In September of 2006, Family Research Council Action hosted the first “Values Voter Summit.”  In 2007, it had 2500 attendees and launched Mike Huckabee’s campaign into the national spotlight.  It was influential enough to momentarily quell talk of the declining influence of social conservatives. 

Since then, “values voters” has become the designator of choice for social conservatives.  A quick Lexis-Nexis search lists some 415 references to the phrase since July of 2006, with only 319 references the entire six years prior.  That the phrase has penetrated our political vocabulary so deeply is a tribute to the influence of the Family Research Council.

My concern is that the cooption of “values” by social conservatives indicates a lack of a coherent, clearly articulated philosophical framework for the movement’s political discourse and behavior. 

The shift in our ethical language from virtues to values is commonly cited as one instance of the death of modernity.  David Wells writes:

 “The first major shift in this period was the replacement of Virtue by values.  It was the practice of the virtues, those aspects of the Good that were the same for all people in all places and were what endured, that gave life its structure and meaning.  The belief in Virtue, however, was slowly replaced in the wider culture by that in values, and values could be nothing more than personal preferences which are not normative for all people.”

Before him, Allan Bloom had written:

“Values are not discovered by reason, and it is fruitless to seek them or to find the truth or the good life.  The quest begun by Odysseus and continued over three millennia has come to an end with the observation that there is nothing to seek.  This alleged fact was announced by Nietzsche just over a century ago when he said, “God is dead.”  Good and evil now for the first time appeared as values, of which there have been a thousand and one, none rationally or objectively preferable to any other.”

If Wells and Bloom (among others) are right, then the irony of “values voters” is that they have co-opted the language of the very ideology that has lead to the cultural situation they so detest.  Not only that, but “values voters” have ceded the very principles upon which their civic engagement ought to depend.   By exchanging social mores for “values,” we have internalized and subjectivized the principles upon which a healthy functioning society depends, and in so doing lost the authority to speak clearly and persuasively on moral issues. 

This, of course, is a strawman.  There are numerous social conservatives who embrace the clarity of “right and wrong.”  My concern is that the appellation filled a void by giving social conservatives a sense of identity within the broader Republican Party, but in so doing betrayed the principles upon which social conservatism depends.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Posted by Matthew Lee Anderson

Matthew Lee Anderson is the Founder and Lead Writer of Mere Orthodoxy. He is the author of Earthen Vessels: Why Our Bodies Matter to our Faith and The End of Our Exploring: A Book about Questioning and the Confidence of Faith. Follow him on Twitter or on Facebook.


  1. You may be onto something: there’s a creeping scientism in the name “Family Research Council,” too.


  2. How can you say this?

    Haven’t you read the Scriptures where Jesus would ask individuals about their values, ‘Who among you when asked for bread would give your son a scorpion?’ And ‘Who was a neighbor to the man who was robbed’?

    You are arguing against Christ here saying, ‘Well, there is no objective reason why they could not say the stingy pharisee was the true neighbor.’

    God could not care less about social mores, but He takes your values seriously and expects you to live by them. The problem is not that we are ignorant, but that we are hypocrites.


  3. “You are arguing against Christ here…”

    This is one of my favorite comments ever. Thanks, makelovehappen.

    For one, I don’t think I was claiming there “is no objective reason…” However, I’m not sure “reasons” and “values” are the same thing. Additionally, I am doubtful that Jesus is asking people about their “values” in any modern sense.

    “God could not care less about social mores, but He takes your values seriously and expects you to live by them.”

    “Social mores” was the wrong choice of words here. “Principles” or “morals” would have been better.


  4. […] by yehoshuk on Sat 27-9-2008 The Ultimate Engagement Index Saved by hartpetera on Fri 26-9-2008 Against Values Voters: Reservations about Social Conservatives’… Saved by frozentruth on Thu 25-9-2008 Smarts And Hearts Saved by rbarden on Tue 23-9-2008 […]


Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *