Characteristics of Demagoguery
In popular usage, “demagoguery” simply means “effective
rhetoric on behalf of a political agenda I dislike.” Not only is that a useless
definition, but, if anything, it increases the likelihood of people being
persuaded by demagoguery. The term once meant “leader of the non-elite” so,
essentially, “populist,” and it wasn’t necessarily a criticism. By the 4th
century BCE, it seems to have been used often to mean a destructive approach to
popular discourse, one that undermines the chances of a community coming to an
effective solution to their problems.
If one works backwards from times that communities have been
persuaded to solve their problems in ways that ultimately destroy them (such as
engaging in genocide, denying rights to some group, or starting an expensive
and unnecessary war) one ends up with a definition that does NOT emphasize
populism or emotionalism, something like this:
Demagoguery
is a discourse that promises stability, certainty, and escape from the
responsibilities of rhetoric through framing public policy in terms of the
degree to which and means by which (not whether) the outgroup should be
punished for the current problems of the ingroup. Public debate largely
concerns three stases: group identity (who is in the ingroup, what signifies
outgroup membership, and how loyal rhetors are to the ingroup); need (usually
framed in terms of how evil the outgroup is); what level of punishment to enact
against the outgroup (restriction of rights to extermination).
Demagoguery is always
polarizing, and always relies on
binaries. It is not distinguished by emotionalism or populism, not only because
lots of very good and helpful methods of deliberation are emotional and
populist, but because it is often not emotional at all, and quite often elite
discourse. Demagoguery can look
“rational” in that it can provide a lot of data, numbers, assertions, and even
analyses (as in Grant’s Passing of the
Great Race, or Laughlin’s report for the 1924 Immigration Act).
It has certain characteristics:
Binary paired terms.
A concept described by Chaim Perelman, paired terms are sets of binaries that
are assumed to describe a logical relationship. So, for instance, a common set
of paired terms in demagoguery is:
Thus, one either punishes or rewards others. To punish
others is strong and manly; to reward them is weak and girly.
Naïve realism.
Many people believe that it is both possible and desirable to perceive the
world exactly as it is, with no mediation; the most “objective” interpretation
is the one with the least interpretation, a mental state to which one can will
oneself largely by rejecting complicated thinking about the situation. This
model of perception (and cognition) assumes that one’s perception of the world
is based on “realistic, unbiased interpretations” (“Naive Realism”Encyclopedia of Social Psychology Ed.
Roy F. Baumeister and Kathleen D. Vohs. Vol. 2. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications, 2007. p602-603.).
Naïve realism privileges simple explanations (since they are
most likely to correspond to direct perception), and increases the tendency
toward confirmation bias (since people tend to perceive more easily and quickly
any information that confirms their current beliefs). Thus, paradoxically, the
belief that one is the sort of person who always sees the world exactly as it
is increases the likelihood not just of being wrong, but of being wrong in the
same ways and about the same things over and over.
Finally, naïve realism enhances faith in group entitativity (the
belief that groups are discrete categories with essential differences) and
negates any need to consider one’s beliefs in terms of falsifiability. In
short, while adherents of naïve realism believe that they have direct
perception of the world, they are singularly prone to bigotry and
authoritarianism.
Authoritarianism.
Authoritarianism as a worldview (rather than political system) has three main
aspects:
First, authoritarian submission is one's willingness to comply with established
authorities placing very narrow limits on people's rights to criticize
authorities. Second, authoritarians advocate sanction against those whom they
deem detrimental to established authorities. Authoritarian aggression is
enhanced by the belief that established authority at least tacitly approves it
or that it will help preserve established authority. Thus, the theory of authoritarianism is closely related to the theory of
social dominance. Finally, authoritarians tend to commit to the traditional
social norms that are endorsed by society and its established authorities.
Targets of authoritarian aggressiveness are often directed toward
unconventional people or those defined as social deviants, such as homosexuals.
(“Authoritarianism.” Encyclopedia of
Political Communication Ed. Lynda Lee Kaid and Christina Holtz-Bacha. Vol.
1. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2008. p45-47. Joon Soo Lim)
Demagoguery correlates strongly to authoritarianism; in
fact, I haven’t found any non-authoritarian demagoguery (although I think, in the
abstract, it is possible).
