# 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:** 4
**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, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-definition-of-conservatism-in-groups-and-out-groups/918646/61 "2020-08-25T18:40:57Z")
> [@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_ . And this proposition is demonstrably false. Try this slight amendment to cover for the poetic license in the original. laws cannot protect anyone unless it binds everyone = laws which some can freely ignore, or to whom they don’t even apply, provide no protection to some certain others who can be victimized thereby. In a fair society, such differential treatment is unconscionable. Laws cannot bind anyone unless it protects everyone = laws cannot be righteous, fair, and equal unless they protect everyone. Such unrighteous laws have no place in a just society and should be treated as a nullity by all. Consider the contrapositive case to the silly phrase we’re debating: All laws everywhere are always written to always treat everyone absolutely equally and are always followed in both letter and in spirit by everyone scrupulously while being enforced rigourously and equally upon all. That sounds like civil Heaven. The contrapositive is civil Hell. Which is pretty much what an in-group definition of archetypal Conservatism is: “I like my ill-gotten gains and I want the government to help me conserve them against all comers. I label myself as anti-change, in favor of the tried and true, but that’s a lie. I’m really just anti-change towards ways that would harm my interests and by extension my small in-group; change the other way is wonderful.” ---
**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, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-definition-of-conservatism-in-groups-and-out-groups/918646/62 "2020-08-25T18:41:00Z")
For my own education, I encourage you to respond to my post #59. > [@Max\_S](#): > > 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’? My answer is that the in-group would be Medicare+Social Security beneficiaries, while the out-group would be the working populace subject to the tax. Regarding the Medicare tax threshold, the in-group would be workers with very high pay, and the out-group would be workers who do not meet the threshold. I find both aspects of the law to meet the proposed definition of conservative. I suspect that I still don’t understand something, and I fear you might have to spell it out for me. ~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, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-definition-of-conservatism-in-groups-and-out-groups/918646/63 "2020-08-25T18:54:51Z")
I don’t think that FICA is a very good example for you to choose to look at. A better one would be drug laws. As a white middle class suburbanite, if I were caught with a bit of weed, at most, the cop would confiscate it. If I were a black person living in a “high crime area”, then I’m likely having some interaction with the justice department in my near future. ---
**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, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-definition-of-conservatism-in-groups-and-out-groups/918646/64 "2020-08-25T18:55:10Z")
> [@LSLGuy](#): > > […]laws which some can freely ignore, or to whom they don’t even apply, provide no protection to some certain others who can be victimized thereby. In a fair society, such differential treatment is unconscionable. > > […]laws cannot be righteous, fair, and equal unless they protect everyone. Such unrighteous laws have no place in a just society and should be treated as a nullity by all. Now we have something which can be debated in good faith - not the definition of conservatism, but the propriety of two moral statements about the proper nature of laws. If someone would be so kind as to make a separate topic, I would be happy to explain under what circumstances I might disagree with the former statement, and under what circumstances I would expect participants of this discussion to disagree with the latter. ~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, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-definition-of-conservatism-in-groups-and-out-groups/918646/65 "2020-08-25T18:59:26Z")
Yes, but we both agree that kind of law (or at least the law+enforcement) fits the proposed definition of conservatism. So it is of no use to me to go into that. As I wrote in post #[55](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/918646/55), you won't convince me of anything by pointing to examples that _fit_ the definition. ~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, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-definition-of-conservatism-in-groups-and-out-groups/918646/66 "2020-08-25T19:09:45Z")
I’m not trying to convince you of anything at all, and I’m not sure what you think that I should be. I have no idea what your point is, or how it is any way relevant to this thread. You are doing a poor job of convincing _me_ that you understand the concept that you are deriding. ---
**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, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-definition-of-conservatism-in-groups-and-out-groups/918646/67 "2020-08-25T19:20:28Z")
If I misunderstand the concept, and you aren’t trying to convince me of the correct understanding, it begs the question - why did you post at all? ~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, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-definition-of-conservatism-in-groups-and-out-groups/918646/68 "2020-08-25T20:21:19Z")
Apparently it’s not just the concept of the OP that you are misunderstanding here. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that I post for your benefit, and your benefit only. The questions that you pose, and the points you try to make, are at best orthogonal, and are mostly just a distraction from the discussion at hand. Tell you what, you convince me that your questions are relevant, and then maybe I’ll take a crack at them. As is, though I do not see how your questions about FICA in any way relate to the concept that is at the heart of this discussion, and that you would ask them only tells me that you do not understand it. ---
