The next Obama

[CAnnoneer]

In your very last post you seem to imply that Republicans need to support the Democrat approach to immigration and abortion (and other issues) if they're to win. If that's the case, why should they be Republicans at all? Why not just be Democrats?

Because I think the really dangerous and ruinous force is a government out of control. Immigration, gay rights, and abortion are tiny potatoes compared to the monstrous elephant of an intrusive corrupt statist government. The real fight is to keep that monster in check, before it grows so powerful that it crushes us as individuals with rights. It is a tool that should serve us as citizens, not allowed to become a monster that enslaves us. All the rest is just a diversionary tactic among statists on both left and right in the political spectrum.

The Republicans still have a chance to be the party of small government, because their ideology is not yet incompatible with it. Dems are gone. Their ideology is based on using the government as big and strong as possible, as a "beneficent" force. They would NEVER want a small government. They cannot even wrap their head around it. Whatever anarchists and social malcontents that lurk among them are insignificant and will be purged when the time comes. The Republicans have the resources and the structure that can be used to avert disaster, if course is adjusted. The hope is small, but there is hope.

[CAnnoneer]

BTW the terms "right wing socialist/left wing socialist" sounds like fingernails on a chalkboard to me.  Socialism is leftwing.  IIRC the dichotomy was between "national socialism" and "international socialism."  Both are leftwing idologies.

Sorry but that is not true. Look at the economic structure of Nazi Germany vs the Soviet Union. They are both socialist movements, on which we agree. Nazis are nationalist, communists are internationalist, on which we agree. But, Nazis are definitely not leftist economically speaking. Leftists want to nationalize and control all means of production, because that is what Papa Marx teaches. Nazis want a strong private industry that treats workers well. They both solve the social problem but their attitude to capitalism is markedly different.

Caveat: Rohm was leftist, and a nazi, but he got shot for it. That kind of ended the discussion within the party.

[TommyGunn]

Sorry but that is not true. Look at the economic structure of Nazi Germany vs the Soviet Union. They are both socialist movements, on which we agree. Nazis are nationalist, communists are internationalist, on which we agree. But, Nazis are definitely not leftist economically speaking. Leftists want to nationalize and control all means of production, because that is what Papa Marx teaches. Nazis want a strong private industry that treats workers well. They both solve the social problem but their attitude to capitalism is markedly different.

Caveat: Rohm was leftist, and a nazi, but he got shot for it. That kind of ended the discussion within the party.

The "strong private industry" would be overseen and controled by the Nazi Party.
That is actually closer to fascism.  But Hitler himself called his party the National Socialist German Workers Party.
Both were actually leftist/statist.
Author Balint Vaszonyi in "America's Thirty Years War" goes into a great dissertation of this.

[Perd Hapley]

You can read some of the voter distribution analyses that have emerged since the election. One of the big miscalculations in the Romney camp is they looked at the number of registered independents and thought that those would swing for them. Some indeed did. But what the advisors failed to see is that most of those voters were the same ones that were previously registered as Republicans. I do not see the old guard doing that. Older people are just too set in their opinions. This means it was demonstratively younger Republicans that did it. If they were happy with the menu, why did they leave the restaurant?

Dems carried 75% of the latino votes who are supposed to be relatively traditional, catholic, anti-gay, and anti-black. How can you rationally explain this other than by the immigration issue?

Dems carried the young women voters by a large margin. Does it make sense that it can have something to do with abortion?

And I also have a perfect personal anecdote to share on this. My wife and I are friends with the family of her colleague M. The family is typical white middle-class suburban successful two-income nice folk. They have one teenage daughter and a couple of cats. The husband is libertarian. The wife is independent/apolitical. They make good money even for the area and pay over 75k in income taxes per year. There is no practical fiscal reason why they should ever consider voting for Bambie. I expected them to vote libertarian or simply not vote. Instead, M voted for Bambie. I asked why? The answer was "because I have a teenage daughter and I want her to have reproductive rights."

I'll give you that last bit. It's anecdotal, and doesn't mean much, except that your friends are easily swayed by media hype.

On the other points, you're just assuming that social issues turn off the voters, instead of the Santa Clause bennies offered by the Dems. Looks like you need to dig into that distribution analysis you mentioned, so you can test your theories.

