Has there ever been a social issue in the US where in the long run, the conservative view was the one than was universally accepted? I mean “conservative” in the classic “keep the status quo” sense.
All the examples I can think of have the conservative view being repudiated today, such as slavery, women and blacks voting, interracial marriage, etc. But I realize that could be a form of confirmation bias, whereby liberal efforts for social change that ultimately failed might not be well known these days.
Nudity taboos are still in effect over most of the world, and (afaik) all of America.
Prostitution is still illegal in most places.
Recreational drugs are still highly regulated or outright banned in most places.
The thing to note is, a liberal effort doesn’t have to fail for the socially conservative view to prevail. In the absence of an effort to change it, it prevails by default.
Prohibition was repealed. But yeah, I think your question is kind of flawed…you’re saying “I mean “conservative” in the classic “keep the status quo” sense.”, and the status quo is pretty much always maintained, which is why it’s the status quo.
I’d say Prohibition is a big example; it was a progressive idea that was supposed to free citizens from the shackles of alcoholism and benefit families.
This. Moreover, in the case of rape, current laws are far more progressive, more “liberal,” than once they were. No longer is it permissable for a defense attorney in a rape prosecution to allege that the victim’s prior sexual conduct justifies her rape, for instance.
So what’s liberal? You’re the one who defined “conservative” as in favor of the status quo. It’s been the status quo that murder is wrong for quite some time, no? Therefore, the conservative position on murder has won in the long run.
If you’ve got some other definition of liberal other than “wants to change things”, then trot it out. Otherwise, everything we do the same from decade to decade is conservative.
Or do you mean actual notions about redesigning society that haven’t gone anywhere? How about: Creche raising of children. Group marriage. Free love. Abolition of private property. Social credit. Planned economy. Industrial policy. Technocratic socialism. Free coinage of silver at 16:1. A theraputic approach to crime. And on and on.
Eugenics was a socially progressive view at one point: people talked about Kallikaks and “feeble-mindedness” and thought that with this new scientific understanding, the world could be improved with a selective sterilization.
I think drug prohibition is the big one. It’s alwys seemed inevitable that it will fall, yet it still never budges.
The death penalty is another one, at least in the US, and gun rights have just won a pretty strong victory.
Progressives tend to win the issues involving social, racial, sex, class inequities, and lose on criminal justice issues. That’s why they’re winning on gay rights, but get nowhere on the death penalty or legal pot.
Lefties tend to lose on war protests too, especially on the ramp-ups.
There will always be changes so in that light the status quo ends up losing. On the other hands, changes are usually small and incremental so over all the status quo wins.
I can’t think that the US has ever not been socially conservative overall. But what is socially conservative tends to change over time. In the last century the 20s and the 60s had socially liberal movements, but those movements, while very, very visible, were never more than a very small portion of society. Even people who are politically liberal and support liberalization of laws might never have a desire to use those rights themselves. For example, I am for liberalization of marijuana laws, but I certainly would never smoke anything.
Less than 100 years ago, eugenics was the pet cause of almost all progressives. People like Margaret Sanger took it for granted that eugenics was the future.
Planned Parenthood HATES it when you bring that up!
Because it’s meaningless to anything they care about. Less than 50 years ago, conservatives didn’t want black people to drink from the same water fountains as white people.
Affirmative action. It’s highly unpopular and a number of states have voted to eliminate it. It seems likely that more states will do so in the future.
Welfare. In 1996 we gutted the federal welfare system, and even at the current moment there’s no talk of restoring it.
When you have some spare time, hunt down the actual record of how Congress voted on the Civil Rights Act. Compare the percentage of Republicans and Democrats who supported it. You’ll be surprised.
As for interracial marriage, that was not a conservative issue. Interracial marriage was legal for most of American history, up to the early 20th century. It was then banned in a number of states due to the power of the eugenics movement, which as astorian mentioned was not a conservative movement.
Many conservatives felt then, as they do now, that that practice was bullshit. Many conservatives sympathized with the civil rights movement and even marched with civil rights protestors. Many conservative politians voted for civil rights legislation.
And many Democrats (now conveniently disowned by the left but Democrats nonetheless) didn’t want - and fought to prevent - black people from drinking from the same water fountains as white people, and happily and wholeheartedly embraced all the racist attitudes that existed at that time.
It is utterly falsity to claim that only conservatives favored racism, and/or to imply that no Democrats did.
The Democrats were the conservatives then. The parties flip-flopped ideologically after the civil rights movement. Party labels are a red herring on this issue. Opposition to civil rights came from the ideological right, not the left.
Oh, the Democrats were conservatives then. How convenient. So I guess it was liberal Republicans who ushered in the New Deal and Great Society programs of that time.
And besides, it looks like you have embraced the time-worn tactic of equating any opposition to civil rights legislation with racism. There were many conservatives at the time who supported civil rights but questioned or disapproved of certain elements of the civil rights movement. Bussing is a quick and easy example. Even many blacks disliked the fact that their kids had to get up early and stand outside on cold winter mornings in order to get on a bus and attend classes at a school clear across town. But let any conservative voice opposition to bussing for the same reason and he’s immediately labelled a racist.
I’ve seen this tactic used time and again over the years with every liberal pet cause. Question or voice concern or disapproval about anything that has been proposed to benefit women, minorites, gays, etc. and you instantly get labelled a sexist, racist, homophobe, etc.
It’s perfectly reasonable and proper to favor certain societal goals while at the same time disapproving of some of the ways being proposed to deal with them, but it seems to be only conservatives who realize that. Liberals seem to take the approach that one must wholeheartedly and unquestioningly embrace any and all notions purported to benefit whatever cause they’re championing and anyone who doesn’t is therefore some kind of ‘ist’ or ‘phobe’.