A Philosopher's Blog

Philosophical Essays on Many Subjects

The Republican Legitimacy Dilemma

by 1 Comment

With a few notable exceptions, Republican politicians are backing Trump’s big lie about the 2020 election. While most are not denying that Biden is President, they are reluctant to say that Biden won the election. They are also using the big lie to “justify” passing new restrictive voting laws. As such, they are claiming that the election system was badly flawed and needed extensive fixes. Yet Republican politicians (other than Trump) did very well in 2020. All this leads to a logical problem for the Republicans; so, it is fortunate that they seem to be immune to logic.

In a democracy, the legitimacy of an elected official depends on the legitimacy of the election that placed them in office. To the degree that an election is flawed, its legitimacy is undercut. For the sake of argument, let us assume that the Republicans are right: the election system of 2020 (and presumably earlier) was deeply flawed and allowed for widespread voter and/or election fraud. The flaws were so severe that extensive changes were needed to correct this deeply flawed system.

For the sake of argument, let us assume that the Republicans are right: the election system of 2020 (and presumably earlier) was deeply flawed and allowed for widespread voter and/or election fraud. The flaws were so severe that extensive changes were needed to correct this deeply flawed system. This does entail what most Republicans profess: the legitimacy of the election and Biden’s presidency would be in question. Let us also suppose that things are as bad as some Republicans have claimed: there was so much fraud that the 2020 election is completely illegitimate. This would also call into question previous elections using the same deeply flawed system. At this point, things would seem to be going just as the Republicans wish. And it would be if we simply stopped here and ignored what this also entails.

If the election of 2020 and earlier elections were illegitimate because of the flaws that elected Republicans are now attempting to fix with their restrictive laws, then it would also follow that all Republicans elected under that flawed system would be as illegitimate as Joe Biden. After all, if the defects of the 2020 election suffice to take away Biden’s legitimacy, then they would suffice to take away the legitimacy of the many Republicans elected in that same election and, presumably, earlier elections that had the same defects. This would entail that the Republicans passing laws to restrict voting are illegitimate and that citizens are thus under no moral obligation to heed their illegitimate laws. And now arises the dilemma.

If the Republicans claim that they are legitimately holding office, then they must assert that the elections were legitimate and thus the restrictions they have created are not necessary. The elections worked properly, and such extensive changes are unwarranted. This does not mean that the system cannot be improved, just that there is no justification for the “fixes” they are imposing on non-existent problems. Thus, if the fixes they are imposing are needed because of the widespread election and or voter fraud they are supposed to fix, then the Republicans elected under the previous system would be illegitimate. If they are legitimately holding office, then the elections went as all the evidence shows: correctly and securely.

To use an analogy, this is like a victorious athlete claiming that the system they are competing in is utterly illegitimate and needs to be fixed because the real winner of the biggest event was denied their victory. And, at the same time, they say that their victory in that same system was legitimate and they should be the ones to write the rules of competition going forward.

The obvious counter is to claim that the Democrats were behind it and hence the Republicans are completely legitimate. The easy and obvious reply is that there has been no evidence of widespread fraud and Trump and his fellows have been faring exceptionally badly in their lawsuits. In contrast, things have not been going well for the conspiracy theorists. There is also the fact that if the Democrats were engaged in rigging the election, they would have rigged the election—that is, the Democrats would have done much better in 2020.

While it would be evil and irresponsible to do so, the left could claim that the Republicans were the fraudsters. Interestingly, this has more plausibility than the Republican claims. First, the Republicans did very well in the 2020 election—so perhaps it was rigged by Republicans to get rid of Trump while allowing Republicans to do well down ballot. After all, while Republicans are backing Trump, they almost all expressed loathing for him before he won in 2016 and he was a deeply unpopular president.

Second, leftist conspiracy theorists could also point to the fact that Republicans are a numerical minority and hence should have done worse in a fair election. 49% of adults 18 and older claim membership in or leanings towards the Democratic Party. In contrast, only 40% identify as Republicans or Republican leaning. I do not subscribe to this; Republicans hold office disproportionately to the electorate because of things like voter suppression and gerrymandering rather than widespread election fraud.