[roo_ster]

Sorry but that is not true. Look at the economic structure of Nazi Germany vs the Soviet Union. They are both socialist movements, on which we agree. Nazis are nationalist, communists are internationalist, on which we agree. But, Nazis are definitely not leftist economically speaking. Leftists want to nationalize and control all means of production, because that is what Papa Marx teaches. Nazis want a strong private industry that treats workers well. They both solve the social problem but their attitude to capitalism is markedly different.

Caveat: Rohm was leftist, and a nazi, but he got shot for it. That kind of ended the discussion within the party.

Fascism & Nazism are fruit off the same socialist tree as Soviet Communism.

"You cannot get rid of me because I am and always will be a socialist. You hate me because you still love me."
----Benito Mussolini

“We deny your internationalism, because it is a luxury which only the upper classes can afford; the working people are hopelessly bound to their native shores.”
----Benito Mussolini

“Fascism entirely agrees with Mr. Maynard Keynes, despite the latter’s prominent position as a Liberal. In fact, Mr. Keynes’ excellent little book, The End of Laissez-Faire (l926) might, so far as it goes, serve as a useful introduction to fascist economics.”
----Benito Mussolini

“The line between fascism and Fabian socialism is very thin. Fabian socialism is the dream. Fascism is Fabian socialism plus the inevitable dictator.”
----John T. Flynn

"Why nationalize industry when you can nationalize the people?"
----Adolf Hitler

"We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are determined to destroy this system under all conditions."
----Adolf Hitler

"As socialists, we are opponents of the Jews, because we see, in the Hebrews, the incarnation of capitalism, of the misuse of the nation’s goods."
----Joseph Paul Goebbels


The reason Nazism and Fascism are nowadays considered "right wing" is simply because Stalin declared them so.  Communism/Fascism/National Socialism recruited from the same pool and had such similar beliefs, Stalin wanted to interject more daylight between them (however artificial).  Up to that point, Fascism and National Socialism were both called/considered variants of socialism in marxist/communist writings.

IOW, you are still buying the Soviet propaganda.

[CAnnoneer]

The "strong private industry" would be overseen and controled by the Nazi Party.
That is actually closer to fascism.  But Hitler himself called his party the National Socialist German Workers Party.
Both were actually leftist/statist.

{to roo_ster as well}

Overseen yes, controlled to some extent. They remained in the hands of industrialists, the likes of Krupp, Porsche, etc. Nazis simply wanted to make sure that military production was coordinated. They supplied it with resources and even slave labor later. But they did not own it. And they did not go after large private property or any significant tools of production. They essentially said, "figure it out, we just want the weapons, with these specs". They even had competitions for government contracts for various large items, e.g. most of the tank production. They did harness capitalism to their goals but they neither nationalized it nor stifled it. Yes, they were fascists as defined by Mussolini, but if our definition of a leftist is a milktoast Marxist, they absolutely were not, because Marx focuses on added value stolen by capitalists and tools of production ideally going to workers.

Communists did make very strong effort to differentiate themselves from the fascists, especially after Spain, and of course the beginning of Barbarossa. But just because they did that does not mean ALL distinction is artificial.

If you are not convinced, look at Rohm & co. Rohm believed Hitler was too moderate, that the nazi revolution was not over with gaining power. He wanted to hack at nobles, bourgeois, personal property, and by extension industrialists, as well as absorb the Reichswehr into the S.A. he commanded. It even looked feasible, taking into account several million armed brownshirts vs 100k regular army. So, Hitler cut a deal with the army and the industrialists to halt further revolutionary steps and disband the brownshirts, in exchange for their support. To stop the revolution, he shot Rohm and his pals. Now Rohm was a nationalist leftist. But he is the historical dead end in the nazi party. Hitler survived him, so what we define as nazism must be the non-Rohm, non-leftist version.

[TommyGunn]

It may be non Rohm but it is still leftist.  Leaving the trappings of indivual wealth and private owned industry under a command economy is still leftism.

"We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are determined to destroy this system under all conditions."
----Adolf Hitler 

That's a pretty telling statement right there.

