Gallup: Social conservatism in long-term decline

141009-121017-gay-marriage-7a-1552_19323ba5640fb37655ef05a951ee0374.nbcnews-fp-1200-600

Conservative Republicans seem bound and determined to keep the culture wars alive, most recently by using “religious liberty” as a screen to protect their legal right to discriminate against gay Americans.

In Louisiana, for example, Gov. Bobby Jindal this week issued an executive order explicitly guaranteeing that people who discriminate against gay couples and gay individuals can’t be penalized by the state for doing so. The move came after the state Legislature refused to pass a bill to that effect, and is widely seen as an effort by Jindal to win conservative support for his presidential bid.

And here in Georgia, Gov. Nathan Deal has backed away from his previous insistence that any so-called “religious liberty” legislation include a provision that bars its use in discrimination cases. His statement makes it much more likely that we’ll see another high-profile legislative battle over the bill when the General Assembly reconvenes next year, which also happens to be an election year.

With that in mind, take a look at the latest numbers out of Gallup, released today:

5azgvxr0dumyypjuddtcqw

For the first time since the question has been asked, Americans are just as likely to identify themselves as socially liberal as they are to call themselves socially conservative. One group is growing steadily in size, the other is steadily shrinking, closing an 18-point gap between them. And the trend line from this point forward looks pretty strong and sustainable.

That’s not merely a sign of trouble for the Republican Party and its culture-war strategy. I would argue that it is in part a consequence of that strategy. According to Gallup, even the percentage of Republicans and Republican-leaners willing to self-identify as social conservatives has dropped to at an all-time low of 53 percent, down from the high of 67 percent in 2009. (That spike in social conservatism in 2009, also notable in the chart above, is pretty interesting in its own right.)

In places like Georgia and Louisiana, of course, the numbers would admittedly look quite different. But in terms of national politics, the tide has turned.

 

Reader Comments 0

1048 comments
Pavlov
Pavlov

Lefties like Jay are indulging in resentment towards parents or society in general—for a life in which rewards must actually be worked for rather than gifted. 

President Bush, Christians, patriots and conservatives become scapegoats for liberals' own personal failures in attaining those rewards. Each political peeve resolved is instantly replaced by another.

Endlessly.

honested
honested

@Pavlov 

So by your 'logic' the absolute failure of President bush as a leader, as so called 'patriots' absolute failure in rushing to go to war with any country that doesn't share your religion or wishes to be compensated for their own natural resources, or as conserrrrrrrrrvatism's failure as a legitimate governing structure, these all somehow point to "liberal's own personal failures"?

Is there some contest on developing a new definition for the word 'absurd' that I am unaware of?

Dude, look in the mirror. The simple fact that the things you so desperately 'believed' have failed everyone should maybe nudge you to review what is best for the you, the world, and your fellow man.

IReportYouWhine#1
IReportYouWhine#1

 For much of that election year, Obama had included a line of celebration in his standard stump speech, one that among an electorate exhausted by more than a decade of war always drew a rousing applause: “Four years ago, I promised to end the war in Iraq,” Obama proclaimed in Bowling Green, Ohio, in September 2012, and did nearly every day after until the election. “We did.”

"With regards to Iraq, you and I agreed, I believe, that there should be a status of forces agreement," Romney told Obama as the two convened on the Lynn University campus in Boca Raton, Fla., that October evening. "That’s not true," Obama interjected. “Oh, you didn't want a status of forces agreement?” Romney asked as an argument ensued. “No,” Obama said. “What I would not have done is left 10,000 troops in Iraq that would tie us down. That certainly would not help us in the Middle East.”


Own it.

td1234
td1234

@IReportYouWhine#1 Let us not forget that the resolution passed in a Congress that was led by the Democrats in the US Senate and the Republicans in the US House. 


77% of the Democratic led US Senate voted yes including Clinton, Biden, Kerry and Reid and 58% of Democrat US Senators voted yes in the body in which they controlled. 

honested
honested

@td1234 @IReportYouWhine#1 

Yes tiny dog, we all remember that many members of the House and Senate fell prey to the devious machinations of the Selected President and his evil Vice President in steering the United States into the worst foreign policy disaster in the history of the United States.

