It Makes a Difference to the Sheep

IS SOCIAL CONSERVATISM A VIABLE POLITICAL AGENDA? DHinMI (?) thinks not. Here's why:

But after 25 years, what big successes can the social conservatives claim? Electing Presidents is nothing more than a defensive success if those Presidents refuse or fail to deliver on your signature issues. And for social conservatives, whose issues are founded on an idyllic vision of a Christian and moral past that never really existed in America, Republican Presidents haven't delivered jack.

Just look at the record. Since the early 1990's the Supreme Court has upheld both Roe v Wade and the use of affirmative action in college admissions, and it struck down state sodomy laws. More children attend day care than ever. More women work out of the home than ever, and most of them prefer to work out of the home even if it's not necessary for maintaining their standard of living. "Will and Grace" is mainstream, and "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" is on network television. The social conservatives' crusade against the teaching of evolution has had little success.

I agree with this sentiment. I suppose one could argue that if it weren't for Reagan, Bush I, Bush II, and the Republican-controlled Congress, things might have gotten worse (from a social conservative's viewpoint) but they certainly don't seem to have gotten much better during this time period. So if you are a social conservative for whom abortion is a signature issue, do you keep on voting for the folks who talk about their opposition to abortion even though they haven't been able to deliver the goods? Or do you start to look elsewhere? If the latter, where do you look?