Gary Sauer-Thompson writes that the Howard win means the continuation of the social conservative hegemony.
The results of the federal election have depressed me. The hegemony of social conservatism is going to continue for quite some time.
It is all about families. Traditional families. Christian families. Heterosexual families. Families standing on suburban lawns behind those famous white picket fences.
What about lefty non-Christian (secular) singles or couples? What happens to those living in the inner city in apartments?
They become exiles on main street says Chris Shiel over at Back Pages.
I’ve responded to this in his comments, but I’ll repost below, for your benefit (if you don’t like visiting the links in these kinds of posts).
I’m concerned that you’re framing this post with words that unfairly scale into a context that is, at best, an exaggeration of the true situation. Words like ‘hegemony’ and ‘taboo’ imply an active and knowledgable takeover of national interests by the party in question (in this case, social conservatists). I think this is not the case at all. Rather, a nation undergoes natural pendulum shifts in cultural and social values.
The globe currently is tending toward the zenith of this conservative swing, and your country and mine, and others, reflect this predominating shift in values. It will surely swing the other way at some point, presumably in the near future (the shift from the liberal 60′s has only taken 35 short years; these shifts will continue to occur closer and closer together as the pendulum narrows in its scope).
You intimate that when the “traditional” heterosexual family culture thrives, the secular, non-traditional family becomes marginalized. True, to a certain extent, though I don’t think you can argue against the fact that marginalized people in our day and age enjoy far more freedoms, opportunities, and legislative/judicial support than ever in the world’s history. 100 years ago gay marriage would not even have been conceivable, much less talked about openly. I think you’re ignoring the rights and freedoms that have been gained, and are painting a gloomier picture than really exists. I’m speaking generally; of course individual cases may experience extreme isolation and persecution, but on the whole, the tendency has curved steeply toward a more open society, and this with several swings of the pendulum from liberal to conservative and back again and forth many times over.
Finally, I’m concerned that your perception of the so-called censorship society is a doomsayer. While generally I oppose censorship, society has an imperative to guide morals. Despite relativistic thinking, morality is something apart from the law, but it must influence in some form or fashion the way the law handles society’s natural predilections. Chaos is the natural state, and without the constraining influence of law and morality, the doom of society is chaos and death. Social conservative influences help balance out the natural humanistic breakdowns, and stabilize the more libertine implications of a free society. Taboos exist for a reason, and not all taboos should be considered problematic, or a menace to freedom.