Month: August 2025

One approach to time travel is to embrace timeline branching: when someone travels in time and changes something (which is inevitable), then a branch grows from the timeline. This, as was discussed in the previous essay, allows a possible solution to the grandfather paradox. But it also gives rise to various problems and questions, such as the need to account for the creation of a new universe for each timeline branch. The fact that these universes are populated also creates a problem, specifically one with personal identity. Since I used the grandfather paradox as the context previously, I will continue to do so.

Suppose that Sally and Ted travel back in time and Sally kills her grandfather Sam. Ted does not murder his grandfather. Assuming the timeline branching solution to the grandfather problem, Sally creates a new timeline branch in which Sam is killed. While Sally does not exist (one assumes) in the new timeline, Ted does. There would be at least two Teds now: one that is in the original timeline and the Ted in the new timeline. In fact, anyone who was alive for the creation of the new timeline would presumably also in the new timeline as the entire population of the universe would be replicated. This raises some obvious questions about how this would work and issues within the context of personal identity. For the sake of simplicity, I will focus on Ted as my example, but this would also apply to anyone who ends up being branched.

To keep it simple, let us suppose that Sally and Ted are the first time travelers, so there have been no time branches. When they travel back, they create the first branch. While Sally will not exist in the new branch (and her act of murder might result in other people not existing or even new people existing), Ted will exist in both. So how would this work?

One option is to take the time splitting metaphor literally: the universe and the people in it are split into two. Think of this as like an amoeba dividing. This does raise the obvious question of whether whatever makes a person the person they are can be split. For example, Leibniz took a person to be a monad, and his monads are metaphysically simple: they cannot be split. But if personal identity rests on something that can be split up, then this would be possible. For example, Hume (sort of) advances a bundle theory of personal identity. On his view, the self is not a simple, indivisible entity. It is a collection or bundle of perceptions. To use a metaphor, just as a bundle of marbles could be divided up, this bundle could also be divided between timelines. This would lead to questions about trans timeline identity: would there be one divided person or two people who arose from a past person? In the case of Ted, there would be one Ted in each timeline, and they might (or might not) be the same person.

Another option is that the people in the new timeline are identical duplicates. This would require that the basis of personal identity be something that can be copied. Locke, for example, makes consciousness (memory) the basis of personal identity and even considers a case in which a person’s consciousness (memory) is duplicated. With a basis of personal identity that can be copied, the problem is solved: each new timeline person is a copy of the original. This also leads to the question of whether they are a trans timeline person or multiple different people who happen to have originated from the same person. One obvious consideration is that the basis of personal identity is supposed to be what makes a person distinct from all other things and this suggests that there should only be one of each person. But this view can be countered by arguing that it is philosophically fine to have multiples of the same person. This could be reined in a bit by limiting it to one person per timeline, the challenge would be justifying and explaining this restriction. On this view, there would be Ted in the original timeline and a Ted copy in the new timeline, who might or might not be the same person.

A third option is that the new timeline is a completely new creation that just resembles the original. The people do exactly resemble each other, but this is analogous to having two unrelated people that happen to look exactly alike: while the appear to be the same, this is not due to any connection between them. This is essentially an alternative reality view in which the reality begins with a timeline branch. While this does have some appeal, if the branch is not connected to the main timeline, then one must explain how it connects to time travel. One way to do this is to take the view that what seems to be time travel just creates an alternative reality and there is, in fact, no travelling. In this case, there would be a new Ted-like person who just happens to be exactly like Ted but has no metaphysical connection to the original Ted.

This matter becomes even more complex is one starts to consider theological and moral matters. For example, if God exists and people are souls that are sent to an appropriate afterlife, then God would need to sort out who is responsible for what. This should be super easy for God, barely an inconvenience. But without God, the ethics become more challenging: if a person is split into two people, which one is accountable for the past deeds? Perhaps they both are, like an amoeba who has split into two. If a new alternative reality is created and all the people are new, they should not be accountable for any past deeds, because they have no past at that moment of creation. Time travel is, of course, an even bigger mess than one would imagine.

The grandfather problem is a classic time travel problem. Oversimplified, the problem is as follows. If time travel is possible, then a person should be able to go back in time and kill their grandfather before they have any children. But if they do, then the killer would never exist and would not be able to go back in time and kill their grandfather. So, their grandfather would not be killed and they would exist and be able to go back in time and kill him. But if they kill him, then they would not exist. And so on. There have been attempts of varying quality to solve this problem and one is to advance the notion of timeline branching. The simple version is that time is like a river and travelling back in time to change things results in the creation of a new branch of the river, flowing onward in a somewhat different direction.

