Conservatism and Dominance Theory
Sep. 22nd, 2023 03:14 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ysabetwordsmithMy partner Doug tipped me to this:
Fetterman's hoodie vs. Boebert's handsy night: Why Republicans can't see their own hypocrisy
Wilhoit's Law comes from a 2018 comment posted on the Crooked Timber blog. With devastating — and viral — precision, Frank Wilhoit wrote, "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."
That statement is an accurate description of how "people who call themselves conservatives" behave today. But it is not how conservatism is supposed to work. It's not supposed to be radical; it's the opposite of radical. It is supposed to be the stance of "don't overdrive your headlights." You need someone to make sure that new things aren't tried so fast they cause problems, just as you need someone to make innovations; it takes both to balance a society.
What the statement actually describes is the dysfunctional version of dominance theory. The reason it is dysfunctional is that if you use force and nastiness to maintain your power, then everyone hates you and constantly wants to take your power. Hence that problem the South had with slave revolts. A more functional version of dominance theory includes some degree of compassion and cooperation: a leader who shares some of his power and resources with his followers, and who uses force only as a last result, will not only have fewer challenges but more support if an outsider challenges him.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., loosened up the Senate's dress code, saying, "Senators are able to choose what they wear on the Senate floor."
I can see both sides of this.
1) It's the government. It sort of makes sense for people to at least look like they're taking the job seriously.
2) A group has the right to set its own parameters, including a dress code or lack thereof.
But in any case, the rules should apply equally to everyone. The Republicans don't feel that way; they feel that might makes right and those in power can do whatever they damn please. They also feel that they themselves are the only ones with the right to power. This is a problem.
Fetterman's hoodie vs. Boebert's handsy night: Why Republicans can't see their own hypocrisy
Wilhoit's Law comes from a 2018 comment posted on the Crooked Timber blog. With devastating — and viral — precision, Frank Wilhoit wrote, "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."
That statement is an accurate description of how "people who call themselves conservatives" behave today. But it is not how conservatism is supposed to work. It's not supposed to be radical; it's the opposite of radical. It is supposed to be the stance of "don't overdrive your headlights." You need someone to make sure that new things aren't tried so fast they cause problems, just as you need someone to make innovations; it takes both to balance a society.
What the statement actually describes is the dysfunctional version of dominance theory. The reason it is dysfunctional is that if you use force and nastiness to maintain your power, then everyone hates you and constantly wants to take your power. Hence that problem the South had with slave revolts. A more functional version of dominance theory includes some degree of compassion and cooperation: a leader who shares some of his power and resources with his followers, and who uses force only as a last result, will not only have fewer challenges but more support if an outsider challenges him.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., loosened up the Senate's dress code, saying, "Senators are able to choose what they wear on the Senate floor."
I can see both sides of this.
1) It's the government. It sort of makes sense for people to at least look like they're taking the job seriously.
2) A group has the right to set its own parameters, including a dress code or lack thereof.
But in any case, the rules should apply equally to everyone. The Republicans don't feel that way; they feel that might makes right and those in power can do whatever they damn please. They also feel that they themselves are the only ones with the right to power. This is a problem.
(no subject)
Date: 2023-09-22 11:31 am (UTC)Here's the thing, the Republicans know that sheer demographics alone is driving them towards being a minority party. Their voter base is predominately white male Christian. I.e what used to be the group with undisputed power, and is now rapidly becoming a minority.
They want to hold onto their power.
Democracy means they can't, so they are looking for ways to instigate a minority rule by ditching democracy. Hence, they are no longer 'conservative' in the original meaning of the word. They've radicalised themselves.
Dysfunctional dominance theory plays right into this mind set... they want everyone but their sort of people to sit down, shut up and just do as they are told. Because they know what's Right, and they can't or won't understand why anyone would disagree with them, unless they had some sort of nebulous nefarious purpose.. hence why they regard Democrats as not 'legitimate'...
(no subject)
Date: 2023-09-22 11:43 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2023-09-22 11:55 am (UTC)Yup. They will always be a danger, even if they are out of power and occupying the same sort of moral space as the Nazi party. because they will always regard themselves as the Only True Way..
Thoughts
Date: 2023-09-22 06:23 pm (UTC)That's true.
>>Democracy means they can't, so they are looking for ways to instigate a minority rule by ditching democracy.<<
America hasn't been a democracy for some time. It is either an oligarchy or a plutocracy, depending whether you care more that the people running it are few or all rich.
Unfortunately most people don't know that. They still think it's a democracy. They get all excited about voting, because they think that voting makes a difference. Analyze what actually happens in government, and you see that what the general population wants has a "statistically non-significant effect" on laws that get passed. Rich people get what they want, and everyone else just gets screwed. The voting lever isn't connected to anything. You can vote for which abuser you prefer, but you can't vote to stop being abused. And I'm not sure how to get people to quit focusing so much on voting, and find some other way of agitating for change that will actually work.
>> Hence, they are no longer 'conservative' in the original meaning of the word. They've radicalised themselves. <<
True. This is an easier problem to solve, in terms of refusing to call them conservative when they are not; people can choose to call them something else.
>> Dysfunctional dominance theory plays right into this mind set... they want everyone but their sort of people to sit down, shut up and just do as they are told. Because they know what's Right, and they can't or won't understand why anyone would disagree with them, unless they had some sort of nebulous nefarious purpose.. hence why they regard Democrats as not 'legitimate'... <<
In which case, they go right back to spending their lives afraid of slave riots.
Re: Thoughts
Date: 2023-09-23 01:41 am (UTC)I'm not sure it will work - most people don't really listen to statistics - but maybe hammering polls of what people want vs what actually happens would do something?
Think like "75% of voters support legalization of thneedling, but 90% of our elected officials voted 'nay' with the excuse that 'this is what the voters want.' Would you [Official who voted nay] like to explain the discrepancy?"
>>In which case, they go right back to spending their lives afraid of slave riots.<<
Back? I'm fairly sure they never stopped...hence why I could theoretically swear at a cop and /maybe/ get arrested, while some black dude might get shot for pulling into a driveway to turn the car around.
(no subject)
Date: 2023-09-22 09:15 pm (UTC)Both strategies have been tried at different times and places.
It's probably easier for them to loosen up if they see a range of value among their inferiors. According to popular history in English-speaking countries, the British nobility/squirearchy saw some value in rich bourgeois, and let them into the ruling clique, as individuals and then as a group. Presumably they saw them as not entirely dissimilar to themselves, particularly if educated to behave "properly". The French nobility were less inclined to e.g. marry the daughters of rich bourgeois, let alone make space for their families in government. Net result: the French got a bloody revolution; the British did not. (Of course this story isn't quite as believable when you look outside that part of the popular history and remember the English Civil War.)
It looks to me like some Republicans want to loosen up a bit. Rich people are welcome regardless of minority status, particularly if they are heartless MBAs. So are thinkers/pundits whose writing supports Republican norms. Other Republicans (MAGAs?) may not agree. I've no idea how this will work out in the end.
(no subject)
Date: 2023-09-22 11:37 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2023-09-23 01:47 am (UTC)Well, the power-vs-other ratio is how Italians (and the Irish, I think) became counted as 'white.'
...and that's why my family counts as white, rather than mixed-race.
Optimistically, maybe they will start to chill out a bit when they start rubbing elbows with more diverse people. (Again, optimistically.)
Well ...
Date: 2023-09-23 02:46 am (UTC)Re: Well ...
Date: 2023-09-23 09:17 pm (UTC)