Category: Politics

In addition to the pandemic, 2020 was marked by “the deadliest gun violence in decades.” Since then, the US continues to lead the world in gun violence. Those on the left, broadly construed, profess to want to address gun violence. Those on the right, broadly construed, offer thoughts and prayers after each mass shooting and then obstruct efforts to address gun violence.

While the right tries to appeal to an inviolable constitutional right they love, this is clearly a bad faith position. After all, the party has been busy restricting voting rights and curtailing liberties and rights they dislike. As such, a true claim would be that the right favors a narrow set of rights for a narrow set of people and gun rights for white people is a major intersection of these sets.

To pre-empt the usual ad hominem and straw man attacks, my backstory as a guy from Maine who grew up hunting and shooting gives me a positive feeling about guns. Subjectively, my gun experiences have been positive, such as hunting with my dad. I am well aware that other people have radically different experiences that shape how they feel about guns.

From a philosophical standpoint, I have also argued in favor of weapon rights as part of the right to self-defense. This justification does, of course, run up against another of my views in political philosophy. Stealing from Locke and Hobbes, I think that we give up some of our rights when we enter civil society and one can make a good case that this can include the right to possess certain weapons. Somewhat ironically, the people who are mistreated by the political and economic systems would have the best claim to possess and use weapons against those who would harm them. This view is generally the exact opposite of what is pushed by the right. A white couple “protecting” themselves from peaceful protestors legally walking by their property are presented by some as heroes. Minorities who seek to arm themselves are seen in a rather different light. As such, when the right tries to block attempts to address gun violence by appeals to rights, they are generally acting in bad faith: they are not principled defenders of rights, they are working to defend very specific rights for  very specific people. But on to the focus of this essay.

When laws are proposed to address gun violence, one stock tactic of the right is to bring up Chicago. This city is infamous for its gun violence. The Chicago Tribune has a web page, updated weekly, that provides daily totals of shooting victims in the city. It even has an interactive map that allows people to search for shootings. One cannot deny that the city has a problem with gun violence. My adopted city of Tallahassee also has a crime map, it shows the location of shootings as well.

As one would expect, there have been efforts to address this violence by passing gun control laws. While Illinois does not have the strictest gun laws in the United States (California seems stricter), the laws are stricter than most other states. And yet, as noted above, gun violence is still a serious problem. From this, folks on the right often infer that gun laws do not work. On the face of it, their logic would seem good:

 

Premise 1: If gun control laws worked, then Chicago would have less gun violence.

Premise 2: Chicago does not have less gun violence.

Conclusion: Gun control laws do not work.

 

Thus, it is no surprise that the “Chicago Card” is regularly played to “refute” efforts to address gun violence by new laws. Unfortunately, this gambit is a cheat: while the logic seems good, a little consideration shows that it has serious flaws. That this is the case can be shown by the following analogy.

Suppose that you live in an apartment complex and would prefer to not die in a fire. So, you install a smoke detector, you buy a fire extinguisher, you don’t allow open flames in your apartment, you do not store oily rags next to your stove and so on for all the sensible things to do to avoid death by fire. But then your apartment burns and you die in the fire. Using the logic of the right, this is how people should reason:

 

Premise 1: If fire prevention practices and rules worked, then you would not have died in the fire.

Premise 2: You died in the fire.

Conclusion: Fire prevention practices and rules do not work.

 

But this seems problematic. Intuitively, these practices and rules would seem to work and should reduce the chances of dying in a fire. So, what went wrong? One possibility is, of course, possibility: things can always go wrong. No sensible person claims that taking precautions against fire will always work. Likewise, the same can happen with gun laws. But, of course, Chicago is place where the metaphorical fires keep occurring—so the idea that it is just bad luck does not hold up. So, we need to look more at the cause of the fires.

Going back to your apartment building, suppose your immediate neighbors also took the same precautions as you, but their apartments were also consumed by fire. If the investigation stopped there, one might conclude that precautions do not matter and having rules about fire safety are pointless. But suppose that the investigators decided to trace the fire to its starting point, and they find the fire began in apartments whose inhabitants took few precautions against fires and some, in fact, engaged in dangerous behavior like leaving burning candles unattended. In this case, the inference would not be that fire prevention and practice do not work. Rather, it would be that to have the best chance of working, then everyone needs to follow these measures. Otherwise, the laxity of some can kill others even if they take precautions.