So, imagine that Sally goes back in time to kill her grandfather. She succeeds and thus creates a new timeline in which he dies. Presumably, she returns to her own timeline and finds that her original grandfather was never killed by her. She might keep trying and from her perspective she would kill him over and over, only to return to find that she never succeeds. But with each trip to the past, she creates another new timeline. For those who prefer their time travel murder free, any change a time traveler made would presumably create a new timeline and this would include the smallest change. Time travelers would certainly end up creating new timelines in which they (or, more likely, someone like them) exist and would probably keep traveling in time, thus creating branches off the branches. While having so many branches would seem excessive, there are metaphysical concerns for even having one additional timeline branch.

Each extra timeline branch would seem to require the creation of an entire new universe. But even if it created less than that, there would still be the same concern, albeit on a smaller scale. This concern is the origin of the stuff that makes up the new timeline. One solution is to just allow ex-nihilo creation: the new universe appears out of nothing, mostly duplicating the original with the relevant changes arising from the time travel. Allowing ex-nihilo creation would have implications beyond time travel and is generally considered sketchy metaphysics. It can, of course, be given a divine twist: God or other supernatural beings are kept busy creating new universes in response to time travel. This would also involve some interesting problems but is not any more problematic than having just one universe created by God or other supernatural being(s). As such, if you already accept that God can create a universe out of nothing, then the problem is solved. One could even endorse pantheism: everything is God and God just “creates” new modes “in” Himself that are the new timelines. Pantheism to the rescue.

A second solution is that the basic stuff (prime matter or similar) for new timelines already exists and just needs to be formed by whatever it is that does that sort of thing. The easiest answer is to just use whatever originated the first universe to fill the role of creating the new timelines. While there would be the question of why it keeps doing that, it seems sensible that if it can do it once, it can keep doing it.

In terms of the stuff, perhaps there is a finite amount of stuff and eventually time travel would no longer be possible because no new timelines can be created. But an easy fix is to make a clever appeal to the infinite: if there is infinite stuff, then no matter how much stuff is taken to make a new timeline universe, then there would still be infinite stuff left to keep creating new timelines. Infinity to the rescue once again.

One could also use various clever workarounds. For example, maybe solipsism is true and only I exist, so there would be no need to create new timelines. Or perhaps Descartes got it right and it is just him and the evil demon; the demon can just deceive Descartes about time travel without creating anything. But if the evil demon travels in time and changes things, then the problem would still arise. Or maybe there is actually nothing, no self, no reality and no time travel. In that case, there would also be no problem.

Texas’ power infrastructure collapsed in the face of a winter storm, leaving many Texans in the frigid darkness. Ted Cruz infamously fled Texas in search of warmer climes, ensuring his ongoing success as an ideal Republican politician. You might expect that Texans would have responded to this disaster by addressing the underlying problems. You might, if you did not understand the Republicans of Texas.

During the crisis, the leadership of the state engaged in what seems a standard Republican response to a real crisis: they lied and blamed others. For example, one dishonest talking point was that renewable energy sources were the primary causes of the blackout. This untruth was advanced by Greg Abbott, the Texas Public Policy Foundation, and Dan Crenshaw. While the failure was complicated, the facts are clear. First, while renewable energy is part of Texas’ energy infrastructure, it is not the dominate source. Second, even in the case of renewable energy, the problem was not that the energy sources are renewable. The problem was they were not properly winterized. After all, wind turbines are reliably used in Alaska. As to why they lie, the answer is that it works for the GOP. They know that their base does not care about the truth, is in on the lie, or is unwilling to critically assess their claims. They also know that truth would hurt them; so, lying is a win and the truth is a loss. They have no good reason to tell the truth about the Texas power failure, other than to solve a real problem.

While Texas lawmakers took some action, it seems that they did not do enough to address the problems. This also seems to be a general Republican strategy: do little or nothing to address real problems. Given that the blackout was a disaster for many Texans, there is the question of why the leaders did not seriously address the problem.

One reason might be that they forgot that they made the Kool Aid. That is, they now believe their own narrative about the situation and hence are not taking action to address the real problem because they do not believe in the real problem.

