"Tradition is the next big idea in politics"

It's an interesting hypothesis. Personally, I doubt that any economic decline will bring about the rejuvenation of moral values that social conservatives clearly hope for; at least not in the form that they see.

First of all, there will be economic factors that pressure people to behave in different ways. So, for example, you might see more married couples staying together than otherwise would simply because it is no longer possible to provide the lifestyle they have grown accustomed to from a single income. For similar reasons, you may see more grown children living with parents (or parents moving in with children). So far, so good.

Might churches become more important in people's lives? Possibly, if other safety nets fail to cover expenses. Keep in mind that the last Depression saw the birth of much of the welfare state, like AFDC. As long as the Democrats are in power, I'd expect to see more money going that way (even at the expense of other pet projects) rather than less.

But what about the birth rate and abortion? Bringing another child into the world would be to add a significant, perhaps back breaking expense to the family. Certainly single parenthood will appear less appealing, but might not the choice just as easily be to abort the child as to push the father into marriage?

I also think that you'll start seeing many more "unconventional" families, again for economic reasons. To carry on the above example, perhaps a woman can't get her boyfriend to step up to the plate, but perhaps she can move in with another married couple and pool child care resources. I would go so far as to suggest that civil unions may well become commonplace in this country not to extend rights to homosexual couples but to provide some sort of legal support to unconventional households (and gays will benefit indirectly).

What of that classic Republican trope from the '80s and '90s, the war on drugs? Just as the Depression prompted the repeal of Prohibition, in our day I'd say we have probably about a 70% chance of seeing marijuana legalized completely in at least one or two states within five years. States like California just cannot afford to keep up the law enforcement and will need the extra income that legalized marijuana would bring in. Recent polling shows better than 40% support nationwide for outright legalization of pot (note: that's not medical marijuana or deprioritization but outright legalization)

I will go so far as to predict that there's a limited chance we'll see legalization of even harder drugs like cocaine and heroin if budgets get tight enough and police resources thin enough...perhaps something like a 20% chance of at least one state moving in that direction in the next ten years.

So social change? Almost certainly. But a return to "bedrock conservative values?" Well, maybe in a few respects. But we're not heading back to the '50s.

One could just as easily draw the opposite conclusion re social liberalism. In an economic downturn, where people care most about putting bread on the table, social issues recede in their importance to economic ones.

When things are going well economically, people can afford to put their political energies into fighting about sex, which seems to be what "social issues" are at their core (e.g., whether having sex with someone of the same sex is moral, how many sexual partners people should have, how sex should be taught in schools, whether women should be allowed to abort pregnancies, etc.).

Charles Cosimano,

Actually, there's a case to be made that the Great Depression *did* bring about a return, at least among some, to at least some of the values of the period prior to WWI, at least relative to the ethos of the 1920's that helped bring about the Great Depression.

This contention is a commonplace in the discussion of American history, albeit one that is debatable.

Perhaps there are limits to the magic that your Young-Objectivist-Decoder-Ring can work upon reality.

Or perhaps not.

I've said it before on this blog: the "conservative movmement" by and large is dead. Its a misnomer. Its like a farmer looking into an empty water well and saying "we're gonna conserve this stuff." Huh? There's nothing left to conserve. You've used it all up. Its the same deal with politics. You can't conserve an anti-abortion, pro-traditional marriage stance when those values no longer exist the political spectrum. Rather, they must be imported from outside the current framework. Though I disagree with Rod - I think this means an uncompromising third party rather than a reformed GOP.

Count me in as a "crunchy-trad."

Matthew

What isn't new under our Sun is the flawed view of the American Dream: You, too, can have what you want when you want it.

Follow the crumbs. This flawed Dream has been there all along. The "changes" along the way can be categorized as accessibility.

The Madoff Ponzi "scandal" is an excellent illustration. Madoff's "victims" lead themselves to his slaughter, simply by believing the flawed Dream.

I am reminded of the now highly ironic catch phrase from an iconic Smith Barney marketing program.

They make money the old-fashioned way. They earn it.

And, further irony*, the next Google item in my search:

www.nypost.com/seven/02212009/business/new_wall_st__bonus_reality__they_earn_it_156228.htm

Feb 21, 2009 ... The Morgan Stanley-Smith Barney brokerage venture yesterday unveiled a $2 billion to $3 billion bonus program that includes clawbacks and other provisions designed to keep the grumbling - both inside the firm and on Capitol Hill - to a minimum.

* This further irony being, admittedly, personal and subjective: they feel it necessary to change their bonus program in light of recent events. Where was the "reality" before now?

Unlike many posters here, I not only think we can return to these values (which are actually more alive and well among 'the people' than people think IMO) but we will have to if we are going to survive at all. Thanks to Janet Daily for having the courage to say so.

the not-so-stupid Chris is on to something. The thing about these traditional values is that they were informed by a faith. That faith is, by and large, gone from this world replaced by the belief that we can make the world a better place if only we find the right economic and government systems.
The Benedict option my be the way to go, but why call it Benedictine. Benedict didn't originate the movement, St. Antony did. How about the Thebiad movement? Or, better yet, since we aren't talking about something completely monastic, how about stealing a page from the St Herman of Alaska brotherhood and calling it the Catacomb movement. The catocombs were inclusive of everyone who wanted to preserve their faith. THe thing about it is, you can't have any positive impact on the world by telling the world what you want it to be. you can only have an impact by becoming what you want to be and then letting the world see that example. Becoming what we want to be may very well mean withdrawing from the world to an extent.

Captcha still sucks. Half the time i cant even read the letters

There's no question that the traditional social values and the traditional economic values OUGHT to be upheld in society. But, sadly, it does seem like an increasingly unrealistic prospect on both fronts.

There is a saying: "Tradition is a set of answers for which we have forgotten the questions."

Every so often, a people (or a part thereof) will remember what the questions were. Perhaps that will happen now.

Your servant,

Lord Karth