# A definition of conservatism - "in-groups" and "out-groups" **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 21, 2020, 9:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-definition-of-conservatism-in-groups-and-out-groups/918646 "2020-08-21T09:41:12Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2020, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-definition-of-conservatism-in-groups-and-out-groups/918646/21 "2020-08-21T19:44:57Z")
In what context did you think there might be a wide variety of in groups and out groups related to political conservatism? I’m just not seeing what you think might come up that we all don’t already know. I’m American politics, the in group that conservatism protects is affluent white men. Everyone else is out. To the extent that someone has proximity to the privilege of that in group, that person might be extended some of that privilege. What else did you think might come up? ---
**Author:** ![LSLGuy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lslguy/32/5813_2.png) [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2020, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-definition-of-conservatism-in-groups-and-out-groups/918646/22 "2020-08-21T21:54:38Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > I’m American politics, the in group that > conservatism protects is affluent white men. Everyone else is out. To the extent that someone has proximity to the privilege of that in group, that person might be extended some of that privilege. This. But it can be expanded a bit. What the OP seems to be expecting, and will not find, is that there are various orthogonal sets of in- and out-groups. What we can say is there are concentric circles of in-most to out-most. Though there will of course be some fuzziness & overlap around the borders of each circle. At the inmost center are the political dynastic families and the richest of the long term rich. Who are almost exclusively white & the members who matter are male. Outside them are the affluent whites, mostly male but with a tinge of women. etc. The list is almost self-writing. What the OP might think he sees, or be expecting us to see, or be hoping to foment, is a bicker about who’s more out, the Native Americans or the Latino illegal immigrants. Who’s more out, gays or black folks. etc. That’s pretty small beer and ultimately a distracting sideshow. The OP’s Wilhoit quote is essentially reductionist philosophy. He (Wilhoit) argues that that’s the fundamental organizing principal of political economy and _everything_ else is just details. As he says, that throws out a vast amount of scholarship & political writing accumulated over centuries. That’s a nice thing for a revolutionary thinker to suggest (witness e.g. Marx or Engels), but it’s mostly overblown. Unrestrained human nature is greedy and cruel. The greediest and the cruelest rise to the top. And therefore protect greed and cruelty by ensuring they have a monopoly on doing it. IMO conservative philosophy is more like “Embrace the suck! Be the worst human you can be; it’s only natural!” That’s the deep guiding philosophy. Best of all, it can be embraced not only by Kings, but by guys with dirty boots down at the bar. Wilhoit’s silly idea that the in- & out-groups are foundational is wrong. It’s highly, highly derivative of what I just said. It’s a 3rd or 4th order consequence. He says it pithily which is why it’s captured some traction on social media. But it’s not much more than that. It can serve as a rallying cry for all forms of social disenfranchisement, with BLM being a very apt exemplar _du jour_. ---
**Author:** ![puddleglum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puddleglum/32/137_2.png) [@puddleglum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puddleglum)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2020, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-definition-of-conservatism-in-groups-and-out-groups/918646/23 "2020-08-22T16:28:30Z")
If you are interested in in group vs outgroup dynamics, the definitive essay is Scott Alexander’s [I can tolerate anything except the outgroup.](https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything-except-the-outgroup/) ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2020, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-definition-of-conservatism-in-groups-and-out-groups/918646/24 "2020-08-22T20:04:47Z")
> [@bump](#): > > Read the essay below by Walter Russell Mead about Jacksonian America, and imagine that the people he describes in his essay feel threatened politically and socially. Think about how they might react, and you pretty much have EXACTLY what’s going on these days. > > [TNI - Back Issues Archive of The National Interest](https://erbosoft.com/ussclueless/external/Mead01.html) I just wanted to say thanks for linking this; it was excellent. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2020, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-definition-of-conservatism-in-groups-and-out-groups/918646/25 "2020-08-22T21:16:00Z")