Third, it is Republicans who have been accused (with evidence) of or caught committing fraud. In Wisconsin, 10 Republicans have been accused of committing voter fraud. North Carolina also featured an interesting election fraud case involving a Republican. While a conspiracy theorist could use a hasty generalization or anecdotal evidence fallacy to “argue” that Republicans are committing widespread fraud, that would be absurd. While Republicans do seem to be the ones most likely to be engaged in fraud, these cases are extremely rare, and the perpetrators are caught.

Obviously, I think that the election of 2020 was generally legitimate but this legitimacy entails that there is no need for the Republican laws restricting voting. Again, they are in a dilemma: if the election was illegitimate and their laws are needed, then they are illegitimate and lack the right to make laws. If the election was legitimate, then there is no need for their laws.

 

My Amazon Author Page

My Paizo Page

My DriveThru RPG Page

Follow Me on Twitter

What is the Republican Party’s Political Philosophy?

by Leave a Comment

Since the United States has only two major parties, each party will include people with different political philosophies. For example, Joe Biden differs significantly from Bernie Sanders. The Republican Party has tended to be more ideologically homogenous, but it also contains some degree of diversity.

Some might be tempted to dismiss concerns about political philosophy as misguided, perhaps due to a broader view that all philosophy is useless. One might dismiss political philosophy by asserting that politics is a practical matter of deals, power, money and lies, so philosophy is pointless in this context. But such a view, that practical matters are all that matter, is a political philosophy—and usually a simplistic one at that.

Politics is, of course, a construct of the human mind and built from and upon ideas. As such, even the simplest version of politics requires a basic political philosophy. At the very least, a justification of authority is needed, even if it is based on the philosophical view that “might makes right.” Those engaged in politics also need to have goals and means to achieve them; this requires considering values and weighing them. Even if one just focuses on the simple goal of power, that is to have a political philosophy.

While some people are honest about their goals and methods, politicians are notorious for professing laudable principles that they either do not believe or are willing to quickly jettison in favor of what they value more. As such, sorting out the political philosophy of the Republican party using their words will certainly result in an erroneous understanding of their real political philosophy.

Both parties profess to embrace the political philosophy of the founding fathers. When they wax philosophical, they have sometimes referred to thinkers such as John Locke. Sometimes they accuse each other of subscribing to extreme philosophical views, such as Marxism, anarchism, and fascism. In some cases, these accusations hold true.

While the Republican Party has long engaged in efforts at voter suppression, the triumph of Trumpism has seen the party embrace the big lie of widespread election fraud. They have been using this lie to push laws aimed at restricting voting and this indicates an explicit rejection of American democracy in favor of securing power through non-democratic means. One could argue that this is consistent with traditional values; at least the tradition of Jim Crow and other anti-democratic efforts over the course of United States history.

Traditional American political philosophy has emphasized the importance of loyalty to the Constitution and the country, as opposed to obedience to a specific person. While the United States has seen some cults of personality in the past, Trump has shaped the Republican party into the party of Trump—one rises or falls within this political system based on one’s usefulness and fealty to one man. Thus, the Republican party has embraced an anti-democratic authoritarian political philosophy with both their words and their deeds.

Republicans typically profess to embrace a traditional conservative political philosophy, and the current party does still act on some aspects of that philosophy. However, pressures have revealed large cracks between their professed views and their actions. A good example is the traditional Republican philosophy of business. This has manifested in lower taxes, free market capitalism and deregulation. However, when corporations have acted in ways contrary to the interest of Republican politicians, then Republican leaders have been quick to condemn these corporations and threaten them with regulation. A good example is Mitch McConnell’s threats against businesses that oppose Georgia’s effort to cease to be a democracy. McConnell made it clear that he wants corporations to stay out of politics, except for being in politics by making campaign contributions. These “cancellation” threats might seem ironic given that the Republican party’s major focus is on fighting “cancel culture.” But, as I have argued elsewhere, this is not a battle for free expression—it is merely another example of made-up grievances used to energize the base with lies. If the Republican party was truly in favor of free expression, they would not have booted Liz Cheney for making true claims about Trump’s lies. These actions show that the driving political philosophy of the Republican Party is that what matters is power, and they should use any means necessary to acquire and hold that power. Beyond that, all their professed principles seem to serve merely to mask this core principle.