This reminds me of an argument I got into with someone who was an athiest and claimed Hitler was doing what he did to advance Catholocism.   When I asked him how he could think that, he replied that Hitler had been borne into a Catholic family.
Well, that was true but irrelevant to Hitler's motivations as an adult.
I asked him if he could, under his theory, reconcile it with one of Hitler's more well-known quotes dealing with religion; "You cannot be a good Christian and a good German at the same time."
He couldn't.  I think possibly he might have reconsidered his theory since.
I don't know why I included that here other than it was an amusing sideline.

[CAnnoneer]

I'll give you that last bit. It's anecdotal, and doesn't mean much, except that your friends are easily swayed by media hype.

Anecdotes are worthless as a statistical info, but they illustrate a point. M is not alone in her worries. The sentiment resonates with large swaths of voters, particularly younger women and the parents of such. It is real.

That is something to think about also in terms of causality. I think the conservative recipe is "If you can't be responsible about it, don't have sex." It sounds pretty reasonable. What it does not take into account is human nature and the cultural changes. Previously, the recipe worked not because women were more willing or capable of implementing it per se, but because there were cultural norms that inhibited sex before marriage. Now those are gone, and are not coming back. Furthermore, cultural norms have changed regarding lateral conditions that make sex or loss of control more likely, such as alcohol and other recreational drugs. Throw in the usual low self-esteem and insecurities, and you get much more sex and much less cultural inhibition. This means far more unwanted pregnancies. There is some counterbalance provided by relatively safe and inexpensive contraceptives, but even they are not 100% secure, and they certainly require responsibility and unimpeded judgment to use. Both are weaker due to cultural changes.

So, my point is unless you can dial back the culture, you cannot expect the recipe to be effective under the new conditions.

[CAnnoneer]

The quote is indeed telling, but I am almost sure it is from Mein Kampf, and thus early, revolutionary Hitler. Hitler of 1935 would have never said that, or likely even thought it.

[Monkeyleg]

Because I think the really dangerous and ruinous force is a government out of control. Immigration, gay rights, and abortion are tiny potatoes compared to the monstrous elephant of an intrusive corrupt statist government. The real fight is to keep that monster in check, before it grows so powerful that it crushes us as individuals with rights. It is a tool that should serve us as citizens, not allowed to become a monster that enslaves us. All the rest is just a diversionary tactic among statists on both left and right in the political spectrum.

The Republicans still have a chance to be the party of small government, because their ideology is not yet incompatible with it. Dems are gone. Their ideology is based on using the government as big and strong as possible, as a "beneficent" force. They would NEVER want a small government. They cannot even wrap their head around it. Whatever anarchists and social malcontents that lurk among them are insignificant and will be purged when the time comes. The Republicans have the resources and the structure that can be used to avert disaster, if course is adjusted. The hope is small, but there is hope.

We seem to agree on so much until we get into specifics. 

Immigration, abortion, and gay rights have to do with culture, which has everything to do with society and government. We're not at the point we are because of some Darwinian devolution of the human species. We're here because of changes to the culture (the Great Society programs, etc), which destroyed traditional family structures and values, leading more people to feed at the government trough.

The Nazi's, by the way, were socialists, every bit as much as the Soviets. Hitler couldn't nationalize industry as he wanted to, as the political timing wasn't right, and he had more pressing issues--the Final Solution, war, etc. If the Nazi's had won WWII, I'm certain they would have nationalized all industry. He struck a compromise by letting the capitalists keep their businesses, but produce what the government wanted.

As for Republicans and Hispanics, I think this portion of a column by Pat Buchanan does a good job of explaining:

...What explains the GOP wipeout among Asian-Americans? Folks of Korean, Chinese and Japanese descent have a legendary work ethic, are academic overachievers, and are possessed of an entrepreneurial spirit. They should be natural Republicans.

But Mitt also has a point.

Consider America's largest, fastest-growing minority.

Hispanics constituted 10 percent of the electorate, up from 7.5 in 2008. But Mitt got only 27 percent of that, the lowest of any Republican presidential candidate.

This, we are told, was because of Mitt's comment about "self-deportation" and GOP support for a border fence and sanctions on employers who hire illegals. If only we embrace the Dream Act and provide a path to citizenship -- amnesty -- the GOP's problem is solved.

The Republican capacity for self-delusion is truly awesome.

Set aside the idealized Hispanic of the Republican consultants' vision. What does the real Hispanic community look like today?

Let us consider only native-born Hispanics, U.S. citizens.

