered up or hidden away. They were acknowledged and generally appreciated for their friendliness.
Maybe we no longer live in a predominantly agrarian society and social conservatives have adjusted their mores accordingly?
Good article, thanks for writing it. Very thought provoking.
“Should we really celebrate genetic disorders?” = no.
I generally align with where this piece goes. The critical comment garnering likes is fine, it’s not hard too to criticize something for being incomplete, that can be said for most essays, but I think misses your general point: their is value in understanding the history of conservatism, how it has become distorted, and that doing so can help bring about positive cultural change.
Good article
THIS SIMON LAD IS A PRETTY SMART COOKIE
Actually the average age of marriage in America in 1950 was lower than the average age of marriage in England in the 1600s.
Aren’t they just uptight about sex and obsessed with abortion for personality reasons, “low openness”, “high disgust response” etc? They are generally boring people.
The 1980s called and they want their platitudinous social analysis back.
When’s the last time you talked to a liberal?
My dopey liberal neigbor always making quips about global warming 🙄. Feckless dweeb lol
Well, not sure if you’re being sarcastic, but there is not a lot of openness among liberals and there is an awful lot of puritanical pearl clutching these days.
Liberals have gone completely insane. Never met a conservative who wasn’t curious to discuss opposing views. Haven’t met a liberal who can handle simple disagreement.
I’ve seen a few bizarre angry outbursts at the mere idea of conservatives existing. Concerning.
I understand why this author categorizes gay marriage as a non issue and solely a win of a defiant system. But marriage also confers several other benefits beyond tax relief. The reason that legal marriage became a problem for the gay rights movement is not in fact a cohabitation issue which this author seems to suggest but because the families of gay men who had throw them out for being gay were coming in to places where gay men were dropping like flies and kicking them out of residences, taking all of the mutual possessions etc and because the law didn’t recognize their marriage the partner was excluded and could do nothing. In some cases partners were kept from funerals and the bedside of their dying loved ones. In a free society it shouldn’t matter if two consensual adults choose to be family to each other and as an American, no one should be able to take that right away from me. You don’t have to like that choice, that’s your right as an American. It’s my right to ensure that even if I can’t speak my family can’t turn out the one I choose to speak and care for me. My doctor, the funeral home, and everyone else has to respect my marriage license. It also means my partner can’t be forced to testify against me in a court of law, and that I can’t be held in contempt for refusing to speak against them. If you’re going to discuss the argument, please be sure to use this context as I would call this misleading.