Yuval Levin speaks on social conservatism in the 21st century

What are American conservatives to do these days? Many prominent thinkers and pundits declare that American conservatism is at an impasse as it fends off its traditional opposition in the American left and undergoes severe debate and infighting between the various facets of the conservative coalition. As conservatives argue about the identity of the movement going forward in the 21st century, social and religious conservatives witness their political and societal influence waning. The sun has set on the Moral-Majority conservatism of years past, and many conservatives find themselves in a frantic search for a plan to effectively promote their values from a position not held by social and religious conservatives in years.

For Dr. Yuval Levin, Hertog Fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington D.C., this situation forcibly engages conservatism with the looming question, “How can social and religious conservatism thrive as a minority subculture amid fragmentation at both the political and societal levels?” At his public lecture on Tuesday, April 12 entitled “Subculture Wars: Social Conservatism in 21st century America,” Levin offered an answer to this question, providing explanations as to how social conservatism went from majority to minority status in American political culture, as well as insight for how social conservatism can continue to influence society and politics as a minority subculture.

To begin his lecture, Levin described the current standing of social conservatism in modern America, highlighting the progress that has been obtained through efforts such as those of the pro-life movement. However, Levin also pointed out some of the failures of the social conservative movement, especially in the area of the family, where the conservative movement has “fail[ed] to provide the next generation with a system of functional thriving for the family.”

As Levin elaborated, conservatism in the past acted as the stalwart “defender of societal establishments and institutions, speaking for the bulk of society on a vast array of social issues.” It wasn’t until the middle of the 20th century that social conservatism began to lose its grip as the defender of society and community.

Explaining further, Levin described that as the 20th century progressed, through the “force of individualism” American society and politics began to fracture and fragment, resulting in national prosperity and cultural diversity, but “creating a loss of order, structure, cohesion, consensus, and stability” in American life.

This age of individualism and decentralization resulting from such fragmentation is what Levin described as the challenge facing social conservatism today. The onset of liberalization and individualization elevated what he described as “expressive individualism” in society: the belief that the individual possesses the capacity to define the terms of his own existence. Levin stated that “now, culture caters to our individual preferences” and is “no longer formative or essential to moral formation.” The result is that social conservatives now find themselves relegated and restricted to the sidelines in the shaping of American culture and society.

However, Levin finished his discussion with suggestions for how the social conservative subculture can act in its newfound place as a minority to remain influential in discussions and formation of American society by advocating primarily for a rebirth of Federalism and a recurrence to the community.

In his defense of Federalism, Levin stated that conservatives need to work towards “empowering a multiplicity of problem solvers,” taking the policy decision-making out of the hands of one individual and placing it in the hands of many individuals at all levels of government. Regarding a recurrence to community, Levin cited the weakness of community institutions that has resulted from the growth of government and called for a return to focusing on the community institutions that provide order and stability to American life and society.

Finally, Levin emphasized the power that social conservatism now possesses as a subculture in American society and the unique advantages that position entails. Specifically, this position provides an opportunity for conservatives to assert themselves, acting as living models for the conservative alternative.

He said in an interview with the Rover, “Conservatives in a sense believe that the private life is more important than the politics, and that means you have to be committed to family, that you try to be a part of your community to play a part in the larger society.”

He concluded that this living out of conservative ideals is what gives conservatism “a moral purpose that requires commitment to a political vision” that will ultimately enable American conservatism “to adapt to the realities of contemporary America,” providing a possible answer to the problem of fragmentation and the lessening of social conservative influence in the 21st Century America.

On Levin’s lecture, Notre Dame sophomore Erin Prestage noted to the Rover, “[Levin] possesses a brilliant mind with well-articulated thoughts that can resonate with all members of society, regardless of their political views.”

Jack Kill is a sophomore political science major. In addition to writing for the Rover, he has also served in Student Government this past year. You can contact him at jkill@nd.edu.