Authoritarians fear change, and yet, paradoxically, are not
averse to enacting radical and very new policies as long as they are framed as
a return to or strengthening of “conventional” or “traditional” values. While
authoritarians say they are strongly in favor of “traditional” values, those
values are often of very recent origin. In other words, “traditional” is not a
historical claim (that is, a claim that historical research will show these
values, actions, or beliefs to have a long and broad history) but a personal
claim (that these values and so on are all that this person has known—it is
surprising to me how often “traditional” simply means “how I was raised”).
Assumption/assertion
of ontologically-grounded taxonomies. Perhaps because demagoguery relies on
binaries, it assumes that either things (ideas, perceptions, values, illnesses,
identities, personalities) are either entirely subjective (that is, defined by
idiosyncratic belief, transient, and essentially unreal) or entirely objective
(that is, eternal, Real, and existing entirely outside individual perception).
Thus, demagoguery has tremendous difficulty with social constructed “facts”
(such as race, money, gender norms, cultural practices). Such concepts are
assumed to be either subjective (so that they claim not to see race) or
grounded in the very fabric of the cosmos (and therefore beliefs to which we must submit).
Coupled with naïve realism, this means that demagoguery imagines public
deliberation as a place in which people with accurate perception point out the
Real Truth to others who, if they are also capable of unmediated perception,
will instantly see it. Public discourse is, in other words, primarily a realm
in which one demonstrates the clarity of one’s vision, one’s ingroup
membership, one’s loyalty to that group, and one’s willingness to engage in
punitive action on behalf of the ingroup/against the outgroup(s).
Deductive reasoning. Hence,
demagoguery is all about certainty, accuracy, and “facts,” all of which can be deduced
from 1) “traditional” practices, values, beliefs (as defined above—they are the
most familiar and comfortable to the audience); 2) “traditional”
interpretations of authoritative texts; 3) reasoning backwards from what must necessarily be true to maintain
current hierarchies (racial, gender, national, or economic).
Thus, demagoguery often reasons from what “must” be true,
even in cases when there is adequate empirical evidence. To argue for a
particular policy that has often been enacted, one does not reason from what has happened in the past when these
policies were enacted, but from what must
or should happen if one’s premises
are correct. Premises are thereby protected from falsification—the very things
that might throw them into question (conditions in which they are shown to be
falsified) is rejected precisely on the grounds that it would falsify the
premises.
-->
Because of this reliance on deductive reasoning that works
from premises guarded from falsification, there is a strong tendency in
demagoguery to refuse to redeem claims—that is, demagoguery will not provide
evidence that demonstrates the major premises, only arguments deducible from
them, or examples (or citations) that support them.
Hence, while demagoguery can look rational (in the sense of having a lot of data and not
necessarily having any emotional appeals) what makes it profoundly illogical is
that the logic of the arguments often wraps in on itself.
Identity as logic. Probably
the most complicated aspect of demagoguery to describe is how identity
functions. The central presumption behind demagoguery—and the most attractive
promise it makes—is a stable taxonomy of identity, woven into the fabric of the
universe. The taxonomy is also a hierarchy; some people are entitled to more
goods than others by virtue of being better—they are better by virtue of having
a certain identity, regardless of their behavior. Hence, paradoxically, members
of the ingroup (by virtue of being essentially “better” people) are held to
lower standards, and can behave worse.
Bad behavior on the part of ingroup members is explained
externally (they made a mistake, they were forced into it) and is dismissed as
meaningless; bad behavior on the part of outgroup members, however, signifies
their true identity. Good behavior on the part of ingroup members signifies
their true identity, and good behavior on the part of outgroup members is
explained by external characteristics or bad motives.
One consequence is that precisely the same behavior in both
groups is explained in dyslogistic terms for the outgroup (they are greedy) and
eulogistic terms for the ingroup (they are hard-working). This dichotomy
enables projection (explained below).
Another consequence is that effective performance of ingroup
membership serves as adequate evidence for one’s claims (people believe the
argument because the person seems reliable) and dismissal of counter-claims (she
can’t have done that because she is such a good X).
Projection.
