Brooks's "moral revival"

David Brooks writes, in today's New York Times, "[y]ou want to know what a society looks like when it is in the middle of moral self-repair? Look around."  The point of his piece, "The Virtues of Virtues", is to catalog the many ways in which our society is getting better -- lower teen-pregnancy rates, lower drug use among teens, less violence, etc.  He says:

I always thought it would be dramatic to live through a moral revival. Great leaders would emerge. There would be important books, speeches, marches and crusades. We're in the middle of a moral revival now, and there has been very little of that. This revival has been a bottom-up, prosaic, un-self-conscious one, led by normal parents, normal neighbors and normal community activists.

He gives credit for this "moral revival" to (1) "people have stopped believing in stupid ideas" like "the traditional family is obsolete, that drugs are liberating, that it is every adolescent's social duty to be a rebel"; (2) "many Americans have become better parents"; (3) "many people in the younger generation . . . are reacting against the culture of divorce"; (4) "neighborhood and charitable groups have emerged to help people lead more organized lives, even in the absence of cohesive families."

Two thoughts:  First, why are these things happening?  I wonder if Brooks thinks that it has anything to do with, say, the rise of evangelical mega-churches, or the (sometimes cheesy) personal-improvement Christianity promoted by groups like Promise Keepers, etc.?  Second, is it the case -- and I'm not saying it isn't -- that these improvements indicate a "moral revival"?  Or, even if they do indicate such a revival, would these kind of improvements necessarily constitute a "moral revival"?

Rick