Confusing Conservatism

In April, the Harvard College Democrats threw a big bash. The tagline: “Party like a Republican.” A Facebook invitation to the fete appealed to its guests to “show up for a grand old time in your favorite pearls and popped collars, or perhaps your favorite trucker hat.”

To be sure, there exists an image of how a conservative looks—or maybe, how a conservative should look. Here in the Northeast, this may include a splash of cable-chord or a dab of pearls. The image is neat, tidy, prim. And, of course, there is an idea of how a conservative behaves. Unlike his liberal cousin, who is an old hand at activism, the conservative’s means of discourse are more refined.

In recent American history, there have been few conservative causes that required grassroots rallies, sit-ins, or fasting. Conservatives tend not to talk in terms of “revolutions.” In the sixties, while the hyper-liberal Students for Democratic Society were storming the halls of the nation’s universities, their right-wing counterparts were trying to get good old boys like Barry Goldwater elected. The reason for that sort of discrepancy is largely that conservative values tend to be associated with traditionalism, and most forms of conservative reform can occur easily within a governmental framework. Typically, therefore, activism does not go hand-in-hand with conservatism.

This trend has persisted, and in the past, Harvard has been no exception. It is not the Harvard Republicans outside the Science Center rallying for workers’ rights or better wages for our dining hall staff. Those are the motions of liberal agenda-makers, such as the Student Labor Action Movement (SLAM).

But now the tweed is coming off. Increasingly, America’s conservative youth are shedding their stiff reputations for a new sort of rabble-rousing. Particularly, the image of social conservatism is shifting. The best example of this phenomenon is, not surprisingly, in the area of sexual politics. The success of the socially liberal agenda, in the form of increased openness about sexual matters, has caused the tables of tradition to turn.

It is now perfectly acceptable to talk openly about a decision to have premarital sex or to have multiple sex partners. One-night stands are losing their status as reprehensible. In Harvard dining halls, swapping weird sex tales is hardly an irregular occurrence. As a result of this sexual liberalism becoming the status quo, social conservatism is being reduced to a reaction.

Take the recently formed and oft-cited Harvard student group, True Love Revolution. The group seeks to promote premarital abstinence among Harvard students and to provide a support network for its members. Never mind True Love Revolution’s cause—if someone wishes to save coitus for the marriage bed, then she certainly may and should. What is curious about True Love Revolution, however, is its premise.

In promoting the values of abstinence, True Love Revolution has abandoned old norms. It purports to be nonsectarian, and on its website, a major justification the group provides for waiting on sex is that abstinence reduces one’s chance of pregnancy or sexually transmitted disease. Additionally, the group’s material suggests that couples have healthier and more emotionally stable relationships if they make abstinence a major aspect of it.

Whether or not that unsubstantiated assertion is true is immaterial. The significance of True Love Revolution’s justification lies in the fact that the group never mentions morality as a reason to wait, save a few oblique references to some members possibly choosing abstinence for religious reasons. At face value, True Love Revolution actively rejects justification for old guard social conservatism.

Even the name “True Love Revolution” suggests some shift. According to Sarah Kinsella, a co-founder of the group, the group’s founders wanted a name that was “catchy and fun, one that didn’t take ourselves too seriously.” True Love Revolution is not the only group capitalizing on this “catchy and fun” vibe. A national group dubbed Silver Ring Thing, which is likewise aimed at promoting abstinence among young people, also seeks to reel in membership through vibrant means. The group’s website contains fiery graphics and uses hip lingo. Silver Ring Thing holds rave-style events featuring musical performers and strobe lights. Though Silver Ring Thing does not claim to be completely nonsectarian as True Love Revolution does, its recruitment strategy is—first and foremost—based on the theme of health, not morality or religion.

Ultimately, this new approach could bring an end to socially conservative agenda. By resorting to these new groovy hip tricks—in this case, sexing up the anti-sex movement—bearers of socially conservative messages are, to a degree, betraying their own causes. The worst effect of this is that it is to suggest that an established value cannot be maintained in modernity unless it takes on the style and rhetoric of its counter-movement. If an old value cannot be sustained through historical memory, there must be an extremely compelling reason—beyond say, a mostly controllable health risk—for its defense to continue. And if bearers of a cause have to invent new justifications for their beliefs—if they are unwilling to ascribe to (or admit to ascribing to) traditional justifications, they may be out of luck in sustaining their cause.

It is often said that it’s tough to teach an old dog new tricks. Perhaps in a case such as this, the old dog ought not to even try.



Lucy M. Caldwell ‘09 is a History and Literature concentrator in Adams House. Her column appears on alternate Wednesdays.