A second reason could be ideological: Republicans profess to be anti-regulation (except when they are regulating what they dislike), small government (except for expanding what they like), pro-free market (except when they do not like the results of the free market), and pro-business (except when businesses do things they dislike). A small-government, pro-business, anti-regulation, and pro-free market approach would be to the situation would be to do little or nothing (except offer tax cuts for and government handouts to businesses). As such, they are acting in accord with their professed ideology. Staying the course will mean that they will sail into another iceberg in the future; but then they can lie about it again.

A third reason is that while some businesses did lose money during the disaster (for example, Vistra is estimated to have lost around $1 billion), many companies profited. Macquarie Group made at least an extra $213 million from the blackout. CFO Roland Burns, of Comstock Resources, provided a clear explanation of how his company did so well in what would seem to be a disaster: he said, “we were able to get super premium prices.” The company was able to get such a great payoff from the disaster that inflicted great suffering that Burns said that the devastation was “like hitting the jackpot.” He did have to apologize for that statement later, since gleefully profiting from large-scale human suffering can be bad for the brand.

While companies that lost money during the disaster do have a financial incentive to act, companies that profited would benefit should the situation occur again. As such, they have a financial incentive to maintain the status quo. When an unprepared Texas is plunged into darkness once more, they will hit the jackpot again. This also exemplifies a key Republican (and mainstream Democrat) value: prioritizing short-term profits of the rich over the basic well-being of millions of citizens. But this has been working very well for them in Texas and hence they have little reason to act; aside from whatever concern they might have for the citizens of Texas. Which they clearly lack.

In the context of the war on “cancel culture” Republicans professes devotion to the First Amendment, freedom of expression and the marketplace of ideas. As noted in earlier essays, they generally frame such battles in disingenuous ways or lie. For example, Republicans raged against the alleged cancellation of Dr. Seuss, but the truth is Dr. Seuss’ estate decided to stop selling six books. As another example, Republicans went into a frenzy when Hasbro renamed their Mr. Potato Head product line to “Potato Head” while keeping Mr. and Mrs. Potato Head. In these cases, the companies were not forced to do anything, and these seemed to be marketing decisions based on changing consumer tastes and values.

While I oppose these made-up battles over free expression, I agree with the Republicans professed principles about free expression and the First Amendment. I believe in a presumption in favor of free expression and hence the burden of proof rests on those who would limit this liberty. I go beyond most Republicans and hold that this liberty should also protect employees from their employers. While the Republicans, as I have argued elsewhere, have advanced bad faith arguments about tech companies and free expression, I think the power of corporations and the wealthy to control and dominate expression needs to be countered by the state. I favor free expression even when I disagree with the expression. That is, obviously, what it means to be for freedom of expression. In contrast, Republicans do not seem to believe in free expression (though there are some individual exceptions). Some clear evidence is that Republicans have been busy passing  laws banning teaching critical race theory in public schools and imposing their ideology on higher education using the coercive power of the state to destroy the free market of ideas.

Critical race theory arose in United States law schools in the 1970s and gradually expanded. It is the view that laws, regulations, and values should be critically examined to determine if they have different impacts on different racial groups. Given the truism that people in different groups will often be impacted in different ways by the same thing, this theory seems reasonable. Since it is a broad academic theory, people do disagree about the particulars. Academics is, after all, a place for debate and rational disagreement. Or for ideological conformity, depending on what one thinks of academic freedom.

Critical race theory also contributed to the development of diversity training and has implications across academic disciplines. Being exposed to critical race theory can incline a person towards being critical about matters of race, such as considering how a law might impact people differently depending on their skin color. It can also influence people to be critical about American history and make them less inclined to believe the often-dubious historical narrative advanced by the right. As such, it is hardly surprising that Republicans  worked at “cancelling” critical race theory.

On the one hand, one could make a liberty-based argument in favor of these efforts. Students should have the freedom to choose their own values, so schools forcing students to “affirm, adopt or adhere” to an academic theory would be morally wrong. An obvious reply is that professors are already not supposed to do this to students and a student can justly complain if they are compelled to affirm, adopt, or adhere to the tenets of a theory.  For example, if I started compelling my students to affirm trope theory, then the administration would put a stop to my metaphysical misdeeds. Thus, this sort of law can be seen as another example of Republicans addressing problems that either do not exist or are already adequately handled by existing mechanisms.