And it led me to his 18-years-later follow-up: > **[The Jacksonian Revolt](https://www.hudson.org/domestic-policy/the-jacksonian-revolt)** > > For the first time in 70 years, the American people have elected a president who disparages the policies, ideas, and institutions at the heart of postwar U.S. foreign policy. ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2020, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-definition-of-conservatism-in-groups-and-out-groups/918646/26 "2020-08-22T21:51:57Z")
Oh yeah, he’s got several articles detailing Jacksonian America and Trump, etc… The really interesting thing is that the article I wrote doesn’t demonize them, and does a fantastic job of explaining their motivations, which aren’t necessarily racist, ignorant or anything bad. That’s basically the lens I’ve been trying to explain Trump supporters through for four years now; not bad people per-se, but people who have a very distinct way of looking at the world and other people. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2020, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-definition-of-conservatism-in-groups-and-out-groups/918646/27 "2020-08-22T22:26:31Z")
> [@Chad\_Sudan](#): > > I think you and I could both grasp what the quote meant but come up with different examples of such “in-groups” and “out-groups,” and that hearing these different takes might be useful. I think you should ask a member of an out-group. They understand to their bones which group they are consigned to and are reminded of that fact 24 hours of every day. ---
**Author:** ![BippityBoppityBoo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bippityboppityboo/32/5745_2.png) [@BippityBoppityBoo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BippityBoppityBoo)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2020, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-definition-of-conservatism-in-groups-and-out-groups/918646/28 "2020-08-22T22:29:23Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > think you should ask a member of an out-group. They understand to their bones which group they are consigned to and are reminded of that fact 24 hours of every day. If they live that long. ---
**Author:** ![Boudicca90](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boudicca90/32/16818_2.png) [@Boudicca90](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boudicca90)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2020, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-definition-of-conservatism-in-groups-and-out-groups/918646/29 "2020-08-22T23:33:52Z")
In-group: White, cisgender men. Out-groups: Black people, women, latinx people, LGBTQ+, basically anybody who is different from the in-group. ---
**Author:** ![BippityBoppityBoo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bippityboppityboo/32/5745_2.png) [@BippityBoppityBoo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BippityBoppityBoo)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2020, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-definition-of-conservatism-in-groups-and-out-groups/918646/30 "2020-08-22T23:40:55Z")
> [@Boudicca90](#): > > Out-groups: Black people, women, latinx people, LGBTQ+, basically anybody who is different from the in-group. Especially if they are uppity and don’t know their place. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2020, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-definition-of-conservatism-in-groups-and-out-groups/918646/31 "2020-08-23T00:06:17Z")
Good point, if you don’t recognize that there are in-groups and out-groups, then you are part of the in-group. ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2020, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-definition-of-conservatism-in-groups-and-out-groups/918646/32 "2020-08-23T00:22:24Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > if you don’t recognize that there are in-groups and out-groups, then you are part of the in-group. And conservatives IMHO are more likely to fit this description. But does that contradict or conform to the proposition quoted in the OP? ---
**Author:** ![Buck\_Godot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/buck_godot/32/6573_2.png) [@Buck\_Godot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buck_Godot)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2020, 4:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-definition-of-conservatism-in-groups-and-out-groups/918646/33 "2020-08-23T04:14:32Z")
In group:me and people like me, out group; people not like me. An alternative, (less pithy but probably more fundamental) way of expressing the statement is that conservatism is in favor or maintaining the existing power structure. IN the United States since the founding of the country and before, white christian heterosexual cis males, are in a privileged position, and it is the job of government to see that this status quo is maintained. Since (to quote another pithy saying) to those used to a position of privilege equality feels like discrimination, those who attempt to change the status quo are dangerous radicals who would destroy a society that is working well (for the conservatives). ---