One could, however, point to the Republican Party’s focus on transgender people as showing their principled commitment to conservative values. Republican state legislatures are rushing to pass anti-trans bills, with a major focus on athletics. While Republicans are professing that they are motivated by fairness, this claim is absurd on the face of it. After all, if they were truly concerned with women being treated fairly, legislatures would ratify the ERA and pass laws addressing the array of inequalities women face. The anti-trans bill are clearly aimed at energizing the base by “owning the libs” through hurting trans people. But one could take this as advancing traditional values; at least values from a certain tradition.

Fairness requires that I admit that trying to reconstruct a Republican political philosophy from their words and actions is problematic. After all, I am biased and an outsider. What is wanting is a professional political philosopher on the inside who can honestly and clearly lay out the current political philosophy of the Republican party. Surely there must be someone who can step up to that task?

 

My Amazon Author Page

My Paizo Page

My DriveThru RPG Page

Follow Me on Twitter

Good Faith & Politics

by Leave a Comment

While it is tempting to think of politics as the art of lying, I contend that it requires good faith honesty. This is based on my very conventional pragmatic political philosophy. As would be expected, I accept that the legitimacy of the state rests on the consent of the governed; thinkers like Locke and Hobbes have advanced better arguments than I can provide in support of this view. When it comes to consent, I agree with Socrates’ remarks in the Crito. For a person to consent to the rule of the state, they can neither be deceived nor coerced.  People must also have the opportunity to provide this consent; in a democracy (or republic) one means of providing consent is by voting—which is why easy and secure voting is essential to the political legitimacy of a democratic state.

Lying in politics can thus undermine legitimacy—if people make decisions based on lies, then they are not providing true consent. After all, their decision might very well change if they knew the truth. For example, consider the election lies advanced by Trump and his followers. While many people are going along with what they know is a lie (thus they are providing consent), there are presumably some people who are supporting the new voter restrictions only because they believe the election lies. If they knew the truth, these people would not consent to them.

The obvious counter is to argue that all that matters in politics is winning. While this does have some appeal if one is a realist, it is also to explicitly reject the notion that legitimacy depends on the consent of the governed. Which is something many Republicans seem to have done.

Like Locke and many other thinkers, I also subscribe to majority rule. Once again, I defer to the arguments offered by Locke and thinkers superior to me. Because of concerns about tyranny and oppression, I also accept the notion of rights against the state aimed at protecting people from the dangers of majority rule. Naturally, I also largely agree with J.S. Mill on the tyranny of the majority: each of us needs protection from all of us to enjoy our liberties and rights.

Majority rule requires good faith, since voting (as noted above) is a matter of consent and thus requires an absence of fraud and force. If rights and liberties are to be protected against tyranny, then honesty is required. If, for example, a politician lies about the negative effect of their proposed law on free expression in the context of political protests, then their law could be accepted due to this fraud. This would make the law doubly bad; it would be accepted based on fraud and would do harm to the rights of citizens. This, as one would suspect, is why those who want to impose on liberty and rights lie about their intentions and the impact of the impositions. For example, Republicans in Florida have passed an anti-protest law by pitching it as an anti-riot law. This law seems to clearly infringe on the First Amendment; but it will be up to the courts to decide this legal issue. Morally, however, it is clearly wrong on the grounds that it is aimed at suppressing free expression through the threat of coercion.

I also agree with Locke’s view that the purpose of the state is the good of the people. While people disagree about what the good is, this notion does require good faith in politics. While not all interests are morally legitimate, everyone has legitimate interests that need to be considered when determining the good of the people. While this entails that we are obligated to listen to people when they tell us their interests, it also entails that people should be honest when expressing those interests. One reason is that if someone lies about their political interests, then consent cannot be given when decisions are made—their fraud precludes proper consent on the part of others. Another reason is that a false interest is obviously not a real interest—so when a person lies about their true interest, they sabotage the process of achieving the good of the people. After all, the rest of us cannot consider the person’s true interests when they are lying about them.

As would be expected, people often lie about their interests when they think others would see their true interests as wrong or at least unreasonable. While it can be difficult to sort out a person’s true political interest, the usual test is to examine their actions and lack of actions to sort out the matter. For example, various states are rushing to pass anti-trans bills that politicians claim are based on their interest in fairness in sports. While fairness is a laudable interest, there is the question of whether these Republicans are acting from this interest. The easy check is to investigate the bills they have also supported and, which can often be more telling, look at what they have not done. For example, Republicans in Florida claim to support their anti-trans bill based on an interest in fairness, yet if they really cared about fairness for women then they would have ratified the ERA. As such, their profession of an interest in fairness would seem to be fraud. Rather, their interest seems to be signaling their base that they also hate and fear trans people. Obviously, if they presented their real interest in good faith, that would make them look terrible—and rightfully so. Which is why they do not operate in good faith.

