Over the last century, we’ve accumulated lots of data on the effect of economic freedom and a lack thereof. We’ve seen the utter ruination of economies in the cases of the Soviets and the Maoists. We’ve seen generally slower economic growth in more social democratic western European countries like Germany and France than in the more “economically conservative” US. We’ve seen some third world economies become first world nations through trade-friendly policies, as in South Korea. We’ve also seen regional leaders regress economically, like Cuba or Argentina, through poor property protection and corruption.

Basically, we’ve seen an awful lot of experiments run on what effects different kinds of economic policies have. The more prominent fact that emerges is that economic freedom is more productive. The more free the market, the better property is protected, the less corruption in the government, the lower the taxes (to a large extent), the richer the country. You can argue that some statistics come out better in less free countries (as in the perennial examples of health-care and literacy in Cuba). But you cannot argue that less free societies outproduce more free societies. Wealth matters to the quality of life of all citizens of a country, and freer countries are wealthier.

And that, basically, is the most reasonable case for what is sometimes called “economic conservatism” in US politics. The data supports staying pretty close to the traditional American economic system, or even becoming more free. Lots of countries did us a favor and showed how painful lack of economic freedom can be.

Now, that said, there is no such sad history of countries that legalize gay marriage. Nor is there a sad history of countries that legalize abortion. Nor is there a sad history of countries that fully embrace biomedical research. Nor is there a sad history of countries that become more accepting of human sexuality in all its variety. Nor is there a sad history of countries that adopt more humane laws regarding drug use and abuse (quite the opposite, even here in the US!).

“Conservative” opposition to social progress is generally entirely theoretical and is mostly made up of scary stories of what might happen. These scary stories, well, they don’t come true. The one exception that comes to mind is that conservatives are largely right about urban crime and the need for consistent enforcement as the way to preserve civil harmony. Here, though, they are able to point to real experience in the US from the 60′s through the 90′s to make the case. But when they move from real lessons derived from real experience, they always seem to go wrong.