# Social Conservatism Explained **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 5, 2004, 4:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-conservatism-explained/273133 "2004-11-05T04:26:59Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 12\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2004, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-conservatism-explained/273133/161 "2004-11-08T15:58:44Z")
> [@John Corrado](#): > > Eh… don’t be too sure. Remember that Bush 41 got a lot of mileage in pointing out that Dukakis had gone to a psychiatrist for treatment of depression. That was Kitty Dukakis, not Michael Dukakis, wasn’t it? ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2004, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-conservatism-explained/273133/162 "2004-11-08T16:06:29Z")
> [@Mirasawa](#): > > I wasn’t talking about legislating morality, but rather that a straight-laced social conservative is characterized by never being intoxicated, never being promiscuous, never using foul language, etc. The free and easy liberal feels free to get hammered (at least every once in a while), score with as many willing men/women as possible in college, swear at the TV during a football game, etc. Funny, the guys you describe as “liberal” are the ones that in my experience are the most likely to end up as conservatives. I remember college-age liberals as being much more earnest. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2004, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-conservatism-explained/273133/163 "2004-11-08T17:08:51Z")
> [@acsenray](#): > > This was exactly the issue. Despite the outward expressions of – “oh, it’s optional” – DOJ employees felt enormous pressure to participate, especially when the attorney general invited them personally. Could you provide a cite for some DOJ employees who felt this alleged enormous pressure? And the negative consequences when they refused, to their careers? Thanks in advance. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2004, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-conservatism-explained/273133/164 "2004-11-08T17:13:26Z")
I read the same thing about the White House prayer breakfasts- particularly that there is subtle pressure to attend and that W will comment on it to people who don’t go. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Corrado](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/a88e4f/32.png) [@John\_Corrado](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Corrado)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2004, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-conservatism-explained/273133/165 "2004-11-08T17:25:35Z")
> [@Hyperelastic](#): > > By the way, **John Corrado** , Dukakis never actually suffered from depression. Bush 41 made that one up. > [@Walloon](#): > > Cite, please? [http://earthops.org/box\_2-2.html](http://earthops.org/box_2-2.html) [http://www.dbsalliance.org/Media/NewsReleases/Stigma%20Release.html](http://www.dbsalliance.org/Media/NewsReleases/Stigma%20Release.html) [http://www.loper.org/~george/archives/2004/Sep/862.html](http://www.loper.org/~george/archives/2004/Sep/862.html) [www.northamptonshire.nhs.uk/](http://www.northamptonshire.nhs.uk/) pdf/nht/psychology/copingdepression1.pdf Seems divided as to whether Lee Atwater or Lyndon LaRouche started the story, but there’s no doubt that the Republicans ran with it. As for Kitty Dukakis- her revelation that she suffered from major depression didn’t happen until the election was over. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2004, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-conservatism-explained/273133/166 "2004-11-08T17:32:15Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Could you provide a cite for some DOJ employees who felt this alleged enormous pressure? The cites are in the Washington Post article about the issue – May 14, 2001. Indeed, there were quotes from both sides – those who believed that there was unspoken pressure and those who felt there wasn’t. However, I think the point is that _any_ DOJ employees did feel uncomfortable. > [@](#): > > And the negative consequences when they refused, to their careers? This is, of course, irrelevant. First of all, such things are difficult to prove. More important, it doesn’t matter whether Ashcroft’s policy was to punish people who didn’t participate (personally, I don’t believe that he had any such intention). The point is that it is a religious activity that is extraneous to government business that creates a _perception_ is one or more people that it would be professionally disadvantageous to avoid. That’s enough. ---
**Author:** ![Mirasawa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/77aa72/32.png) [@Mirasawa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mirasawa)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2004, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-conservatism-explained/273133/167 "2004-11-08T17:48:23Z")
> [@acsenray](#): > > Funny, the guys you describe as “liberal” are the ones that in my experience are the most likely to end up as conservatives. I remember college-age liberals as being much more earnest. Or might be a case that you’re more likely to notice obnoxious behaviour when performed by people in the opposite camp. We’re not talking about Republicans here, but rather social conservatives who may be economic socialists. \_ \_ ---