Chicago is like the apartment where fire safety is practiced. Other states around Illinois are like the apartments without good safety practices. So, just as a fire is more likely to start in those other apartments and spread, guns are likely to come into Chicago from states that have less restrictive rules. As such, Chicago’s gun violence does not prove that restrictions do not work. Rather, it shows that a lack of restrictions in other states can negate restrictions in one state. As such, the Chicago argument is either a bad faith argument, or an a made in ignorance of how things work.

In closing, it might be true that laws would not meaningfully reduce gun violence but pointing to Chicago no more proves that then pointing to a burned-out apartment of a person who was careful about fire proves that fire safety would not meaningfully reduce fire deaths. Now, if everyone practiced fire safety and fire deaths not diminished, then we could conclude that fire safety was useless. Likewise, if all states had restrictive gun laws that were enforced and gun deaths never diminished, then we could conclude they were useless. But this is not the case.

In the face of real problems, the Republican legislature of my adopted state of Florida has been busy addressing fictional problems and undermining democracy. For example, HB 233, the “Viewpoint Diversity” bill, was signed by Governor DeSantis. When Republicans were asked for examples of problems the bill was intended to address, they could only refer to some parents being worried about things that might happen because the Republicans had been scaring them about things that have not happened. This is obviously the best possible justification for expanding the coercive power of the state.

I am a member of the United Faculty of Florida, a union for faculty. As would be expected, Florida Republicans do not like this union any more than they like most other unions, the police unions being a notable and expected exception. The Republican ideal seems to be that employees should face off against institutions and businesses as isolated individuals, operating from a position of weakness. Engaging with an employer as an individual is like trying to play alone against a full football team: the worker is going to get crushed. I do admit the obvious: unions can have problems. But pointing to things unions have done wrong no more proves that unions are inherently bad than pointing to things employers have done wrong proves that employers are inherently bad.

As would be expected, the UFF sent an email informing us of the law and making recommendations on how to teach in the climate it created. One provision of the law is that students can record lectures without notice and without consent; although there are some limits on how the recordings can be used. As is often the case with Republican laws, this seems to already be allowed by existing laws.

In Florida, it is a crime to record a person without their consent. The exception is for in-person communication when all the parties do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy. An example of this would be holding a conversation in a public space where they could be overheard. A reasonable case can be made that a classroom in a public university is a public space and there is no expectation of privacy when a professor is lecturing. Naturally, there can be cases in the classroom where privacy is expected. For example, if I am speaking to a student after class about their grade and someone is hiding in the hallway recording us, then they would seem to be breaking the law. While I am not a lawyer, I had always operated under the assumption that my lectures could be recorded by students without breaking this wiretapping law: I do not believe that I have an expectation of privacy when I am teaching a class at my public university. That said, a case can be made for such an expectation of privacy.

One could argue that the classroom at a public university is not a public space where there is no expectation of privacy. After all, at class time the classroom is intended for the students enrolled in the class and there is a mechanism for auditing the class. As such, a professor could contend that they have an expectation that the lecture will only be heard by the students enrolled in the class. The class is private for the students and the fact that there are many students does not eliminate the expectation of privacy. I am sympathetic to this view, especially if one considers the students in the class.

Students often, perhaps wrongly, think of the classroom as a private space in terms of being able to express themselves and even to bring up personal matters. For example, a student might want to discuss an incident in which they were the victim of a crime during a course on criminal justice or ethics. As another example, student with atheist parents might want to discuss aspects of their faith in a religion class. If a student is secretly recording the classes, these students will end up in the recordings. As such, one impact of this law might be that students will be even more reluctant to talk in class. In any case, they do have the moral right to know that one of their number might be recording everything in the classroom. I obviously have a moral obligation to inform my students that this is something that can happen.

In my case, the law changed little. I have been recording my classes for years. Students have never asked to not be recorded, but they have always had the moral right to make this request in my classes. But defenders of the law can argue that students should not be worried because the law limits how these secret, non-consensual recordings can be used.

Lectures are presumably protected by copyright laws, and the law seems to respect this somewhat. Such recordings can be used only “for a student’s own personal educational use”, “in connection with a complaint to the public institution of higher education where the recording was made” and “as evidence in, or in preparation for, a criminal or civil proceeding.”

