Whose freedom? Wilhoit’s law

You may have heard of Wilhoit’s Law: the basic conservative principle is that the law protects Us and does not restrain Us, while it restrains Them but does not protect Them.

There’s a lot of truth to this. As Kristin Kobes Du Mez says, when someone waxes nostalgic about community and tradition, “with each sentence, with each mention of ‘citizen,’ of members of communities, families, the nation—is he talking about women, and if so, how? (The question of race is of course also important to consider in this way).” All too often the vision of the past comes with a vision of women in the kitchen, supporting the menfolk and without a life beyond that (as one woman calls out here). Case in point, Bryan Caplan who longs for the unregulated free market of the 1800s and so pretends this offered more liberty for women than such modern trivialities as equality, the right to vote, and the right not to be beagen by your husband. Or control over your body.

An article from Reason makes the same point as Du Mez about people who wax nostalgic for an imagined Golden Age of freedom. Right-winger R. Emmett Tyrell, for example, says his utopia “would be the late 18th Century but with air conditioning….With both feet firmly planted on the soil of my American domain, and young American flag fluttering above, tobacco in the field, I would relish the freedom.” Given that tobacco was picked by slaves (and in that era, possibly indentured farm labor), that’s one heavy dog-whistle — Tyrell wants his readers to know the freedom he values is for white dudes.

Same thing with freedom of speech: many conservatives are in favor of it as long as it’s their side’s freedom.  Or consider Elon Musk who says letting anti-semites rant freely on Xtwitter is free speech but criticism from the ADL is oppression. The law should protect his side’s right to speak but restrain the other side. Likewise, when 30 percent of Trump voters say they support the president breaking the law, it’s a safe bet they want it broken in ways that benefit them, not for a Democratic president to push policies they don’t like. And Trump’s fine with the idea of cutting off tax breaks to liberal colleges — hell, remember when Jared suggested doing nothing about covid because it would mostly hit blue states?

And while Republicans rant endlessly against “wokeness” in the military, they’re outraged the military tries to fight right-wing extremism in its ranks.

Or consider Clinton. After he was exposed as an adulterer he did what you’re expected to do in evangelical churches (he’s been evangelical his whole life I believe) — admit you’ve sinned, apologize, ask for forgiveness. Republicans make a big deal about how we are all sinners but Jesus offers redemption so we can put the bad stuff behind us. Because Clinton was a Them (Democrat, liberal) rather than an Us, he got no forgiveness, ever. By contrast Rep. Tim Burchette is very forgiving to members of his party whom he claims are being lured into sin, then blackmailed:

“Why in the world would good conservatives vote for crazy stuff like what we’ve been seeing out of Congress? Here’s how it works. You’re visiting, you’re out of the country or out of town or you’re in a motel or at a bar in DC and, whatever you’re into – women, men, whatever — comes up and they’re very attractive and they’re laughing at your jokes. And you’re buying them a drink. Next thing you know, you’re in the motel room with them naked.

“And next thing you know, you know you’re about to make a key vote. And what happens? Some well-dressed person comes out and whispers in your ear, ‘Hey, man, there’s tapes out on you.’ Or, ‘Were you in a motel room or whatever with whoever?’ And then you’re like, ‘You really ought not be voting for this thing.’

This makes perfect sense for some interpretations of the word “good” but none of them resemble the way I’m inclined to use it

I think a Wilhoit’s Law applies to the way so many organizations divide the world into the In group — their members, their tribe — and the outgroup. Police, for example, close ranks against anyone who threatens dirty cops: when a cop in Mississippi ran over a kid and killed him, police covered up the truth for months. Body cams were supposed to help take down the bad apples but police have undermined that.

The judiciary polices itself and that doesn’t work either.

Or consider the pastor quoted in this article: “When someone comes to bring a formal public accusation against an elder or a pastor, we are not to listen to that. We are not to entertain that. We are not to investigate that.” That’s a clear statement of Wilhoit’s law: the church protects its leaders, the in-group, and women are automatically the outsiders. The same view prevails in many other churches.

Or the current right-wing mantra that parental rights should determine the course of education. No support for gay or trans kids without parental permission. Banning books parents don’t like. Yet when Jewish parents object to schools pushing Christianity on kids (“A set of Jewish parents sued the school after learning it was holding prayer sessions, teaching Christian songs in class and promoting a teacher-led prayer group called Stallions for Christ that met during recess. The Jewish parents, who had two children at the school, also cited a teacher with a Christian cross on the classroom door, a Nativity scene in the school library and a graduation program featuring Christian songs and a student-led prayer, and religious speeches delivered by two local sheriff’s deputies.”) future Speaker Mike Johnson was outraged, claiming it was an attack on the Gospel.

Which means while putting up rainbow flags is bad because it upsets Republican parents, putting up a cross that offends Jewish parents is fine.

Wilhoit knew what he was talking about.