Throughout the Federal election campaign (Canada) I frequently came across the following argument. Given the strong support for social conservatism countrywide, (e.g., on abortion and gay marriage), it is wrong to paint social conservatives as being outside the mainstream. The argument is superficially convincing.

The problem with it is this. What is “mainstream” is not determined solely by, indeed not even primarily by, popular opinion. In order for a position to be considered “mainstream” it has to have a certain amount of intellectual currency and that is precisely what many social conservative arguments do not have. This is particularly true with respect to gay marriage. Indeed, it is silly enough for social conservatives in the States to argue that the institution of marriage will collapse if people are able to marry someone of the same sex, but it is darn right ludicrous to say, as some social cons in Canada do, that the institution would be damaged if a married homosexual couple was actually allowed to say they were married. Social conservative objections to homosexuality are on even shaker ground. Arguments to the effect that homosexuality is wrong because it is “unnatural” or wrong because god says so are not well received, to say the least, in ethics classes throughout the Western world; there the focus is on what is harmful and that is precisely what consensual homosexual relationships are not.

Marijuana is another area where social conservatives tend to fall down. It is outrageous to say, as many social conservative do, that marijuana is somehow in the same league as “hard” drugs and that it serves as a “gateway” drug. The simple fact of the matter is that marijuana is less socially harmful then alcohol and is not physically addictive. As the special senate committee spelled out, marijuana’s illegal status is socially corrosive. “Marijuana is not illegal because it is dangerous; it is dangerous because it is illegal.” Its illegal status, for one, serves as a gateway to harder drugs by helping introduce people, interested in procuring it, to a wider underground.

Things are a little different when it comes to the issue of capital punishment. Philosophically there is nothing wrong with being a proponent of capital punishment in principle. Many Western intellectual giants favored the idea (e.g., Kant, Hegel, Locke). What undermines the credibility of many social conservatives is their support for the US system of imposing capital punishment-- which by anyone’s reckoning is wretched failure. Relatedly, many social cons have failed to recognize that there is little or no evidence that the death penalty serves as a deterrent and more importantly have failed to grasp the serious nature of many process concerns, most notably how to stave off the possibility of killing an innocent person.

In the face of scientific advancement, the “pro choice” movement has had a difficult time drawing a sharp line between when a fetus becomes a person and this has given the "pro life" movement some leverage. However, the issue is complex and there is by no means confined to a single premise in a small three part argument. Both sides are guilty of ignoring the complexity of the issue and of passing off arguments that beg the question. Moreover, in the case of socially conservative pro lifers, many fail to appreciate the practical consequences of banning abortion (e.g., the prevalence of back room abortions in countries without abortion services) and this further under cuts their credibility.

Although, I did not hear it mentioned in the confines of the recent election, social conservatives in the States are rightly and frequently ridiculed for their stands they take with regard to sex education and the teaching of evolution.