The first use might strike some as very generous; imagine, for example, if a law allowed people to take a camera to a commercial play or movie and record the show for their own personal use later. That said, people are allowed to make recordings in certain contexts for later viewing, so one could take that as the better analogy. 

The second use seems a bit vague and perhaps would allow some abuse, but one could argue that students have a right to record evidence they will use as the basis of a complaint. That said, there is already an existing complaint process and, as noted above, the Republicans have not provided evidence that there is a significant problem that would warrant a new law. But this is to be expected, since the intent of the law seems to be not to protect students but to intimidate professors.

The third use would probably strike most as eminently reasonable: if a professor is doing crimes in the classroom, then they would be hard pressed to make a moral or legal case for a right to do crimes in private. But, as has often been noted, the Republicans have not provided evidence that this is a significant problem or that the matter was not adequately addressed by existing laws.

If a recording is used for other purposes, a faculty member can seek damages of up to $200,000. But, of course, people can already sue anyone for anything, so putting this in the law just limits the damages. Students do, of course, have an easy workaround: they can record a lecture, make a complaint and then the video could end up a matter of public record.

Since I have been recording and distributing my lectures for years, I was and am not worried about the impact of the law on me. However, I was concerned about the intent of the law. One clear motivation was to rile up the base and create the illusion that the Republicans are solving a problem (they made up).  It also allows the Republicans to say they are “owning the libs.” This seems to be much more important to them then engaging in real governance.  The most worrisome motivation is that this law is intended as a Soviet style threat to faculty: “anyone in your class could be a spy, so you had better watch what you say, comrade.”

The right has long been interested in “spying”  on professors and in 2006 a right wing group even offered to pay students to do just that. This tactic of spying goes beyond the classroom and includes attempts to infiltrate political organization. As a counter, one might contend that the media also engages in “spying” operations to gather information about groups. However, there are important differences between an investigation conducted by a professional media organization and partisan “spying.” A key difference is that a professional investigation is aimed at determining the truth of the matter, while partisan “spying” is aimed at a political agenda and hence includes a willingness to distort and mislead. I am, of course, aware of the right-wing view that the liberal media is biased. To the degree that this claim has merit, I would certainly share their concerns.

In closing, my classes include a concise and neutral statement to my students making it clear they have every right to record my class in accord with this law. I also make it clear that they should always keep in mind that someone could be recording them in the class without their knowledge or consent.

As a philosopher, I annoy people in many ways. One is that I almost always qualify the claims I make. This is not to weasel (weakening a claim to protect it from criticism) but because I am aware of my epistemic limitations: as Socrates said, I know that I know nothing. People often prefer claims made with certainty and see expressions of doubt as signs of weakness. Another way I annoy people is by presenting alternatives to my views and providing reasons as to why they might be right. This has a downside of complicating things and can be confusing. Because of these, people often ask me “what do you really believe!?!” I then annoy the person more by noting what I think is probably true but also insisting I can always be wrong. This is for the obvious reason that I can always be wrong. I also annoy people by adjusting my views based on credible changes in available evidence. This really annoys people: one is supposed to stick to one view and adjust the evidence to suit the belief. The origin story of COVID-19 provides an excellent example for discussing this sort of thing.

When COVID first appeared in China, speculation about its origin began and people often combined distinct claims without considering they need not be combined. One set of claims is the origin of COVID. Some claims are that it is either naturally occurring or was engineered in the lab. At this point, the best explanation is that the virus is naturally occurring. But since humans do engineer viruses, it is possible the virus was engineered. The obvious challenge is to provide proof and merely asserting it is not enough. So, at this point my annoying position is that the best evidence is that the virus is naturally occurring, but new evidence could change my position.

Other claims are about the origin of the infection. Some claim it entered the human population through a wet market. Some claim it arrived via some other human-bat interactions. There is also the claim that it originated from a lab. All of these are plausible. We know diseases can originate in markets and spread. We know that labs are run by people and people make mistakes and can be sloppy at work. We know humans interact with animals and disease can spread this way.

Back at the start of the last pandemic, I favored the wet market hypothesis because it seemed  best supported by the available evidence. Diseases do jump from livestock to humans, so this claim was plausible. However, the possibility that the virus leaked from the lab has gained credibility. While there is not yet decisive evidence, this hypothesis is credible enough to warrant serious investigation. I do not have a vested interest in backing any particular hypothesis.