**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, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-definition-of-conservatism-in-groups-and-out-groups/918646/69 "2020-08-25T20:36:12Z")
When you wrote, “I don’t think that FICA is a very good example for you to choose to look at”, I assumed you meant, “I don’t think that FICA is a very good example for you to choose to look at if you want to understand why definition of conservatism that this topic is not overbroad”. In support of my assumption, you replied directly to a post which ended, “I suspect that I still don’t understand something, and I fear you might have to spell it out for me”. That post was itself a response to one from **Snowboarder\_Bo** which read in part, “I’m saying that you do not appear to understand the concept you are deriding”. _That_ post was in response to my claim that the definition of conservatism provided by the original post was overbroad, and that pointing to examples that fit the definition is no defense. You provided a better example than a FICA tax. If it was not a better example to understand the concept of conservatism, as defined in the original post, I really don’t know what you were trying to do, or for whose benefit you were posting. If you were trying to prove to a reader-passerby that my questions or claims are irrelevant, it makes little sense to point out a “better example” without telling us what it is you are demonstrating. If you were just providing yet another example of a law which would fit the definition of conservatism we are debating here, you have succeeded - but that has nothing to do with me or my argument. ~Max ---
**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, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-definition-of-conservatism-in-groups-and-out-groups/918646/70 "2020-08-25T21:21:37Z")
ISTM that @Max_S’s underlying point is that conservatism (large or small “c”) has nothing to do with in-group defense. And that Wilhoit’s (remember him?) formulation is somewhere between vacuous tautology and non sequitur. So he’s not exactly defending conservatism; while neither is he attacking it. He seems mostly to be nitpicking whatever Wilhoit might have meant (if anything at all) as irrelevant to both the definition of conservatism and the desirability / defensability of conservatism as a political or social stance. Mostly though, it comes across as JAQing. But more Asbergery or youthful in tone than covertly hostile / passive aggressive. As such I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt that he’s sincere and there’s still a conversation to be had. ---
**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, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-definition-of-conservatism-in-groups-and-out-groups/918646/71 "2020-08-25T21:27:10Z")
Not looking for a fight here, it’s just that it’s like we are discussing whether a planet of 65 Jupiter masses should be a super Jupiter or a brown dwarf, and you are bringing up Pluto and its controversial planetary status. I don’t even know if what you said is wrong, I just don’t see how it is relevant, and that you propose it to be inclines me to believe that you don’t actually understand what is under discussion. ---
**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, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-definition-of-conservatism-in-groups-and-out-groups/918646/72 "2020-08-25T21:35:21Z")
> [@LSLGuy](#): > > ISTM that @Max_S’s underlying point is that conservatism (large or small “c”) has nothing to do with in-group defense. And that Wilhoit’s (remember him?) formulation is somewhere between vacuous tautology and non sequitur. I was (am) attacking Wilhoit’s definition itself as overbroad and absurd, it literally leads to absurd conclusions such as the concept of a tax-funded social safety net being inherently conservative. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![snoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@snoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/snoe)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2020, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-definition-of-conservatism-in-groups-and-out-groups/918646/73 "2020-08-25T23:06:57Z")
I mean, Social Security — as originally constituted in the 30s— is not a bad example of what FW was talking about. It did not extend its protections against old-age poverty to agricultural and domestic workers, because those workers were disproportionately members of one of the US’s original outgroups. It did not bind those Black Americans through payroll taxation, true — but _the law as a whole certainly did bind them, while affording them fewer protections than others_. Wilhoit’s statement, in its short form, is a pithy maxim like Poe’s Law, or Cleek’s Law, or Murc’s Law. It isn’t literally true all the time — there are things _I’d_ call elements of “conservatism” that it doesn’t describe — but it’s not at all a bad description of mainstream US contemporary conservatism _in practice_. ---
**Author:** ![Kearsen1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Kearsen1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kearsen1)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2020, 12:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-definition-of-conservatism-in-groups-and-out-groups/918646/74 "2020-08-26T12:32:31Z")
I see this a lot argued here. There are facts about the myths of the racist crack laws (crack vs cocaine) but they aren’t what you are here repeating. > **[The Myth of Criminal-Justice Racism](https://www.city-journal.org/html/myth-criminal-justice-racism-10231.html)** > > Testimony before the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary, October 19, 2015 It’s a short read. It is probably off topic here though ---
**Author:** ![Hari\_Seldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hari_seldon/32/5173_2.png) [@Hari\_Seldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hari_Seldon)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2020, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-definition-of-conservatism-in-groups-and-out-groups/918646/75 "2020-08-26T14:52:31Z")
> [@snoe](#): > > I mean, Social Security — as originally constituted in the 30s— is not a bad example of what FW was talking about. > > It did not extend its protections against old-age poverty to agricultural and domestic workers, because those workers were disproportionately members of one of the US’s original outgroups. It did not bind those Black Americans through payroll taxation, true — but _the law as a whole certainly did bind them, while affording them fewer protections than others_ . This is correct. The reason for those exceptions was that, without them the southern Dems would have voted against or even filibustered the SS act. And why did they have all that power? Precisely because the lower castes were not permitted to vote. I cannot leave this without quoting J.K. Galbraith’s (somewhat tongue in cheek) definition of the modern American conservative: > [@](#): > > The modern conservative is engaged in one of man’s oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. ---
