Social Conservatism, Without Moral Hypocrisy

As a social conservative, I am disappointed with how intertwined this ideology has become with evangelical Christianity. Current conventional wisdom states that this ideology is the sole providence of evangelical Christians, and thus must be structured on Judeo-Christian values in order to have any relevance or effectiveness.

Unfortunately, this view is based on a logical fallacy. It assumes that only evangelical Christians are moral, and that if you are not an evangelical Christian, you are immoral. Thankfully, history has shown that morality does not belong to the Judeo-Christian tradition alone, nor are they free of immorality.

That said, I would like to present a view of social conservatism that is not based on so-called Judeo-Christian morals nor does it require anything more than common sense as a foundation.

The first principle of this secular social conservatism is based on the idea that we are all personally responsible for our own actions. However, this is the first principle that contemporary social conservatives throw out the window as soon as something that directly affects their worldview is threatened.

For example, consider premarital sex and teen pregnancy. While social conservatives have decried the evils of these two issues for more than a quarter century, as soon as the American public learned that their vice-presidential candidate's daughter was pregnant due to premarital sex, it became off limits. Social conservatives fail to see the hypocrisy in their defense of Sarah Palin because they choose to view all logical arguments as personal attacks on everything they stand for.

Another example of social conservatives ignoring this principle is their unquestionable defense of corporate bailouts of failing industries and financial institutions that let their greed outgrow their bottom line. For most of their history, social conservatives have fought against "welfare queens" and others they argue enrich themselves off taxpayer money. However, now that risk has been subsidized by the American taxpayer to the tune of more than $1 trillon, which will end up being paid back by your children and grandchildren because investors decided to gamble in a highly volatile stock market.

True supporters of this principle would not differentiate between individuals and corporations, republicans or democrats, conservatives or liberals. In order to hold consistently to a principle, you cannot be blind to logical arguments that call you out on your hypocrisy.

Another way of being a social conservative without being religious would be to be pragmatic. Political and social pragmatism would be a godsend at this point in history. Unfortunately, contemporary social conservatives have become just as idealistic, if not more so, than their liberal counterparts. For example, on the issues of the environment or abortion, a more appropriate approach would be not to focus on whom to blame, but rather how to solve the problem. However, all parties must understand that seeking out the roots of a problem is fundamental to solving the problem.

For example, the abortion debate surrounds the question of whether or not abortion should be allowed. We fail to seek an answer for why there are so many abortions anyway, or how best to prevent abortions without banning them outright. A pragmatic approach would be to teach both abstinence and the use of sexual protection. Teaching one to the exclusion of the other does nothing to help stem the tide of abortions and premarital sex. In short, the aim should be to lessen the need for abortions, and not eliminating abortions all together. After all, there may still be cases of rape, incest, and the mother's health that would require an abortion as a solution.

In a similar way, the environment crisis also requires pragmatic solutions. Social conservatives focus too much on the question of who is at fault and ignore the questions of how we are going to adapt and ensure our continued prosperity. The fact is undeniable that our climate is being altered, extreme weather is increasing, and weather patterns are changing and resulting in massive drought and famines, all of which will result in increasing international pressure in the form of refugees and conflict. Unfortunately, as long as we argue over whether humans caused the problem or not, we will not develop solutions to the resulting issues.

Social conservatism does not have to be based on Judeo-Christian ideals. In fact, the most recent presidential election should demonstrate that such an approach is detrimental to the ideology. Pushing evangelical Christian based ideals is not only divisive to non-Christians, but also to other Christians who do not feel that their faith has no reason being in the realm of public policy or being imposed on other Christians and non-Christians alike.

In other words, one can make the argument that abortion is detrimental to the human experience based on psychology, statistics, or other quantitative factors rather than making an appeal based on faith, which only serves to make the proponent appear intolerant and over-zealous.