Being honest about the facts is also important in the context of interests. After all, if the alleged facts are lies, then consent is not possible. Also, if lies are advanced to support a political interest, then that interest will not be supported. A horrific example of this is the big lie being advanced by Trump and his fellows about the election. While Trump and his fellows do have a legitimate interest in the election, the claims of widespread voter fraud are untrue. As such, Trump is trying to serve his interest with lies. To tie it all together, I will now turn to a non-political analogy.

Imagine that Doug, who loves meat, is on a softball team with the vegan Karen. After a big game out of town, the team is going out to dinner. Karen loathes Doug and wants to “own” him by making his dinner as awful as possible. Karen knows that if she is honest about this, some people on the team will not vote with her. So, she is careful to conceal that and just says she wants what is best and fair for everyone.

Karen knows that the Angry Carrot restaurant is completely vegan, crazy expensive, and serves microscopic portions. It also does not serve any alcohol. Karen knows that her teammates want large portions at a good price, that many of them like meat, and that most of them want alcohol. So, Karen lies about all this—she says the prices are great, the portions huge, there are many choices on the menu and that the beer will flow like water. She neglects to mention that Doug’s ex-girlfriend will be there as well, singing in the band Meat is Mega Genocide for the entertainment of the vegans.

To ensure she wins, Karen makes sure that the vote is conducted while those who would vote against her are still in the locker room. The team members present vote based on Karen’s lies and she wins. The team arrives at the Angry Carrot and many of them are dismayed by what they find: vegan only fare, microscopic portions, high prices and no beer. Doug is also shocked when his ex-girlfriend jumps up on the table and screams “meat is murder!” at him while she performs her song.

While some of the teammates grumble, Karen’s buddy Tucker reinforces her lies: he gushes about the diverse options on the menu, says that the portions are huge and amazingly cheap, and tells everyone that the water is beer. Some teammates, who also dislike Doug, go along with the lies— “owning” Doug makes it all worthwhile. A few teammates believe Karen and Tucker, somehow getting drunk on the water. Doug and most other teammates have a terrible time and when they complain, Karen and Tucker point out that they voted to go here. When Doug points out that some people were kept from voting and that Karen lied about everything, Karen replies that elections have consequences, and that Doug should go along with her otherwise he is dividing the team with his hate. She adds a bit about Doug being too woke and then accuses him of trying to cancel her. Disgusted, Doug leaves in search of beer and BBQ.  While this has been great for Karen, it has been awful for Doug and bad for most of the team. Bad faith in politics works the same way.

 

My Amazon Author Page

My Paizo Page

My DriveThru RPG Page

Follow Me on Twitter

Corporations & Cancellation: Speech (Money)

by Leave a Comment

Corporations such as Coca Cola, Delta and Major League Baseball condemned Georgia’s restrictive voter laws and some even took action by taking their business out of the state. This angered Senator Mitch McConnell and he warned corporations to “…stay out of politics.” Unironically, he hastened to add that this does not include political contributions.

McConnell went on to threaten corporations, asserting that they are acting like a “woke parallel government.” While Republicans are advancing the narrative that the out-of-control left is pushing cancel culture, Republicans are urging consumers to boycott these companies to pressure them into changing their behavior. They are also calling for state legislatures to punish these companies with the coercive power of the state. Somewhat ironically, the call has been to roll back the special tax breaks that the Republicans worked so hard to provide their corporate sponsors.

Some might accuse the right and McConnell of being inconsistent. On the one hand, this does have some plausibility. After all, when the right attacks what they call “cancel culture” they profess to value free expression and contend that the left is acting wrongly by coercing corporations into doing their bidding. Alternatively, they accuse the corporations of being woke and imposing their values on others and thus presumably impose on consumer choice by restricting products or changing brands. But McConnell is explicitly threatening corporate people with the coercive power of the state. Republicans profess to accept that corporations are people, that they thus have free speech rights, and that money is speech. As such, this would seem to directly violate their professed principles: they are the ones trying to cancel free speech. McConnell also seems to explicitly advance two inconsistent views: that corporations should stay out of politics while they keep making political contributions.  But that would appear to be impossible: campaign contributions are political by nature.