Most of them have apologized for their error, at least most of the Democrats.

LeninTime
LeninTime

Iraq wasn't a mistake, or a 'blunder'. It was a crime of world historical proportions. 

The criminals who plotted it await their Nuremberg. Even if posthumous.

td1234
td1234

@LeninTime It sure is a good thing that your opinion is just an opinion that carries absolutely no weight. 


The criminal was Saddam. He was tried in a court of law of his own countrymen, convicted and hanged for his crimes against the Iraq people. 

dreema
dreema

@td1234 @LeninTime  Yes Saddam was a criminal - armed by the United States as a Bulwark against Iran. HIs crimes do not justify the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld war crimes in waging war against a country that never attacked us. LeninTime is right. They, like Saddam, are criminals.

LeninTime
LeninTime

@IReportYouWhine#1 Yeah, that's why obozo tried the surge in Afghanistan, so he could "lose" that one too, eh?
***
Are you kidding? Who are we talking about here?
No bigger slave to the Washington consensus that Barack Obama.

td1234
td1234

Oops, It looks like Mr. Bookman and the progressives once again have been grubered by the elites. 


"This weekend on Fox News Channel’s “Fox News Sunday With Chris Wallace,” veteran journalist Bob Woodward said former President George W. Bush did not lie about Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein  having weapons of mass distraction in the buildup to the 2003 Iraq war.

Woodward said, “Iraq is a symbol. You can make a persuasive argument there was a mistake. But there is a kinda line going on that Bush and the other people lied about this. I spent 18 months looking at how Bush decided to invade Iraq. Lots of mistakes, but it was Bush telling George Tenet the CIA director, don’t let anyone stretch the case on WMD. He was the one who was skeptical. If you try to summarize why we went into Iraq, it was momentum. The war plan kept getting better and easier, and finally at the end, people were saying, ‘Hey, look, it will only take a week or two.’ Early on it looked like it was going to take a year or 18 months, so Bush pulled the trigger. A mistake certainly can be argued, and there is an abundance of evidence. But there was no lie in this that I could find.”

Normd
Normd

@td1234 


Fox News??? Still every bit a Duped republican, I see...lol!

LeninTime
LeninTime

@td1234 

Woodward is lying through his teeth. 

Just like Bush and Cheney and the whole bunch of gangsters, Powell, Rice, every last one of them, were lying.

Brosephus
Brosephus

@td1234 

I'm certain that he and others would know that Hussein had WMDs at one point.  Where do you think he obtained them?

"For ten years, the White House, assisted by allies in London and Rome, brushed aside the law in a relentless quest to support Saddam Hussein. What were the forces that shaped this persisting embrace of a dictator whom George Bush would eventually compare to Adolf Hitler? How did Washington and its NATO allies nurture a frequently illicit rapport with Saddam, and what was the real story of why it became necessary to mount Operation Desert Storm? How did the governments led by George Bush and Margaret Thatcher seek to cover up their past dealings with the Iraqi leader after Desert Storm finally drove him from Kuwait in 1991?"

http://www.amazon.com/Spiders-Web-Secret-History-Illegally/dp/0553096508

td1234
td1234

@Normd Bob Woodward does not work for Fox. Remember he is one of the reporters that brought Nixon down. 

td1234
td1234

@Brosephus So in other words Saddam had WMD's and Bush did not lie. 

td1234
td1234

@LeninTime Everyone on the planet is lying except you because you are the truth police. LOL

PaulinNH
PaulinNH

@LeninTime 

Did you seriously think that Woodward was going to say that his book "Plan of Attack" was full of howlers?

Heck - Woodward still claims that he had a deathbed interview with Bill Casey. 

HarryCrews
HarryCrews

@td1234 Have you followed Bob Woodward in the last few years? He "works" for whomever will pay him. He hangs his hat at the Washington Post. You know Woodward interviewed President Bush 6 times for a total of 11 hours of access - more than any other journalist. He wrote four books about the Bush Presidency. Why is he saying this now? When Bob Woodward previously was asked how to justify his journalistic "push" into Iraq what his response was? "I think I dropped the ball here. I should have pushed much, much harder on the skepticism about the reality of WMD; in other words, [I should have] said, 'Hey, look, the evidence is not as strong as they were claiming."