On the other hand, there is a reasonable concern that such laws are aimed at banning teaching this theory. This directly conflicts with the Republican’s alleged devotion to free expression, the First Amendment, and the marketplace of ideas. But their actions show they do not subscribe to these principles. Rather they subscribe to the principle that people should be able to express views Republicans at least tolerate and should be prevented from expressing views Republicans do not like. As noted above, the past “cancel culture” examples presented by Republicans are cases where companies made marketing decisions, and no one passed a law to compel them to make these changes. In the case of critical race theory, Republicans use the compulsive power of the state to forbid the expression of specific types of ideas, which seems to be a violation of the First Amendment. Their base generally either does not recognize the inconsistency or does not care. As such, it is a clever move on their part: they can praise free expression out of one corner of their mouth while calling for censorship out of the other corner.

In terms of cancelling mandatory diversity training, it can be argued that this does not interfere with freedom of expression: such training can be offered, but people can opt out.  Having been compelled to take a such training over the years, I am sympathetic to the liberty to refuse training. However, there are obvious problems with allowing people to avoid training. One is that people who need the training might skip it, to the detriment of the school and it is reasonable to expect people to be competent at their jobs and learn the values of the institution. As such, it is not a matter of freedom from mandatory training in general or even mandatory values training, but a very specific sort of mandatory value training, values that Republicans dislike. Arguments can certainly be made against specific types of mandatory value training on moral grounds. For example, if a school mandated that students be trained in fascist values or Western supremacy, then a solid moral case can be made against that. In the case of diversity training, the challenge is to show how teaching people to be tolerant of those they must work, learn, or live with is morally wrong.

In closing, Republicans obviously do not subscribe to their professed principles of free expression, their claimed love of the First Amendment, and their alleged devotion to the marketplace of ideas. If they did, they would not be doing what they do. They would, rather, let the marketplace of ideas sort out the good and bad ideas, something that they always say when they defend ideas of the extreme right. But they are operating in bad faith and disregard their professed principles when it suits them.

When I am critical of the current economic system in the United States I am often countered by the argument that the system is good because most Americans own stock. Some also say that this show how anyone can  work their way towards wealth by investing.

It is true that most Americans own stock. At 51.9% this just barely suffices to make the claim true. But the positive view is a matter of perspective as this also means 48.1% of Americans do not own stock. To use an analogy, if someone said that most passengers survived a crash, then that sounds good: while the crash was bad, at least most people survived. But if you inquired more and found that 52% of the passengers survived, sounds less good since as 48% did not. As such, some stock rhetorical techniques are in play here.

One is to use the vagueness of “most.” Psychologically, people tend to think in terms of “most” referring to a significant majority rather than just barely over half. As such, it is wise to consider the numbers rather than uncritically accepting “most.”

Another technique is the emphasis. When numbers are used, presenting them with the positive or negative statement can influence people. So, saying 52% of Americans own stocks makes it sound good. But saying 48% of Americans do not own stocks makes it sound bad. Looked at neutrally, 48% is a significant lack. After all, if 48% of Americans lacked shelter or adequate food, we would hardly rejoice that 52% had those things. So, gushing about 52% of Americans owning stock is a bit absurd.

Another rhetorical tool in use here is leaving out critical information. By simply asserting that most Americans own stock, this suggests most Americans are doing well. While no one thinks that the average American is crushing the stock market the way Bill Gates, Trump, Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos is; this language just lumps all stock ownership together without considering the distinctions. To use an analogy, it is true that most Americans own vehicles, but there is a huge difference between someone who has an old car and someone who owns yachts and rockets.

While there are some disputes about the exact percentages, the value of stock owned is rather like athletic talent: it is unevenly divided, and a small percentage have most of it. In the case of stocks, 10% of households are estimated to own 84-90% of the value of stocks. 1% of the population is estimated to own about 50% of the value of stocks. As such, while about 52% of Americans own stocks, the 1% own the lion’s share of the value of these stocks. For those even vaguely familiar with the American economy, this makes sense: why would the stock market be different from any other aspect of the economy?

As such, while most Americans own stocks, this does little to refute concerns about the imbalance and unfairness of the current system. In fact, looking at the numbers reveals stock ownership as another example of the imbalance and unfairness of the existing system.

In addition to being evil, bigotry also tends to be repetitive. For example, racists and xenophobes have relentlessly claimed that migrants are diseased job stealing criminals. This has gone on so long in the United States that descendants of migrants who were subject to these bigoted attacks are now using them against the latest wave of migrants. Another classic is the “what about the children!” tactic.

