Thread by @marcushjohnson

I’ve seen a lot of people say “Today’s conservatism doesn’t offer a compelling version of the future for young people.” I think this is a misunderstanding of conservatism as an ideology. Its primarily about status quo maintenance for people already in power.

Most tend to view power strictly in the economic sense. Ruling class as the wealthy. But there’s been more consideration of race/ethnicity, culture, politics as of late. There is an argument to be made that the ruling class in America has historically been white people writ large

When you think of white people, broadly construed, as the ruling class, with an “upstart” non ruling class making political and economic challenges to their power, the Trump movement makes a lot more sense and is much easier to understand.

But we have long incentivized not thinking about race in America. So it is hard to get people to talk about/conceptualize the idea of white people largely as the ruling class. Some may think the idea is radical or even racist. Here is why the concept is legitimate.

In the US wealth is highly correlated with race. Per Pew Research, the median white household was worth $140,000 in 2013, and almost $200,000 before the recession. Black and Hispanic median households have net worths approaching zero.

There have been large, persistent gaps in white-black life expectancy for generations.

We can do this for education as well.

Another obvious point is politics. The Presidency, the Senate, and the Supreme Court have approached being 99% white for their history, despite the country never being that white demographically. There’s only been 11 Black Senators ever, with most coming in last 20 years

So why does this matter? It comes down to how politics is framed and understood. The media+ academia remain largely white, and while these industries are becoming more liberal, there are still some structural barriers to understanding/conceptualizing whiteness as the ruling class

But all the data points us to that conclusion. Political power, economic power, health outcomes, who gets to live in nice neighborhoods. It isn’t nearly as much of an ideological struggle as it really portrayed as.

So when you conceptualize white people, broadly, as the ruling class in America, we can consider what conservativism is in this context. Status quo maintenance, an attempt to prevent any challenges to ruling class power, privilege, ability to decide what happens/who matters.

Then the Trump movement makes WAY more sense. It easily fits within this framework. You don’t have to go to diners in rural Wisconsin to understand it. There is a ruling class that is trying to fend off access to power and privilege to a rising class of perceived subordinates.

A critique or criticism would be how can poor white people be part of the ruling class? A response would be to consider their outcomes in comparison to poor nonwhites. They still have comparably more wealth, and clearly more political influence, especially in the Senate and EC.

This framework also fits with the feelings of despair and anger that are the undercurrent of Trumpism and the American brand of conservative populism. Some members of the ruling class feel they are constrained in how they can react to the rising lower classes.

But circling back to modern conservatism—what can it offer for the future? For the young? Young people are disproportionately comprised of the non ruling class. They are the ones making the challenge for power in this society. What does status quo maintenance offer them? Not much

So the conservative movement is constained not by their ideological commitments (those can change easily, like free trade to anti free trade in 5 yrs) but by WHO they represent. It can’t look towards the future in a era/context when ruling power is being directly challenged now.

Which is why conservatives often view this political moment as an existential crisis. Often, the only thing the powerful fear is losing their power.

I believe that this framework better explains the last 50-60 years of American history than the narrative that has traditionally been advanced, which only considers parties/wealth/corporate power and ideological commitments.

Open to questions and debate if people disagree. Plenty of room for discussion later.