**Author:** ![Mirasawa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/77aa72/32.png) [@Mirasawa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mirasawa)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2004, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-conservatism-explained/273133/168 "2004-11-08T18:04:56Z")
> [@you with the face](#): > > And I repeat: liberals and conservatives don’t necessarily behave differently. They just have different ideas about government’s place in the lives of the people. Take my mother, for instance. Never drinks, thinks smoking is a sin, hits me upside the head whenever I come close to cursing in front of her, and thinks Madonna is evil. But she doesn’t think the government has anything to do with what people do in the privacy of their own homes, hates the idea of an anti-SSM amendment, and believes in a clean separation between church and state. Even though she’s an ordained minister! I don’t think that’s a correct interpretation of what we’re talking about… your Mom would not be comfortable at a party hosted by Dennis Rodman. That’s because she’s a social conservative and he definately _ain’t_. His behavior is very different from what a social conservative would do. But by his liberal morality code, he’s not doing anything wrong as long as it’s all between consenting adults. Using the government to impose a conservative/liberal social philosophy is just a tool to spread your particular way of thinking. I you really believe that conservatives do that more than liberals, then you don’t live in a place where “Political Correctness” makes people walk on eggshells. (btw, being an SP Repub, I believe the same way your mother does.) \_ \_ ---
**Author:** ![laigle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ce7236/32.png) [@laigle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/laigle)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2004, 12:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-conservatism-explained/273133/169 "2004-11-09T00:57:30Z")
> [@Mirasawa](#): > > I wasn’t talking about legislating morality, but rather that a straight-laced social conservative is characterized by never being intoxicated, never being promiscuous, never using foul language, etc. No, they’re mostly characterized by telling other people to be those things, then getting caught high on smack in the backseat with a transvestite hooker. ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2004, 12:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-conservatism-explained/273133/170 "2004-11-09T12:11:21Z")
> [@Mirasawa](#): > > I don’t think that’s a correct interpretation of what we’re talking about… your Mom would not be comfortable at a party hosted by Dennis Rodman. That’s because she’s a social conservative and he definately _ain’t_. His behavior is very different from what a social conservative would do. But by his liberal morality code, he’s not doing anything wrong as long as it’s all between consenting adults. Seriously, I think you’ve been watching way too much TV if you think Rodman typifies most social liberals. How many card-carrying Democrats act like the him? Very, very few. Like a lot of conservatives, you seem to think social liberals pattern themselves after Hollywood. The truth of the matter is that most liberals behave just like the conservatives (minus a lot of the hypocrisy). Regardless of how my mother behaves, she’s a social liberal because she understands that although she finds pornagraphy offensive, for example, it shouldn’t be banned for everyone. Gangsta rap is offensive to her, but she chooses to boycott it, not censor it. And she doesn’t think the government should forbid gay people from marrying. Just because she’s not a pot-smoking, promiscuous adulterer who curses like Dice Clay does not make her any less than a liberal than someone like Rodman. You’ve fallen into the trap of believing that only social conservatives have standards of conduct and morality. Get the GOP out of your head. They’ve fed you untruths. (You do realize that Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich, and Bill O’Reilly are social conservatives, right? Let’s talk about how well they’ve walked the walk.) > [@](#): > > Using the government to impose a conservative/liberal social philosophy is just a tool to spread your particular way of thinking. I you really believe that conservatives do that more than liberals, then you don’t live in a place where “Political Correctness” makes people walk on eggshells. What does “PC” have to do with the government? And since when did liberals have a monopoly on “PCness”? Euphemising curse words is a form of “PCness” that I’m sure most conservatives appreciate. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2004, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-conservatism-explained/273133/171 "2004-11-09T14:32:50Z")
> [@acsenray](#): > > This is, of course, irrelevant. First of all, such things are difficult to prove. Correct - it is very difficult to prove something for which there is no evidence. > [@acsenray](#): > > More important, it doesn’t matter whether Ashcroft’s policy was to punish people who didn’t participate (personally, I don’t believe that he had any such intention). The point is that it is a religious activity that is extraneous to government business that creates a _perception_ is one or more people that it would be professionally disadvantageous to avoid. That’s enough. So it is irrelevant whether or not there is really this “enormous pressure” or not. The simple fact that I don’t like it means it has to be banned. Do you feel the same way about the exercise of other rights guaranteed by the Constitution? Any employer who allows, for instance, a gay support group to meet before hours on the premises might make an employee uncomfortable. Ban it. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2004, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-conservatism-explained/273133/172 "2004-11-09T14:50:38Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Do you feel the same way about the exercise of other rights guaranteed by the Constitution? Any employer who allows, for instance, a gay support group to meet before hours on the premises might make an employee uncomfortable. Ban it. Hmm, the First Amendment applies to private employers now? I guess that’s why they call the Constitution a living document… 😉 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-conservatism-explained/273133.md?page=8)