[skrebbel]

This is not a novel insight. The attitude described is basically textbook conservatism, as per Wilhoit's law [0]

Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect

For a majority of HN readers (and I assume the commenter you're replying to) that in-group is their country's white majority but in other circles it's other groups. They may be groups who don't call themselves conservatives but that doesn't mean they aren't.

In other words, I agree with their claim that said quote is conservatism in a nutshell. Anti-conservatism isn't rooting for some other group, it's being against this kind of tribalism wholesale.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_M._Wilhoit#Misattribut...

[cdrini]

That's a pretty wild definition of conservatism, I don't think even uncharitable historians/political scientists would define conservatism in that way. And in fact it's not a textbook definition; looking at the link you posted seems like that quote is from a composer's blog in 2018.

[skrebbel]

It’s actually from a composer’s comment on someone else’s blog but yeah fair point :-)

[watwut]

It is wild ... but pretty accurate observation on their actual behavior. It is exactly how conservatives define law and order. It is about hierarchy and alliances. Their friends on the top get protection and enablement regardless of what they do. Their enemies and those on the bottom get obligations and punishments.

For that matter "cruelty is the point" might also be a slogan, but is also very correct observation.

[cdrini]

Based on that last sentence I'm not sure if this is meant to be a serious argument or if you're being sarcastic. But assuming good faith, I would argue that there's nothing inherent to conservatism as it's defined that would logically lead the to the things you are describing. What you're describing is effectively corruption and authoritarianism. I think those things are elements that arise from overly centralised power and power imbalances. That is why one observes those things often in extremist governments where a large amount of power is centralised. It exists on a different axis to conservative vs liberal. Looking back on the 20th century, we can see both liberal and conservative governments that have had those traits.

For reference, here is the Wikipedia definition of conservatism:

"Conservatism is a cultural, social, and political philosophy and ideology that seeks to promote and preserve traditional institutions, customs, and values. The central tenets of conservatism may vary in relation to the culture and civilization in which it appears."

Overall: I would argue that conservatism is a confounding variable in the events you're observing. What's actually causing the things you're observing is centralised power and authoritarianism.

[dragonwriter]

> But assuming good faith, I would argue that there's nothing inherent to conservatism as it's defined that would logically lead the to the things you are describing.

It's exactly what "conservatism" has always been as a political ideology since it emerged as a coherent thing as the reaction against liberal/left politics (originally two different names for the same thing in different places, though they have since diverged in common use somewhat).

> I would argue that conservatism is a confounding variable in the events you're observing. What's actually causing the things you're observing is centralised power and authoritarianism.

Conservatism is (in relation to any of the societies in which it has existed since it emerged, not a hypothetical way the term might be used in some other context) retaining and reinforcing the centralization of power in established elites against the pressure from liberalizing forces to distribute power outward.

[pnutjam]

You're talking about conservatism. He's talking about American Conservatism. It's just a name, like "Pro-Life" or "Death Tax". It has no bearing in reality. Similar to how the National Socialist Party was not Socialist and most of the world's Communist parties ceased to be Communist long before the stopped calling themselves communist.

[luckylion]

"Some random 59 year old from Ohio wrote this, so it's well known that that's conservativism in a nutshell" is a strange stance.

> Anti-conservatism isn't rooting for some other group, it's being against this kind of tribalism wholesale.

Do you have any examples of that? I've never seen someone who doesn't go mild on people who share beliefs he holds dear and judges harshly those who don't.

[skrebbel]

The ACLU was pretty anti-conservative in the past (before they got captured by the regressive left). Eg they helped protect the right of free expression of nazi groups, stuff like that.

ps. Fair, I agree that it's weird to elevate one random blog commenter's words to a "law", though this particular one is widely quoted because, I think, it resonates and hits the nail on the head. I do feel that "tribalism" is a better word for the concept, but "conservatism" isn't far off since every conservative group I know of (at least in the US and Europe) support this kind of tribalism to a fair extent.

[luckylion]

We'd have to see how ACLU-members react/reacted to transgressions of friends or allies vs opponents. Would they not be affected when evaluating e.g. corruption charges? It'd be very rare.

Defending both left and right against the government is another story, I think. There are more tribes than just left and right, and even left and right I'd see more as meta-tribes, tribes made up of other tribes. Depending on the issue you're looking at, alliances shift, e.g. on Ukraine or Israel where the fault lines are not the typical left/right divisions in most Western countries.

That "law" probably resonates with lots of people who aren't fans of conservatives, but that's a low bar to clear and doesn't say much about whether it's true and only conservatives form tribes (calling everything conservative that forms a tribe would turn it into tautological reasoning). Every political movement I've ever witnessed was tribal at its core. I'm not sure it's impossible to have a cohesive movement without forming a tribe, but it doesn't seem to be easy or we'd see it more often.

[seadan83]

I don't think 'Tribe' is really defined as merely a "political" group in the OG article. It's more a system of government rather than political affiliation. In tribalism, it is rule-of-the-strong, dominance over the weak; it is not 'rule of law'. Any group that believes in rule of law rather than dominance of the weak is not tribalistic. The article posits that the shift of tribalism comes about as a group can tear down the barriers that the rule of law provides - at which point society readily devolves to tribalism.

[kevin_thibedeau]

The libertarian stance leans toward magnanimity over those who don't share one's own beliefs. Provided their conduct doesn't interfere with others.

[luckylion]

That's true, but aren't they still tribal in practice? Granted, that's getting into very broad strokes, but libertarians don't feel different in e.g. defending transgressions of other libertarians, their reaction is tribal (like everyone else's).

That's not a moral failure in my view, it's just the default state of humans. Possibly connected to self-interest, everyone tends to view others from "his tribe" favorable, people from random unrelated tribes somewhat neutral, and people from enemy/rival tribes more negative.

That doesn't change much, but more wealthy / free societies create more elaborate tribes than just genetic relationship or age. Now you can join the iphone owners, console gamers, or flat earth believers, or you can join the dog owners (cat owners are a rival tribe, but they'll band together if you're from the pet-hater-tribe), bmw-drivers, or one of the linux-user subtribes (and look down on the windows- and macos-tribes).

[tolerance]

The scary thing is that if we take that (misattributed, but interesting) definition ("There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect") into consideration then its interpretation could be employed by whoever conservatives are supposed to be to describe the contemporary ideals of whoever isn't a conservative (or at least they don't call themselves conservatives but that doesn't mean that aren't).

And I don't think that the grandparent comment portrayed anything like anti-conservatism as you've defined it.

There's pots and kettles here clanging and banging against each other fighting to get the noose around the other's neck the quickest.