In a recent column, Leonard Pitts varies his usual theme of the pervasiveness of racism in American society by attacking social conservatives (“Social conservatism finally seen for the con job it’s always been,” May 27).

Pitts complains that social conservatism is about “us versus them,” although this mentality has been part of the conservative-liberal debate, on both sides, from the beginning. “Social conservatism’s attraction,” Pitts claims, “has always lain in its appeal to simplicity,” an assertion that is nothing if not naïve and simplistic.

What Pitts really doesn’t like about social conservatives is that they are, well, conservative. They tend to be religious and patriotic; they value traditions and customs and think families are important; they are skeptical about same-sex marriage and are profoundly dismayed by late-term abortion.

In short, they adhere to values, beliefs and a moral vision that was once shared by many American liberals who have since moved on in progressive fashion, while conservatives have done so more slowly.

Shared values, traditions and loyalties are part of the glue that holds societies together. Attitudes evolve, but calling the failure of social conservatives to shift their moral vision fast enough a “con job” is a cheap and gratuitous insult.

There is nothing simple about important social and moral issues, which is why the debate about them has been going on for so long and will continue. The debate can be serious and civil, or it can be derogatory and dismissive. Leonard Pitts chooses the latter.