The gist of the “what about the children” tactic is to claim that allowing something, such as library books that include non-traditional characters, will harm children. Therefore, it should not be allowed. Since people tend to care about children, this tactic has emotional power. After all, only a terrible person would favor something that would harm children, such as lax child labor laws. While its emotional power comes from concern for children, it also draws from good moral reasoning. After all, if something would harm children, then it would usually be morally wrong under a broad range of moral theories. While using this tactic in good faith is reasonable, it has been weaponized for bad faith use over the years.

Using this method in bad faith usually begins with asserting, without evidence, that something would harm the children. In many cases, the claims about the harms are not only unsupported but false. Naturally, people can make good faith arguments out of concern for children and be mistaken; but that is another matter. Bad faith “what about the children!” arguments are often used to “argue” against expanding civil and political rights or to restrict them.

In the United States, some arguments advanced against women’s suffrage focused on how voting would harm reproduction and harm the children. One odd claim was that women would ignore their children in order to vote, thus doing terrible harm. What makes this an absurd claim is that elections do not happen often, and voting generally does not take long. Obviously enough, women being able to vote did not harm the children.

During desegregation, school segregationists advanced arguments that allowing black girls into the same bathrooms as white girls would expose the white girls to venereal diseases. This was of great concern because venereal diseases were said to be especially harmful to children. This was an absurd argument for many reasons known at the time. One fact is that venereal diseases are not transmitted through restrooms; so such fears were and are unfounded. As bathrooms have been desegregated for a long time and this claim has been thoroughly  disproven. Although, once again, people knew that these claims were untrue when they were made.

Not surprising, “what about the children!” was also used against gay men. My adopted state of Florida was a “leader” in this, and the impacts are still felt today. While gay men were presented as a general threat to children, the narrative was that they prowled bathrooms for their victims. I remember being warned about this when I was a kid and when I moved to Florida as an adult, people still told me to be careful if I used a park bathroom while on a run. But, of course, this was fear mongering. Eventually the idea of the gay male bathroom predator faded, and the focus shifted to how same-sex marriage would harm the children. These claims were unfounded and there is some evidence that children raised by same-sex couples do better in school.

A recent version of “what about the children!” is aimed at trans people. Not surprisingly, the focus was initially on bathrooms: the new imaginary predator of the restroom is the trans person. This was used to “argue” for a slew of bathroom bills. Somewhat ironically, past focus on alleged bathroom threats seems to have reduced the effectiveness of this fear mongering as the prophecies of danger never come to pass. So, the bigots have shifted focus from bathrooms to sports.  Those pushing the new anti-trans agenda profess they just care about fairness and are worried about the children. But, as I have argued elsewhere, they are not concerned about fairness, otherwise they would also be passing bills addressing actual unfairness, such as in wages. They are also not very concerned about the children. If they were, they would be passing bills addressing such matters as child poverty, inequality in public education, and children’s health. They would also be addressing the leading preventable causes of death among children. Not surprisingly, the states that are most anti-abortion and anti-trans also have higher infant mortality rates; yet they do not seem to think about this. One must infer that they do not care about the children, but are just using them as weapons against groups they wish to harm.

The bad faith “what about the children!” argument of the bigots keeps getting reused, often with a special focus on bathrooms. Even worse, while they push bad faith arguments and bills, they do little or nothing to address the very real dangers and problems children face. In some cases, they pass laws and implement policies that are actively harmful to children, as exemplified by Flint, Michigan. I am certainly not claiming that the bigots do not care about their children; but they do not seem to care about the children.

If a person dies in the United States and is not in the care of a doctor, then any investigation into their cause of death will probably be conducted by a medical examiner or coroner. To qualify as a medical examiner, a person must be a physician and are often board qualified in forensic pathology. In contrast, most states have only two qualifications for coroner: they must be of legal age and have no felony convictions. Coroners are often elected while medical examiners are usually appointed.  The editors of Scientific America have argued in favor of eliminating coroners in favor of medical examiners. While I do agree with their position, this matter is worth considering within the context of political philosophy.

From what seems to be a neutral standpoint, the editors are correct. If the job of the death determiner (coroner or medical examiner) is to correctly determine the cause of death, they should be experts. This would require adequate medical training and a lack of bias. But it can be argued that this standpoint is not neutral. After all, this position is based on a value judgment about what the death determiner should be doing. By the standards of other values, the purpose of the job could be different. This can be illustrated by considering two value laden contexts: COVID-19 deaths and deaths caused by law enforcement.