According to Steve Camarota of the Center for Immigration Studies, which analyzed Census Bureau statistics from 2012:

-- More than one in five Hispanic citizens lives in poverty.

-- One in four Hispanic-American men 25 to 55 is out of work.

-- More than half of all Hispanic women 25-55 are unmarried.

-- Half of all Hispanic households with children are headed by an unmarried woman, and 55 percent depend on welfare programs.

These numbers do not improve with time, as they did with the Irish, Italian, Polish, Jewish and German immigrants who poured into the United States between 1890 and 1920. Third-generation Hispanics do worse than second-generation Hispanics in all the above categories.

This is a huge community being sucked into the morass of a mammoth welfare state. Consider a typical Hispanic household with children.

It is headed by an unmarried women who receives food stamps and public housing or rent supplements to feed and house her children.

Her kids are educated free from Head Start to K-12 and fed by school breakfast and lunch programs. Should they graduate high school, Pell Grants and student loans are there for college.

For cash, mom gets welfare checks. If she takes a job, she will receive an earned income tax credit to supplement her income. If she loses her job, she can get 99 weeks of unemployment checks.

For health care, there is Medicaid and Obamacare. And like 45 percent of all Hispanic households, she has no federal income tax liability.

Why should this woman vote for a party that will cut taxes she does not pay, but reduce benefits she does receive?

Rename Romney's gifts "government services," writes Aaron Blake citing a Washington Post poll, and one discovers that 67 percent of Latinos favor "a larger government with more services."

These are big government people. And why should they not be?

According to Heather Mac Donald, writing in National Review, a 2011 survey found that California Hispanics by four to one objected more to the GOP on class-warfare grounds -- the party "favors only the rich," Republicans are "selfish" -- than to the GOP stand on immigration.

Writes Mac Donald: California's Hispanics will likely prove more decisive in passing Proposition 30, to raise state income taxes to 13.3 percent, the highest level in the nation, than to Obama's victory.

Nor is this unusual. Populist programs to stick it to the rich have always had an appeal south of the border.

There are 50 million Hispanics in America today. California is lost to the GOP. Nevada and Colorado are slipping away. Arizona and Texas are next up on the block.

With the U.S. Hispanic population in 2050 projected to reach 130 million, the acolytes of Karl Rove have their work cut out for them.

[Perd Hapley]

...There were cultural norms that inhibited sex before marriage. Now those are gone, and are not coming back.

Says who? And if social conservatism is dead, why isn't fiscal conservatism equally dead? Or constitutionalism? We've had three election cycles focused on economic matters. Fiscal conservatism lost 2 out of 3. Strict construction isn't polling too well, either, if the reelection of Obama is any indication. Pardon me for thinking that you're just seeing what you want to see, regardless of the data.

And your anecdote is still worthless. We all know that such voters exist. Your whole argument is based on numbers, and anecdotes don't provide those.

[zxcvbob]

Immigration, abortion, and gay rights have to do with culture, which has everything to do with society and government. We're not at the point we are because of some Darwinian devolution of the human species. We're here because of changes to the culture (the Great Society programs, etc), which destroyed traditional family structures and values, leading more people to feed at the government trough.

[CAnnoneer]

Says who? And if social conservatism is dead, why isn't fiscal conservatism equally dead?

Because people still overwhelmingly believe in private property. If you want proof, try to take something that is not yours, even from the greatest redistributors out there.

However, people no longer believe it is anybody's business what they do with their genitals and with whom. Again, if you want proof, go tell a woman where, how, and with whom she can have sex, and what contraceptives she should use if she is not looking to start a family right now.

Or constitutionalism? We've had three election cycles focused on economic matters. Fiscal conservatism lost 2 out of 3. Strict construction isn't polling too well, either, if the reelection of Obama is any indication. Pardon me for thinking that you're just seeing what you want to see, regardless of the data.

Constitutionalism is dead as well. It does not matter what it says, when any two-bit supremo grande enchilada can write an opinion to rewrite it any way he and his friends see it. Sticking to the constitution thus has proven pointless and it will be pointless. What is not pointless is to implement its spirit in a political and governing strategy that can work, as well as reinforce its values in the society.

And your anecdote is still worthless. We all know that such voters exist. Your whole argument is based on numbers, and anecdotes don't provide those.