Demagoguery relies on condemning the outgroup for what the ingroup is doing.
This step is absolutely necessary for scapegoating (that is, for holding some
group responsible for the ingroup’s problems). This projection has several forms.
Fallacy of moral equivalence. Because demagoguery relies on and
reinforces naïve realism, it appeals to a sense that everyone is just like the
ingroup, and that helps members of the ingroup to believe that the outgroup(s)
is doing exactly what they are; coupled with a sense that all outgroup members
are interchangeable with one another, this sense means that one can accuse
everyone in the outgroup of doing “just as much” as what the ingroup is doing.
Or, in other words, if the ingroup is engaged in any activity that creates
cognitive dissonance (we are an honorable group and we are engaged in this dishonorable activity) this dissonance
is resolved by asserting that the outgroup does it too. Because that enables
the “both sides do it” topos, this belief inhibits any desire bystanders might
have to engage in condemnation of scapegoating. It’s the fallacy of false
equivalence in that the behavior of fringe members of the outgroup is equated
to central members of the ingroup, or single instances of violence are framed
as “just as bad” as mass violence, or minor ingroup inconveniences are equated
to denial of rights, or criticism is framed as “just as bad” as hate speech
(i.e., calling someone racist is “just as bad” as saying something racist).
Cunning projection. Condemning the outgroup for the same thing the
ingroup does effectively distracts on-lookers, making it complicated for them
to figure out the cause-effect. For instance, demagoguery that condemns
outgroup self-defense as “just as bad” as ingroup offensive violence
necessitates that on-lookers investigate the chain of events carefully enough to
figure out who was the attacker. Since on-lookers generally don’t want to go to
that trouble, they are likely to make the determination on the basis of which
party seems more likeable. Hence, cunning projection coupled with an attractive
persona is likely to enable the continued violence.
If condemnation of outgroup
behavior is performed with a very likeable persona, then on-lookers are likely
to conclude that the rhetor would never engage in the behavior s/he is
condemning. This maneuver is especially effective with people who believe that
you can know what someone believes by listening to what values they claim to
espouse, and with people who think you can predict behavior by listening to
values talk (who believe that “good” believe—that is, people who say the right
things—don’t do “bad” things).
Thus, when cunning projection is
most effective, rhetors manage the condemnation of a group who has done
nothing, or done very little compared to what they have done (what Allport
called the “mote-beam” projection).
Even if it doesn’t achieve that end,
cunning projection generally muddies the waters enough that the ingroup can
continue its policies, as on-lookers are prone to declare a pox on both houses.
Victimization.
One thing that surprises people about demagoguery, or that they don’t expect to
see, is that it relies heavily on a rhetoric of victimization. The ingroup is
being victimized by the situation (often by being treated the same as the
outgroup, so there is a kind of political narcissism operating), and the claim
is that the ingroup has responded to this victimization with extraordinary
patience and kindness. (If the actual history is disenfranchisement and
violence, then that behavior is reframed and patience and kindness because it
could have been worse.)
Now, however, to react with anything other than punitive violence (to try to
think about the situation, or deliberate on it, or include the outgroup in any
deliberations) is weak, vacillating, cowardly, and feminine.
As a consequence, demagoguery has to square the circle of
inspiring fear while not looking fearful (since fearfulness is being paired
with thinking and deliberating)—there are often claims of extraordinary courage
in the face of a terrible situation, or a representation of one’s self as calm
and reasonable while making apocalyptic predictions, and the odd insistence of the
sheer rationality of hyperbolic claims (I will admit, this is one aspect of
demagoguery that often makes me laugh).
Metaphors. In
addition to heavy reliance on the metaphors related to Strong Father Morality
(see Lakoff, Moral Politics,
especially Chapters Five and Six), demagoguery associates metaphors of vermin,
disease, taint, queerness (that is, transgressive behavior), monstrosity (that
is, hybridity), disorder, lack of control (licentiousness), thinking, and
demonic possession with the outgroup. It associates purity, tumescence
(specifically, and masculinity, generally), order, action, decisiveness, and
control with the ingroup. It associates dithering, wavering, impaired
masculinity, and weakness with people considering protecting or defending the
outgroup in any way.