In the face of the COVID-19 pandemic, Trump and his fellows responded in accord with their lack of interest and lack of competence: they downplayed and lied. With some notable exceptions, the right chose to politicize the pandemic to isolate and energize their base. They also weaponized the pandemic against minorities, women and the lower economic classes. Honest and accurate reporting of COVID-19 deaths would have undercut the downplaying and exposed the lies. As such, it makes sense that the undercounting of COVID-19 deaths was greatest in pro-Trump areas of the country.

While medical examiners can be politically biased, the fact that coroners are often elected entails that they would often match the ideology where they are elected. Hence, pro-Trump areas would tend to have pro-Trump coroners who would tend to conform to the right’s position on the pandemic.

For those who see the proper job of the death determiner as advancing their political goals, then the death determiners should be elected coroners, preferably without medical training. This is not to say that medical examiners cannot be politically biased, just that having a favorably biased coroner is more likely than having a favorably biased medical examiner.

There are, however, two possible problems with this approach. The first is that favoring coroners would allow the left to elect left leaning coroners. The second is that death determiners who lack medical training are likely to do worse at their jobs when determining the true cause of death is necessary and political agendas are not a factor. As would be expected, those concerned with correct determination of cause of death will disagree with this approach and argue that objective and competent medical examiners are critical to protecting society from harm. The second illustration is deaths involving law enforcement.

One concern that has been raised about coroners is that they can be too closely linked to law enforcement and in some cases the coroner can be a law enforcement official, such as a sheriff. Those who think that the proper job of the death determiner is accurately determining the cause of death tend to think this is a problem and would prefer to have a medical examiner who is independent of law enforcement handle cases involving deaths caused by law enforcement. The reason is that such death determiners (be they coroners or medical examiners) can be biased in favor of law enforcement. They might even be inclined to lie about the cause of death to protect law enforcement. It is due to such concerns that families who can afford to pay for an independent autopsy or forensic examination often do so in cases when a relative is killed by the police. There is the reasonable concern that a forensic examination conducted by someone associated with law enforcement or who is otherwise biased will not be accurate. The George Floyd case provides an example of how this can occur. While replacing coroners would not completely solve this problem, it would be a step forward. Those who believe in just and fair policing favor this approach based on this value. But there are clearly those who hold to other values.

For racists and those who benefit from racism, having the death determiners biased in favor of law enforcement is advantageous. Having medical science serve white supremacy is a common practice and advantageous to the white supremacists. As such, they would see the purpose of the death determiner to assist in maintaining the existing order by classifying deaths in ways that protect the police. As such, the proper job of the death determiner is a matter of value. Those who value truth, public safety and justice will want death determiners who are competent and unbiased. Those who value the triumph of the white right will favor death determiners who are biased in their favor.

With a few notable exceptions, Republican politicians backed Trump’s big lie about the 2020 election. Now that Trump is back in office, the big lie has faded into the background. While most Republicans did not deny that Biden was President, they were reluctant to say that Biden won the election. They also used the big lie to “justify” passing new restrictive voting laws. As such, they claimed the election system was badly flawed and needed extensive fixes. Yet Republican politicians (other than Trump) did very well in 2020 and Trump won in 2024. All this leads to a logical problem for the Republicans; so, it is fortunate they seem immune to logic.

In a democracy, the legitimacy of an elected official depends on the legitimacy of their election. To the degree 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 was deeply flawed and allowed for widespread voter 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 professed: the legitimacy of the election and Biden’s presidency would have been in question. Let us also suppose that things are as bad as some Republicans claimed: there was so much fraud that the 2020 election is completely illegitimate. This would also call into question previous elections using the same flawed system. At this point, things would seem to be going just as the Republicans wished. And it would be if we stopped here and ignored what this entails.

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

If the Republicans claim they are legitimately holding office, then they must assert that the elections were legitimate and thus the restrictions they 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. But if they are legitimately holding office, then the elections went as all the evidence shows: correctly and securely. Hence their claims about the election are false and their “fixes” were not justified.

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

The obvious counter is to claim the Democrats were behind it all and hence the Republicans are legitimate. The easy and obvious reply is that there has been no evidence of widespread fraud and Trump and his fellows fared exceptionally badly in their lawsuits. And  things did not go 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, and the Democrats would have done much better in 2020.