**Author:** ![Pantastic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3bc359/32.png) [@Pantastic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pantastic)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2020, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-definition-of-conservatism-in-groups-and-out-groups/918646/34 "2020-08-23T19:44:42Z")
> [@Boudicca90](#): > > In-group: White, cisgender men. > > Out-groups: Black people, women, latinx people, LGBTQ+, basically anybody who is different from the in-group. It’s really interesting shifting from passing as the in-group to living with out-groups. I’m a white guy, pass as Christian (actually used to be atheist, then because a sort of disinterested deist), considered myself straight, and used to mostly hang around in straight-male-dominated hobbies. While I’m still white and pass as straight and Christian, I’ve realized I’m actually queer, and spend a lot more time hanging around mixed-gender groups, LGBT spaces, and mixed-race groups. It’s pretty amazing how different the experience is - in the ‘in-group’ social circles, you never had people drop into a discussion about the times they were physically threatened for things like stopping at a grocery store or walking into a bathroom, because it wasn’t something that happened. It’s interesting seeing some of the ‘head in the sand’ attitudes from conservatives on here too - in a thread talking about whether it’s more risky to be liberal in a conservative area or vice-versa, I talked about friends of mine who have been threatened with death, beaten, and sexually harassed while going about ordinary business (like shopping or going to a grocery store) for looking too queer. The conservative contingent simple refused to believe that this ever even happens, and denied the stuff that my friends have experienced and that are well-documented statistically. When I pointed out that just showing up to a bar as a gay couple, interracial couple, or in gender-nonconforming clothes (guy in a dress or butch-looking woman), they talked about how absurd it was for me to believe that anyone was in any danger from such a thing. It’s easy for someone to pretend that they’re not in an in-group if they just outright deny all anecdotes and data of what being in an out-group means in real life. ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2020, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-definition-of-conservatism-in-groups-and-out-groups/918646/35 "2020-08-23T20:31:44Z")
> [@Buck\_Godot](#): > > Since (to quote another pithy saying) to those used to a position of privilege equality feels like discrimination, those who attempt to change the status quo are dangerous radicals who would destroy a society that is working well (for the conservatives). That’s really the challenge here; how to include the out-group people without alienating the people who think that everything is working well (or was, prior to previous equality initiatives). The country breaks down like this- 62% white, 15% black, 18% hispanic, 5% Asian (rounded up or down). Hispanics are heavily concentrated in border states like Texas, California, Arizona and New Mexico, and blacks tend to live in urban areas, or in the rural South. And that breakdown is a new thing, historically speaking. As recent as 1990, the country was 80% white, and as recently as 1960, 90% white. So within living memory, it’s been overwhelmingly white for the entire country, and still is in large areas of it. With that in mind, it’s kind of a hard sell to someone in say… rural Nebraska, that we need millions of dollars thrown at equality initiatives instead of say… stuff that farmers could use. To them, that equality stuff may as well be in another country. So the challenge is how to sell it to both sides, I think. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2020, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-definition-of-conservatism-in-groups-and-out-groups/918646/36 "2020-08-23T20:43:09Z")
You could try basic humanity. ---
**Author:** ![LSLGuy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lslguy/32/5813_2.png) [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2020, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-definition-of-conservatism-in-groups-and-out-groups/918646/37 "2020-08-23T21:09:42Z")
> [@bump](#): > > With that in mind, it’s kind of a hard sell to someone in say… rural Nebraska, that we need millions of dollars thrown at equality initiatives instead of say… stuff that farmers could use. To them, that equality stuff may as well be in another country. > > So the challenge is how to sell it to both sides, I think. Agree w @k9bfriender just above. But if the only language those sorts of folks understand is “What’s in it for me?”, try this: > By 2100 or at latest 2150 your lillywhite great-grandkids will be the disliked minority and payback’s gonna be a bitch. You’d better do something to make this place fair to all _before_ it’s your/their turn to be on the bottom. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2020, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-definition-of-conservatism-in-groups-and-out-groups/918646/38 "2020-08-23T21:12:51Z")
I don’t know if everyone would agree with this philosophy, but if everyone did, the world would be a better place. [![](https://img.youtube.com/vi/rvskMHn0sqQ/maxresdefault.jpg "A Selfish Argument for Making the World a Better Place – Egoistic Altruism") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvskMHn0sqQ) ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2020, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-definition-of-conservatism-in-groups-and-out-groups/918646/39 "2020-08-23T21:18:05Z")