Numbers are pointless if you ignore them, fistful. Why is Bambie leading by such margin among women, specifically young single women? What is your explanation other than abortion? Will you be willing to hold that explanation to the same degree of proof that you expect of mine?

[AZRedhawk44]

Bambie

I've seen you do this repeatedly.  At first I had to think of who you even meant.  Not only is it not one of the "standard" ones in regular parlance, the ones in regular parlance aren't terribly clever and actually debase any criticism of the man (or allow it be redirected to "racism").  Please abide by forum rules when it comes to nicknames of policritters.

http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=11378.0

[CAnnoneer]

I've seen you do this repeatedly.  At first I had to think of who you even meant.  Not only is it not one of the "standard" ones in regular parlance, the ones in regular parlance aren't terribly clever and actually debase any criticism of the man (or allow it be redirected to "racism").  Please abide by forum rules when it comes to nicknames of policritters.

http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=11378.0

Fair enough. I thought it was a clever allusion to a cartoon character. In some people's eyes, criticizing Obama is like hurting Bambi.

Never mind. Obama it is then.

[zxcvbob]

Why is [Obama] leading by such margin among women, specifically young single women?

They think he's hawt. 

 

[longeyes]

Anecdotes are worthless as a statistical info, but they illustrate a point. M is not alone in her worries. The sentiment resonates with large swaths of voters, particularly younger women and the parents of such. It is real.

That is something to think about also in terms of causality. I think the conservative recipe is "If you can't be responsible about it, don't have sex." It sounds pretty reasonable. What it does not take into account is human nature and the cultural changes. Previously, the recipe worked not because women were more willing or capable of implementing it per se, but because there were cultural norms that inhibited sex before marriage. Now those are gone, and are not coming back. Furthermore, cultural norms have changed regarding lateral conditions that make sex or loss of control more likely, such as alcohol and other recreational drugs. Throw in the usual low self-esteem and insecurities, and you get much more sex and much less cultural inhibition. This means far more unwanted pregnancies. There is some counterbalance provided by relatively safe and inexpensive contraceptives, but even they are not 100% secure, and they certainly require responsibility and unimpeded judgment to use. Both are weaker due to cultural changes.

So, my point is unless you can dial back the culture, you cannot expect the recipe to be effective under the new conditions.

"Dialing back the culture" is exactly what is going to happen.  Everything you have described is a product of the island of peace and prosperity most Americans have enjoyed since WW II.  Unfortunately we have burned through the amassed capital, financial and moral, that made that possible.  How many of these kids are going to end up as Chinese houseboys and Islamic harem girls?  I know you think that is crazy, impossible, far out, but history has a way of defeating our comfortable extrapolations.

[longeyes]

And what do the pigs do when the trough is...empty?

Well, not all pigs are created equal.

[MicroBalrog]

They remained in the hands of industrialists, the likes of Krupp, Porsche, etc.

Junkers, for example, lost his factory because he was an anti-Nazi.

Krupp 'owned' the company but did not control production and retained a very small share of the profits (which is how he was not convicted at Nurnberg).

 Unfortunately we have burned through the amassed capital, financial and moral, that made that possible.  

No. America will continue to become wealthier, and crime will continue to decline. I am eady to bet money on my specific predictions. If you believe in your views, you should be ready to bet on yours.

[longeyes]

They think he's hawt. 

 

I wonder if young single women ever really consider what grounds their safety and freedoms...?  It's not other single women or most of the men they seem, post-Pill, to find useful.

[longeyes]

Junkers, for example, lost his factory because he was an anti-Nazi.

Krupp 'owned' the company but did not control production and retained a very small share of the profits (which is how he was not convicted at Nurnberg).

No. America will continue to become wealthier, and crime will continue to decline. I am eady to bet money on my specific predictions. If you believe in your views, you should be ready to bet on yours.

Wealthier per capita or just in toto?  Same distribution of wealth?  Or will America just seem wealthier than a socialist globe even more stagnant economically than the future U.S.A.?

If crime declines it will be because a) the criminal class is aging and probably quite unfit; b) the police state--aka the land of a billion cameras and improved forensic science--will make freestyle criminality increasingly difficult.  Of course we will all be criminals at that point, so who cares?

[CAnnoneer]

Junkers, for example, lost his factory because he was an anti-Nazi.

