If you look up the definition of the word "demagogue" or check the Wikipedia entry for it, you'll see it all there, in black and white. The characteristics of most of our politicians, and of one of them especially, as well as their "playbook" are set forth in some detail. Lying, fearmongering, scapegoating, personal insults and attacks--it's like a roll call of conduct engaged in by the most indicted candidate in the history of our Great Union, and likely of any other nation.
It's easy enough to learn what demagogues are and what they do. They're of a type and have done the same things throughout our history, beginning with the first known demagogue, Cleon of Athens, born in the 5th century B.C.E. No doubt there were others before him, whose names we just don't know.
The most simple and succinct definition of "demagogue" of which I'm aware is that provided by H.L. Mencken: "The demagogue is one who preaches doctrines he knows to be untrue to men he knows to be idiots." The demagogue is a prolific liar who has learned that in certain circumstances, particularly in matters of politics, lies are important because they'll be believed by those who either cannot think or refuse to do so. Mencken viewed democracy as so stupid a form of government that it encourages, and perhaps even requires, demagogues because so much is left to the decisions of the ordinary voter and the intelligence of the ordinary voter is minimal. The success of demagogues throughout history makes one wonder if he's right.
A demagogue, however, isn't necessarily as stupid as those who believes the lies he makes. A demagogue need only appear to be, or pretend to be, as much of an idiot as those who support him. So it is a mistake to take a demagogue lightly. A demagogue may be just intelligent enough to take advantage of others by inciting fear, or anger, or envy and promising the world to them, or posing as the only person who can save them from the evils he has conjured. It's more likely that a demagogue is ignorant, or is a sociopath, than a fool.
One thing seems apparent. It isn't necessary that a demagogue be physically attractive or impressive to be successful. The most successful one of this time in our Great Republic seems to me to be an oddity. Perhaps it's the hair. His "mug shot" which his followers think is so beguiling makes him look as if he's about to burst into tears of frustration such as a child might do when deprived of a favorite toy or treat. Hitler certainly wasn't an impressive looking man, though his propagandists did their best to make him so, portraying him in a knight's armor and other manly guises. Mussolini took on the appearance of a marionette. He would have made a fine bobble head. Joe McCarthy looked like a small-time mafioso.
Demagogues are said to have charisma, but if that's the case it seems charisma is unrelated to physical appearance.
What accounts for the success of demagogues? Why is it that the techniques employed by them down through the centuries are so well known, and ultimately lead to disaster, but succeed again and again?
Clearly, there's something wrong with us.
It's enough to cause one to despair of democracy as a viable form of government. But the curious thing is that the aims of demagogues and their followers are not democratic at all. They're autocratic or totalitarian, in fact. So, democracy may itself be viable, but be subject to perversion by its nature given a propensity to accept demagogues. This is a weakness not in the democratic form of government but in those governed. Democracy may be a form of government that's intended only for the intelligent.
The painting shown above, by the way, is called The Demagogue and is by Jose Clemente Orozco.
No comments:
Post a Comment