The Day of the Demagogue

 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.

Mencken the Prophet? Democracy and the Moron

Hearken to the words of H.L. Mencken, the great Sage of Baltimore:

“As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.”

I suppose some would say that day has already come and gone.  I'm uncertain about that, but if it has not one can make a good case that it will, soon enough. 

Mencken had little or no faith in democracy, as may be expected from a lover of Nietzsche.  Democracy was for Mencken what Christianity was for Frantic Freddie, I believe; that is to say, an institution the purpose of which is to impede and restrict as far as possible the "superior man."  Mencken's regard for the preening Nietzsche, that relentless purveyor of exclamations, pronouncements and rhetorical questions, was his great fault in my opinion.  But in a way his elitism was understandable then and still is now. 

Ultimately, in politics and other things, we get what we deserve if not what we want.  So if elect a moron we will most certainly deserve him.  Are we destined to elect one?  Was Mencken right about democracy?

The question whether democracy is a desirable form of government has been asked for quite some time.  Democracy was of course rejected by Plato.  He preferred that we be led on a grim, dreary death-march to perfection, unfettered by art and amusement, grouped in closely regulated ranks separated one from the other though we would be able to advance if we show promise in our steps, perhaps even attaining, eventually, the ranks of the Guardians marching before us.

An enlightened despotism has been the dream of many intellectuals, and was even for a time at least favored by such a friend to liberty as J.S. Mill.  As I recall, he thought that this happy dictatorship would represent a stage in our development.  Our ignorance and brutish character would be limited while molded by a despot or despotism of an elite until that glorious day when we would be able to think for ourselves.  Then, I think, we might be able to vote, even, though certain votes would count for more than others.

There have been relatively few democratic nations over time; perhaps there have been none, really, since the days of the Greek city-states.  Even God's favorite country, the United States, is not a democracy, nor was it intended to be one.  It is a republic.  The Founders didn't want a true democracy, fearing the tyranny of the majority, fearing more the mob, the common folk.  They would have been horrified by universal suffrage. 

So, Mencken wasn't right, strictly speaking, to think of this nation as a democracy.  The shrewd lawyers and merchants, and rich farmers, who created this nation were careful in their efforts to make certain that there would be no democracy so long as the Constitution and institutions they created persevere.  The fabled checks and balances we learned of in school (or learned of once, in any case) are there not only to limit the powers of any one branch of our government, but also to prevent majority rule.

Thus we may take heart from the fact that the moron we may be fated to elect as president won't be entirely a moron unleashed.  We may want the moron to have the power to ignore Congress and the courts and, perhaps more importantly, the special interest groups who carry politicians around in their pockets like Don Corleone, but much as we would like this to happen  (or think we do), it will not.  The moron may think it will happen, being a moron, but that won't make it so.

Someone like Mencken may say that republic or not, we elect morons at all levels.  Our representatives are morons as well as our President, or will be.  And so our judges will be morons.   The ascendancy of morons is inevitable, eventually, whenever election outcomes are based on majority vote.

Well, that may be.  But in that case we'll tire of the morons, and start all over again, running through the various forms of government.  Perhaps democracy is a kind of end of government.  It may lead to chaos, which will lead us to impose an autocracy, thence to an oligarchy, and etc.  We will be a phoenix rising from the ashes, then burning, then rising again.