On the other hand, if one ignores the surface rhetoric of the Republicans and McConnell and attempts to sort out their likely principle, then the inconsistency is dissolved. McConnell’s core principle in this situation seems to be that corporations should do what benefits McConnell. Engaging in political speech that opposes the Republican agenda of voter restriction is contrary to McConnell’s and Republican interests, so they are threatening corporations to “cancel” their speech. Corporate contributions to McConnell and his fellow Republicans serve their interests, so they want the money to keep flowing. Corporate contributions to the Democrats also help the Republicans in a way—Democrats who accept corporate money tend to act in the interests of the corporations which is generally what Republicans want. Or used to want. The Republican party seems to be shifting from a traditional pro-business approach to focus more on appealing to the Trump base—something that can put them at odds with corporate America in certain areas. But one should not be tempted to think that the Republicans are going leftist and becoming pro-worker and anti-business.

The left has historically been critical of corporate involvement in politics for a variety of reasons. One is that corporations have great economic power and laws and court rulings have enabled them to translate this directly into effectively unlimited political power. The other is that corporations tend to use their economic and political powers in ways that are detrimental to what the left professes to care about such as the environment and people outside of the 1%. The left has, however, learned to adapt to this corporate power. Some people have figured out that they can influence corporations through consumer pressure and thus, somewhat ironically, get corporations to support what the right would tend to see as leftist—such as maximizing citizen participation in elections. It is not that corporations are now ruled by woke leftists; they are simply keeping an eye on the bottom line: they rely on consumers for their profits and need to ensure that they present the proper sort of brand and product line that will maximize these profits. Because most Americans are not on the far right, appealing to most consumers can make corporations appear to be on the left in certain respects.

But, as I have argued in other essays, these corporations are do not have leftist policies in any area that they would harm their bottom line. Corporations focus on profits and act accordingly. We do not see, for example, Amazon embracing unions. We do not see McDonald’s rushing to raise workers’ salaries and benefits. As such, the alleged wokeness of corporations is mostly just marketing and branding. If they were truly leftist, then they would not operate as they do. That said, these corporations can and do operate in ways that the current Republicans see as being contrary to their interests and thus they can make unlikely allies on some issues the left cares about.

I do partially agree with McConnell: corporate influence in politics needs to be reduced. McConnell gets this when he is the one being harmed. But my view is based on a broader principle: I am not solely concerned with the harm to me, I am concerned about the general harm being done. When corporations act in ways McConnell likes, he is happy to allow them unlimited expression. But if they express views he dislikes, he is quick to threaten to “cancel” them for exercising the very powers that the Republicans toiled so hard to give them. McConnell’s solution is for the state to use its coercive power to threaten corporations into acting as Republicans wish. But this does not address the underlying problem: corporations have disproportionate power, and this is corrosive to democracy. Reducing that power would still allow the corporate rulers to express themselves, but it would allow others to use their freedom of expression more effectively. As the usual analogy goes, corporate America has a concert grade sound system to blast its speech while other citizens are limited to trying to yell over that blast. So, we should not “cancel” corporations, but their power needs to checked and balanced. And not just to serve the interests professed by the left—corporate power is also a threat to the right.

 

My Amazon Author Page

My Paizo Page

My DriveThru RPG Page

Follow Me on Twitter

Corporations & Cancellation: Social Media

by Leave a Comment

The big corporations possess incredible economic power and many on the left are critical of how this power is used to coerce and harm those who have less economic power. For example, Amazon is infamous for putting such severe restraints on workers that they sometimes have to urinate in bottles. Thanks to Republicans and pro-corporate Democrats, laws and court rulings (such as Citizens United)  have enabled these corporations to translate their economic power directly into political power. This is also criticized by many on the left and they note how the United States is an oligarchy rather than a democracy. This political power manifests itself in such things as anti-union laws, de-regulation, and tax breaks.

In general, Republicans are in favor of increasing the economic power of corporations and do their best to assist them in increasing their political power. This might be partially motivated by their pro-business ideology, but it is certainly motivated by the contributions and benefits they receive for advancing the interests of the wealthy.  As such, it is rather odd that many Republicans are now professing opposition to some of these corporations. Social media and tech companies have recently earned the ire of the right.