**Author:** ![snoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@snoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/snoe)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2020, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-definition-of-conservatism-in-groups-and-out-groups/918646/76 "2020-08-26T14:55:56Z")
In-group not bound by the Hatch Act: Trump supporters in federal employ, who scoff at its restrictions. [Trump’s White House Convention May Be Coercing Staffers Into Violating The Hatch Act | HuffPost Latest News](https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-hatch-act-republican-national-convention_n_5f459079c5b697186e2df62a) Outgroup not protected (as of now) by federal employment law: Alison Gill, a VA employee who took great pains to separate her anti-Trump political advocacy from her job, going so far as to use a pseudonym when doing the former. [How a veteran's secret podcast put her in the Trump administration's crosshairs - POLITICO](https://www.politico.com/news/2020/06/28/veteran-secret-podcast-trump-administrations-crosshairs-342332) ---
**Author:** ![snoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@snoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/snoe)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2020, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-definition-of-conservatism-in-groups-and-out-groups/918646/77 "2020-08-26T19:11:32Z")
[Jon Chait uses the “bound/not bound” dichotomy here](https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/08/republican-convention-hatch-act-illegal-law-trump-white-house.html) in talking about the Hatch Act, ascribing it to differences in media culture, among other reasons. Again, I think of this as describing American conservatism in practice, not in theory. (But the people who care about the theory stuff don’t seem to be getting their way so much anymore, with notable exceptions.) > But another, more long-standing, reason is that the two parties operate in structurally different news environments. The Republican base largely follows partisan Republican news sources, like Fox News, which largely do not hold their officials accountable. Republicans don’t have to worry that their small legal violations will make their own voters raise questions, because their own voters either won’t hear about the story in the first place, or — if it becomes too big to ignore — will learn about it in the context of some kind of whatboutist defense emphasizing how the Democrats are worse. > Democrats, on the other hand, have to communicate to their base through mainstream news outlets that follow traditional norms of journalistic independence. Of course you can critique the media for its implicit liberal biases. Even conceding for the sake of argument that the mainstream media has a strong social liberal bias, though, it is evidently true that they take Democratic violations seriously. The _Times_ might go easy on any number of liberal shibboleths, but it was extremely tough on Clinton email protocol.`` ---
**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 26, 2020, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-definition-of-conservatism-in-groups-and-out-groups/918646/78 "2020-08-26T20:03:58Z")
**snoe** , these are all excellent examples of laws and practices which fit the definition of conservatism we have before us. Could you provide me some examples of laws and practices which do _not_ meet the right criteria? ~Max ---
**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 28, 2020, 4:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-definition-of-conservatism-in-groups-and-out-groups/918646/79 "2020-08-28T04:16:54Z")
The definition in the OP helpfully fills a vacuum, as alleged conservative principles have been upturned by a President who nonetheless receives approval by 90%+ of Republican Party members. Stuart Stevens: > [@](#): > > How do you go from dedicating a political party to expansion and inclusiveness and two years later rally around a man who calls Mexicans “rapists” and called for a religious test to enter the United States? It’s easy if you view an avowed commitment to inclusion as merely a political necessity and nothing more. For decades, conservatives attacked liberals for living by “situational ethics,” but the ease with which Republican leaders abandoned any pretense of being more than a whites-only party is the ultimate situational ethic. … > > Even when Mitt Romney stepped forward and called out Trump for what he clearly was -“a phony, a fraud. His promises are as worthless as a degree from Trump University” - no other Republicans of note allied behind him to speak publicly what most were saying privately. > > How do you abandon deeply held beliefs about character, personal responsibility, foreign policy, and the national debt in a matter of months? You don’t. The obvious answer is that those beliefs weren’t deeply held. In the end, the Republican Party rallied behind Donald Trump because if that was the deal needed to regain power, what was the problem? Because it has always been about power. > > The rest? The principles? The values? It was all a lie. The GOP seeks power. Conservatives have no fixed ethical moorings other than tribalism, to which the passage in the OP adds some detail. It’s a perfect symbiotic relationship, a perfect grift where the vics willingly receive the fantasy of the day in exchange for various forms of support. The irony is that the 2 roles are often played by the same characters. **Max \_S** : That’s the wider context. There may be ways of improving the characterization by Frank Wilhoit, but not along philosophical or policy lines. It’s tribalism all the way down. ---
**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 28, 2020, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-definition-of-conservatism-in-groups-and-out-groups/918646/80 "2020-08-28T19:20:38Z")
In my opinion, we have [another topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/918812) going about the wider philosophical context, and in a way of thinking, [yet another topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/919000) going about the wider policy context. That’s why I’ve been treating this one about the specific definition proposed for consideration in the original post. ~Max [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-definition-of-conservatism-in-groups-and-out-groups/918646.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-definition-of-conservatism-in-groups-and-out-groups/918646.md?page=5)