There are also claims about whether it was intentional. Some it was an accident. Some claim the virus was intentionally introduced, and nefarious reasons vary between the hypotheses. Accidents are regular occurrences and things are always going wrong. But people intentionally do evil and have various reasons for doing so, ranging from making money, to getting more power, to seeking revenge, to all the other reasons people do bad things. As it now stands, there is little or no evidence that a malign actor intentionally introduced the virus into the population. But evidence could certainly arise. People have done worse things. The malign actor hypothesis is also an umbrella: one must select specific evildoers as the culprit, though there could be many. As always, evidence is needed to support any claims.

It is important to distinguish between the different claims and to keep in mind that evidence that supports one claim might not support another claim often associated with it.

A common mistake is confusing how conjunctions work with how disjunctions work. In logic, a disjunction is an “or” claim which is true when one or both disjuncts is/are true. For example, if I say that I will bring beer or tequila to the party, then my claim is true unless I show up with neither. Showing up with one or the other or both makes that disjunction true.

In the case of a conjunction, both conjuncts must be true for the statement to be true. So, If I say I will bring hot dogs and buns to the party, then I must show up with both for my claim to be true. While it might seem like an odd and obvious mistake, people can treat a conjunction like a disjunction when they want to claim the conjunction is true. In some cases, people will do this intentionally in bad faith. This has been done in the case of COVID.

As noted above, the lab leak hypothesis for COVID has gained credibility. Because of this, some might conclude the virus was also manufactured. The person could think that because there is reason to believe the virus leaked from a lab, then it is also true that it was manufactured. If it is true that the virus was leaked, then one part of the claim “the virus was manufactured and leaked” would be true, namely that it was manufactured. So, someone might be tempted to take the entire claim as true (or make the claim in bad faith). After all, if it were true that the virus was leaked, then it would be true that it was leaked or it was manufactured. But this would be a matter of logic; it would thus also be true that the virus was leaked, or unicorns exist. As always, it is important to determine which part of a conjunction is supported by the evidence. If both claims are not supported, then you do not have good reason to accept the conjunction as true. The last annoying thing I will look at is the fact that being right does not mean a person was justified.

Suppose tomorrow brings irrefutable proof the virus was leaked from a lab. Those devoted to this claim would probably take this as proof they were right all along. On the one hand, they would be correct: they were right all along, and other people were wrong. But since at least Plato philosophers have distinguished between having a true belief and having justification for this belief. After all, one can be right for bad reasons, such as guessing or from prejudice. For example, a person who likes horror-sci fi might believe the lab leak because they like that narrative. As another example, a racist might accept the lab leak hypothesis because of their prejudices. A nationalist might go with the lab leak because they think China is an inferior country. And so on. But believing on these grounds would not justify the belief; they would have just gotten lucky. As such, their being right would be just a matter of luck—they guessed right based on bad reasons.

One thing people often find confusing about critical thinking and science is that a person can initially be justified in a belief that ultimately turns out false. This is because initial evidence can sometimes warrant belief in claims that are later disproved. In such cases, a person would be wrong but would have all the right reasons to believe. Some of this is because of the problem of induction (with inductive reasoning, the conclusion can always turn out to be false) and some of it is because humans have limited and flawed epistemic abilities.

People who do not understand this will tend to think these good methods are defective because they do not always get the truth immediately and they do not grasp that a person can be reasoning well but still end up being wrong. Such people often embrace methods of belief formation that are incredibly unreliable, such as following authoritarian leaders or unqualified celebrities.  If the evidence does turn out to eventually support these initially unjustified beliefs, they do not seem to get that this is how the process works: false claims, one hopes, eventually get shown to be false and better supported claims replace them. As such, those who rejected the lab hypothesis earlier because of the lack of evidence but are now considering it based on the new evidence are doing things right. They are adjusting based on the evidence. I suspect that some approach belief in claims like they might see belief in religion: you pick one and stick with it and if you luck out, then you win. But that is not how rational belief formation works.

What, then, about someone who believed in the lab hypothesis early on and was rational about it? Well, to the degree they had good evidence for their claim, then they deserve credit. However, if they believed without adequate justification, then their being correct was a matter of chance and not the result of some special clarity of reason. To close, people should keep advancing plausible alternatives as this is an important function in seeking the truth. So those who kept the lab hypothesis going because they rationally considered it a possible explanation do deserve their due credit.

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.

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.