So, he did not lose it because he was an evil capitalist industrialist. Anti-Nazis tended to lose more than property in Hitler's Germany.

Krupp 'owned' the company but did not control production and retained a very small share of the profits (which is how he was not convicted at Nurnberg).

IIRC, they did try to get him, but he somehow slunk away. And the concern was bombed out and bankrupted anyway. As other examples, the Porsche brothers did pretty well and were nicely politically connected. IG Farbenindustrie and other chemical concerns also did rather well.

[TommyGunn]

However, people no longer believe it is anybody's business what they do with their genitals and with whom. Again, if you want proof, go tell a woman where, how, and with whom she can have sex, and what contraceptives she should use if she is not looking to start a family right now.

I don't think this would have worked out any better for someone in 1912 as it would now.  The biggest difference is the 1912 woman would be more likely to slap you.

[Ron]

Quote from: CAnnoneer
However, people no longer believe it is anybody's business what they do with their genitals and with whom. Again, if you want proof, go tell a woman where, how, and with whom she can have sex, and what contraceptives she should use if she is not looking to start a family right now.

and those same women probably want government to pay for their contraception or abortion.

If one decides to have the child, she wants government to help her raise her child, from feeding, daycare, educating and on and on.

  

[Perd Hapley]

Fair enough. I thought it was a clever allusion to a cartoon character. In some people's eyes, criticizing Obama is like hurting Bambi.

I didn't get it, either. But it's a very interesting point. To a lot of people (particularly, the establishment press) any criticism at all is some kind of outrageous insult. He's not just another politician, you see. He's their light-bringer, or whatever. 

Says who? And if social conservatism is dead, why isn't fiscal conservatism equally dead?

Because people still overwhelmingly believe in private property. If you want proof, try to take something that is not yours, even from the greatest redistributors out there.

However, people no longer believe it is anybody's business what they do with their genitals and with whom. Again, if you want proof, go tell a woman where, how, and with whom she can have sex, and what contraceptives she should use if she is not looking to start a family right now.

Thank you for proving my point. I ask for evidence, and you give me speculation. You give me your odd idea of what social conservatism is about,* to make it seem like something outdated, but with no evidence that social conservatism is actually declining as a political force. Nor do you give me any reason why it can't make a comeback.

If the last election indicates that Americans want social liberalism, it also indicates (I think much more reliably indicates) that Americans want a centrally-managed, heavily-regulated economy. You talk as if the one can be reversed, and the other cannot. You don't seem to have a good reason why, other than it fits your own politics. You claim that the massive tide of immigrants (the crushing majority of them, in your phrase) can be assimilated into middle-class free marketeers. Yet you deny the possibility that young people can be assimilated into the same view on social issues that many of their parents and grandparents hold. What other reason can there be, except that it doesn't appeal to you, and you presume everyone else is like you?

Numbers are pointless if you ignore them, fistful. Why is Bambie leading by such margin among women, specifically young single women? What is your explanation other than abortion? Will you be willing to hold that explanation to the same degree of proof that you expect of mine?

Ignore them? Who's ignoring them? I'm the one asking for them. You're the one not using them to support your point in a meaningful way, after making claims about what the numbers indicate.

You think young women vote a certain way for a particular reason, having to do with their lady parts. You think Hispanics vote a certain way for a particular reason, having to do with whether other Hispanics can immigrate more or less easily. Did it never occur to you that perhaps most young women just want a large, comfortable social safety net, just like most Hispanics do, just like most blacks do, just like a lot of white men do?

Now maybe those groups vote the way they do for the reasons you've stated. I'm just asking you to give me a reason to believe it.



*If social conservatism, in American politics, had anything to do with telling people what they can or cannot do in the bedroom, you might have a point. But you are talking about the sort of social conservatism (anti-birth control laws, anti-sodomy laws) that even social conservatives don't currently adhere to. So maybe your analysis makes sense IF social conservatives want to go back to that sort of thing. Where is the evidence that they do?

Social conservatism in American politics today consists of restricting or outlawing abortion, keeping homosexuality in the realm of private behavior (not govt.-endorsed behavior), and those are the only two that seem to be major issues right now. The rest amount to a few odds and ends, like getting public school teachers to stop hassling students for reading the Bible, and maybe getting to keep the Christmas manger scene on the county square.