The only person "Gruber"'ed here is the one who would try and turn a proper noun into an adjective with negative connotations.


Brosephus
Brosephus

@td1234 

That's not what I said.  I said that people can claim that he had them.  He got them from us.  He gassed the Kurds, so everyone knows that he had them.  What we gave him, however, would have degraded by the time Bush wanted to go in in 2003.

We don't know whether Bush lied or not because he wouldn't allow the inspectors to complete their job of trying to find those WMDs.  Regardless to what's presented, people such as yourself will believe what you choose to believe.  There's no answer to that question because the inspectors didn't complete the job.  All we have is speculation based upon past actions and activities.

bu2
bu2

@LeninTime @td1234 

No the big lie is the Democrats claiming Bush lied.  Virtually everyone on the planet believed Sadaam had chemical weapons. 

IReportYouWhine#1
IReportYouWhine#1

 In a new book, former Defense Secretary and CIA Director Leon Panetta suggests that President Obama failed to heed his advisers who wanted to leave troops in Iraq past December 2011, which may have contributed to the rise of Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).

"It was clear to me--and many others--that withdrawing all our forces would endanger the fragile stability then barely holding Iraq together," Panetta writes in the book, an excerpt of which was published on Time.com this week.


Deal with it.


http://www.cbsnews.com/news/leon-panetta-criticizes-obama-for-iraq-withdrawal/

Normd
Normd

@IReportYouWhine#1 


Deal with the fact that Bush refused to sign the agreement and Obama was following his lead.  I swear Whiner, you used to be better than this...

td1234
td1234

@Normd Why do we have 3000 troops in Iraq now without a SOFA if that was so important when Obama pulled the troops out? 

Kamchak
Kamchak

@td1234 

Why do we have 3000 troops in Iraq...

They

.

.

are

.

.

not

.

.

combat

.

.

troops.

LeninTime
LeninTime

The essence of cretin logic is to assume that the Iraq 'surge' was anything other than a giant PR exercise concocted to conceal the fact that the yanqis had their a$$es handed to them on a royal plate. It was a thoroughly fraudulent exercise under-girded with massive ethnic cleansing of Sunnis carried out by Washington-orchestrated death squads.. 

In other words, the surge was just like the entire Iraq invasion and war itself: a gigantic sham.

td1234
td1234

@LeninTime I did not know you were so capable of such delusional thought. Learn something new everyday. 

Captain-Obvious
Captain-Obvious

@LeninTime Writes someone who doesn't know the difference between "combat operations" and "occupation".

ZAZ
ZAZ

@LeninTime You need to stop hanging out with college professors who drive 1979 Peugeot 504s.

LeninTime
LeninTime

Did George W. Bush's surrender Iraq?  Actually he never had it to surrender.

bu2
bu2

It went up from 1999 to 2009 then declined over the last 6 years.  That doesn't look like a long term decline.


The liberal side has gone up.  There is a definite libertarian (as opposed to liberal) trend in this country.

td1234
td1234

@bu2 ""Democrats during Obama’s presidency lost 11 governorships, 13 U.S. Senate seats, 69 House seats, and 913 state legislative seats and 30 state legislative chambers" 

IReportYouWhine#1
IReportYouWhine#1

You would have cut and run from Afghanistan by now if the taliban would've cooperated.

IReportYouWhine#1
IReportYouWhine#1

They could have laid low for a year or so and then pulled an isis.

DunwoodyGranny
DunwoodyGranny

For a country where just a few years ago there was blood in the streets over whose imaginary friend was better, Ireland certainly does have a lot of nice, empathetic people now.

Maybe there IS hope for America.

IReportYouWhine#1
IReportYouWhine#1

obama surrendered iraq, remember? And now he "play acts" the role of cic, to keep the poll numbers up.


Blood.


On.


Your.


Hands.

YouLibs
YouLibs

The powers that be don't want me to express my opinion of U.S."Patriot" and his misogyny at this time.


Maybe later.


MES, Gmare, I love your input here.

LeninTime
LeninTime

@IReportYouWhine#1 

Blood on your hands.

**
Whose? The US ruling establishment? Couldn't agree more. 

Remember: no Iraq invasion of 2003, no ISIS today.