IIRC, the quote in the OP came from the comment section of [the blog Crooked Timber.](https://crookedtimber.org/) Here’s the 2018 citation: Frank Wilhoit appears to be a screenname: the political scientist died in 2010. Since this is a pseudoanonymous comment in a blog, I’ll quote it in full: > [@](#): > > There is no such thing as liberalism — or progressivism, etc. > > There is only conservatism. No other political philosophy actually exists; by the political analogue of Gresham’s Law, conservatism has driven every other idea out of circulation. > > There might be, and should be, anti-conservatism; but it does not yet exist. What would it be? In order to answer that question, it is necessary and sufficient to characterize conservatism. Fortunately, this can be done very concisely. > > Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: > > There must be in-groups whom the law protectes but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect. > > There is nothing more or else to it, and there never has been, in any place or time. > > For millenia, conservatism had no name, because no other model of polity had ever been proposed. “The king can do no wrong.” In practice, this immunity was always extended to the king’s friends, however fungible a group they might have been. Today, we still have the king’s friends even where there is no king (dictator, etc.). Another way to look at this is that the king is a faction, rather than an individual. > > As the core proposition of conservatism is indefensible if stated baldly, it has always been surrounded by an elaborate backwash of pseudophilosophy, amounting over time to millions of pages. All such is axiomatically dishonest and undeserving of serious scrutiny. Today, the accelerating de-education of humanity has reached a point where the market for pseudophilosophy is vanishing; it is, as The Kids Say These Days, tl;dr . All that is left is the core proposition itself — backed up, no longer by misdirection and sophistry, but by violence. > > So this tells us what anti-conservatism must be: the proposition that the law cannot protect anyone unless it binds everyone, and cannot bind anyone unless it protects everyone. > > Then the appearance arises that the task is to map “liberalism”, or “progressivism”, or “socialism”, or whateverthefuckkindofstupidnoise-ism, onto the core proposition of anti-conservatism. > > No, it a’n’t. The task is to throw all those things on the exact same burn pile as the collected works of all the apologists for conservatism, and start fresh. The core proposition of anti-conservatism requires no supplementation and no exegesis. It is as sufficient as it is necessary. What you see is what you get: > > _ **The law cannot protect anyone unless it binds everyone; and it cannot bind anyone unless it protects everyone.** _ Scroll down to comment 26: > **[The travesty of liberalism](https://crookedtimber.org/2018/03/21/liberals-against-progressives/)** > > More in the suddenly topical vein of ‘who will rid us of those troublesome leftists’ from Sean Wilentz. For Chait, the problem is “It’s obvious to me why conservatives want everyb… Now to answer the OP. In-group and out-group definitions vary by time and context: this is an attitude which drives things. In the 1800s, Italians were in the Black racial category for example. During the mid 20th century they joined Team White. Among whites, WASPs were the ultimate in-group, ceding status by the end of the 20th century. Much of latter day American conservatism aka Republicanism can be conceived as bad-faith efforts at minority rule. So in that context, Republicans are the in-group. You can read all sorts of apologetics for executive branch criminality (torture in Bush admin, obstruction of justice in Trump admin), in the conservative media during Republican administrations. More narrowly: the rich avoid taxes while the poor evade taxes. Laws protect the rich, while tax laws don’t bind the rich to a great extent. Stop and frisk was the ultimate binding of the NYC poor; low murder rate convictions shows that the cops don’t protect downtrodden groups. ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2020, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-definition-of-conservatism-in-groups-and-out-groups/918646/40 "2020-08-23T21:19:11Z")
I’m not saying they don’t care, I’m saying they don’t understand. they assume, probably due to limited experience with the wider world, that everywhere else works more or less like where they’re from. So they literally don’t understand things like institutional racism are- there isn’t really any of it in their very white community, and they don’t have a frame of reference, nor any examples to talk to/listen to. All they get is outsiders coming in on the TV telling them that something exists, and that in effect, they should feel guilty for it, and put their own interests second to people they don’t know, who don’t live near them. That goes over about as well as you’d expect, I bet. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-definition-of-conservatism-in-groups-and-out-groups/918646.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-definition-of-conservatism-in-groups-and-out-groups/918646.md?page=3)