While Republicans profess to favor deregulation and embrace the free market, they are now very angry about social media and tech companies and claim that these companies have become part of cancel culture.  I do understand why they are so angry. For years, social media companies profited from extremism—including that of the American right and it must seem like a betrayal for these companies to suddenly turn against their cash cows. While the narrative on the right is that these companies are woke or that out-of-control leftists are in control, this is not the case. These companies acted based on pragmatism focused on profit.

Extremism seems to have been damaging the brands of these companies and they were under considerable pressure to do something. They presumably decided to act before lawmakers compelled them to act. There might also be some concern that enabling extremism had gone too far—while tech companies happily work with authoritarian states, their leadership would probably prefer to not live in a fascist authoritarian state. This is not to say that they are leftists, just that they are generally not fascists. Even a cursory examination of their business practices will reveal that they are not woke leftists. For example, Amazon is virulently anti-union and Facebook is hardly a worker’s paradise.

Republicans have very pragmatic reasons to be angry at these social media and tech companies for acting against extremism and enforcing their terms of service. First, a significant percentage of the right’s base consists of active extremists and they are very useful to Republicans. Second, the Republican party relies heavily on “moderate” racism, sexism, xenophobia, and intolerance as political tools.

One could argue that they are not racists, they are just very concerned that brown people are illegally entering the United States to commit crimes, steal jobs, exploit social services, vote illegally, spread disease, and replace white Americans.  One problem with these views is that they are not supported by facts. Immigrants are less likely to commit crimes. While the impact of migration on the economy is complicated, the evidence is that there is a positive link between immigration and economic growth. The old racist trope of diseased migrants is untrue; in fact migrants help fight disease. And, of course, the replacement hypothesis is an absurd racist hobgoblin.

Interestingly, Paul Waldman makes a solid case that Republicans want critics to call their policies “racist” and this is part of their plan. As he notes, “…they know that their political success depends on motivating their base through a particular racial narrative…” If Waldman is right, then it can be argued that the tech companies are helping the Republicans at the same time they are hurting them. After all, while the tech companies “purge” of social media did hurt the right, it also handed them a victimization narrative that they are exploiting to activate their base.

In addition to racism and such, the right also uses disinformation and misinformation as critical tools in their political battles. As noted in other essays on cancellation, the cancel culture narrative of the right is built largely on disinformation. At best it is based on hyperbole. The right’s response to the pandemic is also an exercise in disinformation and misinformation. And, of course, the biggest disinformation campaign is the big lie about the 2020 presidential election. This lie has been the foundation for nationwide efforts to restrict voting access, most famously in Georgia. While social media companies were quite happy to profit of disinformation and misinformation, this has changed somewhat in response to public pressure (and concerns that lawmakers might act). Since Republicans rely extensively on these tools, it makes sense that they would be angry about social media companies “cancelling” their lies.

While the Republicans are doing so for narrowly selfish reasons, they are right to be critical of the power of the social media and tech companies and these companies present very real dangers. As I have argued elsewhere, these companies control most of the mediums of free expression available to the masses. While they are not covered by the First Amendment, their power to limit free expression is concerning—they can effectively silence and amplify as they wish. Leftists have long argued that this gives them too much power and now the right agrees—at least when it comes to their very narrow and selfish interests. While the left and right might be able to form an alliance of convenience here, the right has a rather different goal: they want social media to be a safe space for racism, sexism, xenophobia, misinformation, and disinformation. As such, while there is a very real problem with social media, the solution cannot be to simply let the far right do as they wish—for they would simply spread hate and lies to advance their political goals. This is not to say that the left is composed entirely of angels—harmful activity and lies of the left also need to be kept in check while also allowing maximum freedom of expression. As always, there must be a balance between the freedom of expression and protecting people from meaningful harm.

 

My Amazon Author Page

My Paizo Page

My DriveThru RPG Page

Follow Me on Twitter

Corporations & Cancellation: Brands & Products

by 2 Comments

While the world struggles with a pandemic, there has been considerable focus by the right on their manufactured culture war. One aspect of manufacturing this war is using hyperbole and lies to make up a problem where none exists. Two recent examples of this include the right’s outrage around  Dr. Seuss and Mr. Potato Head. The right claimed that Dr. Seuss and Mr. Potato Head have been cancelled by the left.

