Contemporary philosophers and social scientists have added new terms to their lexicons to reflect modern American politics.   Philosophers are now referring to “the Republican paradox,” “the Republican dilemma” and “delusional justification.”  Social scientist are now discussing what they call “ideological intransigence.”

 According to modern philosophers, “The Republican Paradox” is a situation where a person (or persons) demands vehemently that something must be done and then does absolutely everything possible to prevent it.  What complicates this paradox is that the insisting party does not specifically define what that “something” should be so whatever solution is proposed it is not acceptable.

Another new term adopted by modern philosophers is “The Republican dilemma.”  (In philosophy you will find the terms, “moral dilemma” or “ethical dilemma.”  You can find lists of them on the internet.  One of the most well-known is “The trolley dilemma.”)  Here is the new dilemma established by philosophers, called “The Republican dilemma.”

You are a person in power.  In your position, you can do a great deal of good for people in need, e.g., provide food, a living wage or medical attention.  However, you have obtained your power by receiving large amounts of money and political support from certain interests who oppose, for their own reasons, helping people in need.  Now you must decide whether to help less fortunate people which might be the ethically preferable choice, or not to help them so you will continue to receive large amounts of money and support and keep your position of power.

The new philosophical term “delusional justification” means convincing yourself that you are doing what is required of you but actually that’s not what you do.  For example, assume you are the leader of a legislative body and you declare you are “doing the will of the people.”  You absolutely insist on that although polls show you are opposing just about everything the majority of the people want.   A facet of this is that you blame it on someone else for not “taking responsibility” when, in fact, you and your legislative body do not take responsibility for anything.   

Also, social scientists have recently established a new term, “ideological intransigence.” This means insisting on a position that bears little or no semblance to reality or common sense or has no basis in scientific fact.  For example, you insist there is no such thing as global warning although most science says there is.  Other examples are declaring the world is 6,000 years old and evolution is just a “theory” and people are poor because they want to be.  As social scientists have pointed out, maintaining a position of ideological intransigence is advantageous for keeping a position of power (see Republican dilemma above).  In the case of ideological intransigence, the reward is not necessarily monetary (as in the Republican dilemma) but the advantage of exploiting ignorance to retain your position of power.

In line with these developments in philosophical and social science terminology, lexicographers have determined that “Republican logic” is an oxymoron.  Oxymoron is a word that actually exists (it is a self-contradictory locution, e.g. “compassionate conservatism”) and is not to be construed to contain any reference to what may actually apply to Republicans.