While it would be morally irresponsible to do, the left could have claimed the Republicans were the fraudsters. Interestingly, this has more plausibility than Republican claims. First, the Republicans did very well in the 2020 election, so a conspiracy theorist could claim it was rigged by Republicans to get rid of Trump while allowing Republicans to do well down ballot. After all, while Republicans are backed Trump, they almost all expressed loathing for him before he won in 2016 and he was a deeply unpopular president. But the fact that Trump won in 2024 would undercut both the hypothetical liberal conspiracy theory and the actual Republican big lie.

Second, leftist conspiracy theorists could also point to the fact that Republicans are a numerical minority and 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 don’t think this is true; Republicans hold office disproportionately to the electorate because of things like voter suppression and gerrymandering rather than other forms of election fraud.

Third, it is Republicans who have been accused (with evidence) of or caught committing fraud. In Wisconsin, 10 Republicans were 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 still extremely rare, and the perpetrators are caught.

Obviously, I think that the election of 2020 was legitimate within the context of the established system. But this legitimacy entails that there was no need for the Republican laws restricting voting, aside from their desire to win elections. 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 restrictive laws.

While it is tempting to think of politics as the art of lying, I content it works best when done in good faith. This is based on my conventional political philosophy. As would be expected, I accept that the legitimacy of the state rests on the consent of the governed. As thinkers like Locke and Hobbes have advanced better arguments than I can provide, so I simply steal from them. 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 and this is why easy and secure voting is essential to the political legitimacy of a democratic state.

Lying in politics undermines legitimacy. If people make decisions based on lies, then they are not providing consent. After all, their decision might 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 (and thus consenting), there are some people who support voter restrictions only because they believe the lies. If they knew the truth, they would not consent.

The obvious counter is to argue that all that matters in politics is winning. While this does have some appeal, it rejects the notion that legitimacy depends on the consent of the governed. Which is something too many politicians have accepted.

Like Locke and many other thinkers, I also accept majority rule. Once again, I defer to the arguments offered by Locke and other thinkers. 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 danger of 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 is a matter of consent and 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 bill on free expression, 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 harm to the rights of citizens. This, as one would suspect, is why those who want to restrict liberty and rights lie about their intentions and the consequences of these restrictions. For example, Republicans in Florida have passed an anti-protest law by pitching it as an anti-riot law. This law seems to infringe on the First Amendment, but I am not a lawyer. Morally, however, it is wrong because it is aimed at suppressing free expression through the threat of coercion.

I also agree with Locke’s that the purpose of the state is the good of the people. While there is debate 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 obliged to listen when people state their interests, it also entails they should be honest when doing so. One reason is that if someone lies about their political interests, then consent cannot be given as their fraud precludes it. Another reason is that a false interest is not a real interest. So when a person lies about their interest, they sabotage the process of achieving the good of the people. After all, the rest of us cannot consider a person’s interests when they are lying about them.

As would be expected, people often lie about their interests when they think others would see them 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. For example, various states rushed  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 acted from this interest. The easy way to check is to investigate the laws. What can often be more telling is to look at what they have not done. For example, Republicans in Florida claimed 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, for example, ratified the ERA. As such, their profession of an interest in fairness would seem a lie. Rather, their interest seems to be signaling that they also hate and fear trans people. Obviously, if they presented their real interest in good faith, that would make them look terrible. 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. One example of this is the big lie 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 tried 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 Genocide for the entertainment of the vegans.

To ensure she wins, Karen also makes sure that the vote is conducted while those who would vote against her are absent. 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 and then breaks out into a song about how meat eaters all go to hell.

While some of the team grumbles, 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 since “owning” Doug makes it all worthwhile. A few teammates believe Karen and Tucker and 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 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.

Since the United States has only two major parties, each includes people with very different political philosophies. For example, Harris differs greatly from Bernie Sanders. The Republican Party has become more ideologically homogenous, but it also contains some degree of diversity. Although the anti-Trump Republicans have been assimilated or purged.

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 here. But such a view, that the practical is all that matters, is a political philosophy and usually a simplistic one.

Politics is a construct of the human mind and built from and upon ideas. As such, even the simplest version of politics requires a 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 do not believe or are willing to 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 saw the party embrace the big lie of widespread election fraud. They used this lie to push laws aimed at restricting voting and this is an explicit rejection of 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. Now one rises or falls within this political system based on one’s usefulness and fealty to him. 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 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 past threats against businesses that opposed 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. 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.