As I noted in earlier essays, Dr. Seuss’ books have not been banned. While the right’s narrative around Dr. Seuss implied that popular books such as the Cat in the Hat and Green Eggs and Ham had been cancelled,  the reality is that Dr. Seuss’ estate chose to stop publishing six books because they  contain illustrations that “portray people in ways that are hurtful and wrong.” These books seem to have been relatively poor sellers and most people seem to be unfamiliar with them.

Politicians and pundits on the right generally did not focus on these six books, choosing instead to mislead the public by implying that all Dr. Seuss books had been cancelled or that at least very popular books had been cancelled. For example, Ted Cruz sold signed (by him) copies of Green Eggs and Ham and raised $125,000. He claimed that this was strike back against cancel culture. While Cruz has a history with that book, it is not one of the six books that the estate decided to stop selling.

There are good reasons to avoid using the six books: some of them do have racist content and the right would not look particularly good to the public if they explicitly defended racist content. To use an analogy, this would be like a company deciding to stop producing a product that has been show to be harmful and having some people “defend” the company by focusing on their good products and ignoring the harmful one.

However, the right’s base presumably gets the message: the right has not rushed to battle censorship in general, such as efforts to get books removed from libraries. Instead, they focus primarily on defending what most would see as racist and sexist content.

There are also good reasons to use the popular books in their examples: censoring Green Eggs and Ham would be absurd and by lying that the left wants to ban such books, they mislead their base into believing that “the left” is crazy and out of control. To use an analogy, consider Coca Cola’s decision to stop manufacturing Tab. Imagine a group decided to make this into an issue, but realized that most people did not care about Tab and that Tab sales were very weak. So instead of raging about Tab, they advanced the narrative that Coca Cola had been cancelled and held up cans of Coke and Diet Coke, implying that these sodas had been “cancelled” despite the obvious fact that they are readily available. Imagine Ted Cruz selling signed cans of Coke, claiming that he will use the money to strike back against cancel culture. If anyone believed these lies, they would think the Coke cancellers were crazy. The same thing is occurring with Dr. Seuss: the estate stopped publishing their text equivalents of Tab, but they are still selling their Coke and Diet Coke books.

As I have argued before at length, when companies change their product lines it is typically because they think doing so will maintain or increase their profits. If the left had the power to control companies, they would certainly use that power in more meaningful ways: they would force companies to improve wages, benefits and working conditions. As such, the idea that the out-of-control left is abusing hapless companies is absurd. Now, onto branding.

Hasbro recently decided to change the Mr. Potato Head brand to Potato Head. Mr. Potato Head and Mrs. Potato Head are still available and sold under those names. The company did make the statement that “Hasbro is making sure all feel welcome in the Potato Head world by officially dropping the Mr. from the Mr. Potato Head brand name and logo to promote gender equality and inclusion.” As of this writing, there is no evidence that Hasbro was subject to coercion or forced to make this decision.

Some on the right claimed that Mr. Potato Head had been cancelled, but they were generally not clear about exactly what they meant. Some seem to have meant that Mr. Potato Head would no longer be manufactured, which was not true. Others might have simply been angry at what Hasbro did: change the brand from “Mr. Potato Head” to “Potato Head” while maintaining the Mr. and Mrs. versions of the toys. On the face of it, this seems to be a silly fight: a toy company slightly changed the brand name for a toy line while retaining the toys. A deeper look reveals that it is, in fact, a silly fight.

From a political standpoint, this was a clever move: by misleading their base about the facts, they generated outrage against “the left” and distracted them away from the fact that the Republicans seem to have little in the way of policies or interest in engaging with meaningful problems. They also do not need to do anything: there is no problem to solve, no results to achieve. There is just an opportunity for unfounded outrage that will feed the base until they can find a situation suitable for manufacturing pointless outrage.

Corporations changing their products and brands does not appear to create any meaningful problems—they are simply changing to maximize their profits. Consumer tastes and values change over time and that is what is happening now. As it has always happened—there is nothing sinister going on in these cases, no problem to solve, no need of state action. The right is simply manufacturing a problem where none currently exists, other than the “problem” that consumers change over time.

 

My Amazon Author Page

My Paizo Page

My DriveThru RPG Page

Follow Me on Twitter

%d bloggers like this: