# 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:** 3
**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 23, 2020, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-definition-of-conservatism-in-groups-and-out-groups/918646/41 "2020-08-23T21:21:04Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > 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: I already quoted it in full in post No. 8 in this thread ---
**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, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-definition-of-conservatism-in-groups-and-out-groups/918646/42 "2020-08-23T21:25:27Z")
Dammit this is the 2nd time I’ve missed a great post by you in 1 month’s time. I’ll try to do better moving forward. ::smacks own head:: ---
**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 24, 2020, 2:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-definition-of-conservatism-in-groups-and-out-groups/918646/43 "2020-08-24T02:03:38Z")
> [@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. If you, **bump** , live (or lived recently) in Nebraska, ignore the following. 65% of Nebraskans live in urban areas. We are not as monolithic as the commentary suggests nor are we lacking in world view. The most racist US place I’ve lived in is Boston. The world view there I experienced was the immediate neighborhood. We are talking about needing to move away from stereotyping which leads to inequality. Not stereotyping Midwesterners would be one place to start. Then we are more likely to listen to what is said. ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2020, 12:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-definition-of-conservatism-in-groups-and-out-groups/918646/44 "2020-08-24T12:59:07Z")
Well yeah, something like 75% of Americans in general live in urban areas. And I live in Dallas- a major city, that’s predominantly Democratic, surrounded by predominantly Republican and white suburbs. But I passed through southern and western Nebraska last summer (basically took I-80 fro Kearney to Oglala, and north from there to Chadron and into S. Dakota), and was kind of surprised at just HOW rural and white that whole area was. Or for that matter, how most of the parts of Oklahoma, Kansas, S. Dakota, Wyoming, Colorado (outside of the greater Co. Springs area), New Mexico and the Texas Panhandle were. As in, once we got outside of D/FW, I could have counted the non-white people I saw for the next 10 days on one hand. I was a little bit surprised, to say the least. But I’m guessing that if you live in Cheyenne, discussions about stuff to help the urban poor is probably pretty remote, and when it’s coupled, like it so often is, with race, it’s positively foreign. So when it comes to choosing the candidate who’s all about social justice and racial equity, or the guy who promises to get something more directly useful to their rural lives, which one do you think they’re going to pick? That cuts both ways as well- do you think poor Hispanics in Corpus Christi give two shits about barley farmers in North Dakota? Or do poor black urban people in Atlanta care enough about the travails of hop farmers in Washington? Of course not, everyone tends to vote locally, however they may define that. And part of that problem is that “locally” tends to carry all the weight of however things are composed locally- if it’s an all-white rural area, people are going to vote for what helps them the most. Same thing for an urban hispanic area, and so on. ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2020, 4:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-definition-of-conservatism-in-groups-and-out-groups/918646/45 "2020-08-25T04:04:41Z")
The tricky thing about in-groups and out-groups is that there are tiers to it. For instance, most white Trump voters would happily pal around all day with fellow black Trumpers than white liberals. The talk about race, etc. is usually overblown. At the end of the day, it is hardcore politically partisan, as is almost everything in America these days. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2020, 4:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-definition-of-conservatism-in-groups-and-out-groups/918646/46 "2020-08-25T04:42:45Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > So far as I can tell, there is nothing to know about Frank Wilhoit. His only online existence is a comment he posted in response to a blog post[…]: > > > […]_The law cannot protect anyone unless it binds everyone; and it cannot bind anyone unless it protects everyone._ This is clearly and demonstrably false. Imagine a law to the effect of, “_All male citizens between the ages of eighteen and twenty years of age shall enlist in the military_.” That law violates both clauses of the so-called anti-conservative principle: an out-group consisting of enlisted male citizens are bound by law to literally protect an in-group consisting of everybody else. It is nonsense to assume such a law _could not_ exist, or that it _could not_ offer protection. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2020, 5:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-definition-of-conservatism-in-groups-and-out-groups/918646/47 "2020-08-25T05:10:48Z")
To define conservatism as the principle that laws must bind but not benefit one group, while also benefiting and not binding a second group, is absurd. As an example, consider the following hypothetical laws: “_A flat tax of 8% shall be levied on the sale of all firearms, half the revenues of which shall credit the Medicaid fund, the other half being reserved for a Gun Violence Victim fund described in section II of this act._” In-group: Medicaid recipients and victims of gun violence Out-group: Firearm purchasers Or this one: “_An employer who discriminates against employees on the basis of sex shall be liable for a misdemeanor of the first degree and a fine of not less than $10,000.00._” In-group: Employees Out-group: Employers Do you think anyone in their right mind would call these _conservative_ laws? Nearly _all_ laws bind one group for another’s benefit, although most of the time the one group is a part of the second. For example, another hypothetical law: “_Whoever is guilty of murder in the first degree shall be punished by death or by imprisonment for life; whoever is guilty of murder in the second degree, shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life._” In-group: everyone Out-group: murderers ~Max ---
**Author:** ![SingleMalt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/singlemalt/32/3961_2.png) [@SingleMalt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SingleMalt)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2020, 1:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-definition-of-conservatism-in-groups-and-out-groups/918646/48 "2020-08-25T13:27:30Z")
Well, we’ve never had mandatory enlistment here, but we did have the draft during Vietnam, and the draft was illustrative of the point. The burden of the draft fell most heavily on the out-group - the poor and minorities. The in-group - rich white kids - had mechanisms to avoid having to serve on the front lines: Daddy’s connections getting the kid into a coveted Air National Guard unit, or the family doctor writing a bogus diagnosis of bone spurs, for example. ---
**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 25, 2020, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-definition-of-conservatism-in-groups-and-out-groups/918646/49 "2020-08-25T14:33:14Z")
Out-group: American diplomats. In-group: Mike Pompeo. > **[Pompeo warned diplomats to avoid politics; he'll talk at RNC](https://apnews.com/032814cfd19e047000bd213242095c83)** > > WASHINGTON (AP) — Secretary of State Mike Pompeo sent a cable to all U.S. diplomatic missions last month warning American diplomats that under federal law they should not take overt sides in the presidential campaign... ---
**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 25, 2020, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-definition-of-conservatism-in-groups-and-out-groups/918646/50 "2020-08-25T14:35:39Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > To define conservatism as the principle that laws must bind but not benefit one group, while also benefiting and not binding a second group, is absurd. 🙄 > [@Anatole France](#): > > The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread. ---
**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 25, 2020, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-definition-of-conservatism-in-groups-and-out-groups/918646/51 "2020-08-25T15:39:46Z")
None of those are valid or reasonable definitions of the out-group an the in-group _in American society_. ---
**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 25, 2020, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-definition-of-conservatism-in-groups-and-out-groups/918646/52 "2020-08-25T16:18:21Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > To define conservatism as the principle that laws must bind but not benefit one group, while also benefiting and not binding a second group, is absurd. It’s a silly definition where the author tortured the idea until he got his pretty rhetorical yin-yang symbolism. But in your objections you’re reading that symbolism as if it was literal. It isn’t. What the commentator meant was "Conservatism is about an in-group using legislative & police power to encourage and enforce in-group benefit at the expense of the out-group. Some of this will be explicit in the text of the law, but most of it will be “nudge nudge wink wink everybody knows” selective enforcement. It’s a well-established principle of law that the government may address society’s ills at the time and in the sequence of its choosing. IOW, you (any you) have no inherent actionable right to sue the government to force prompt legislative action to address a societal harm to you. Which discretion can be abused indefinitely to, e.g. permit known polluting factories that benefit wealthy shareholders while harming the poorer people who live down-river. _That_ is what the pithy but simple-minded phrase means. Not some straw man about laws that include explicit obvious carve outs. Although the different Federal sentencing guidelines for powdered vs. rock cocaine come very _very_ close to plain-language “white cocaine users get a slap; black cocaine users do hard time.” ---
**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 25, 2020, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-definition-of-conservatism-in-groups-and-out-groups/918646/53 "2020-08-25T16:41:48Z")
To repeat myself: To those used to having a position of privilege, equality will appear to be discrimination. Altering the law in an attempt to redress the structural unfairness of society is not itself unfair. The emancipation proclamation advantaged slaves as the expense of their owners, but that didn’t make the plantation owners an underclass relative to their former slaves. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2020, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-definition-of-conservatism-in-groups-and-out-groups/918646/54 "2020-08-25T18:17:04Z")
Thank you, and I think you at least understood what I was getting at. I still believe any like definition that still relies on a generic “in-group” will be equally flawed, even the one you provided. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2020, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-definition-of-conservatism-in-groups-and-out-groups/918646/55 "2020-08-25T18:19:15Z")
I claimed that the definition was overbroad, and you appear to think a valid counterargument is to point to examples that fit the definition. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2020, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-definition-of-conservatism-in-groups-and-out-groups/918646/56 "2020-08-25T18:28:10Z")
This only proves my point, which is that the so-called anti-conservative proposition is poorly written. It probably should be written to the effect of, laws _should_ or _must_ both protect and bind everyone. But as written, it proposes that _laws cannot protect anyone unless it binds everyone; and it cannot bind anyone unless it protects everyone_. And this proposition is demonstrably false. ~Max ---
**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 25, 2020, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-definition-of-conservatism-in-groups-and-out-groups/918646/57 "2020-08-25T18:30:13Z")
If you are not bound by the law, then the law does not protect me. > [@Max\_S](#): > > But as written, it proposes that _laws cannot protect anyone unless it binds everyone; and it cannot bind anyone unless it protects everyone_ I think that this is an ideal, not a reflection of reality. It is demonstrably false that this is how the world works, but you have no demonstrated that it isn’t how it should be. ---
**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 25, 2020, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-definition-of-conservatism-in-groups-and-out-groups/918646/58 "2020-08-25T18:31:16Z")
I’m saying that you do not appear to understand the concept you are deriding, just as you did not appear to understand the irony in the quote I provided. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2020, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-definition-of-conservatism-in-groups-and-out-groups/918646/59 "2020-08-25T18:31:29Z")
For a real-life example, how about the FICA tax? What is the in-group, and what is the out-group, and does it meet the proposed definition of ‘conservative’? ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2020, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-definition-of-conservatism-in-groups-and-out-groups/918646/60 "2020-08-25T18:34:13Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > I think that this is an ideal, not a reflection of reality. In the previous sentence, and emphesis in the other post #46, I hoped to imply that this current criticism is that the particular words used do not make clear that we are dealing with a statement about how things _should be_ versus how they _are_ or _can be_. ~Max [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-definition-of-conservatism-in-groups-and-out-groups/918646.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-definition-of-conservatism-in-groups-and-out-groups/918646.md?page=4)