The Perennial Problem of Demagogues

37 Comments /

I’ll start with some news: Tuesday was the publication date for my latest book, A Firehose of Falsehood.(I sent out birth announcements for my first book in 2001, and have done a birth announcement for each book since. OK, so it’s cheesy.)

Let’s Talk about Demagogues

The ancient Greeks gave us the word democracy. Demos means people, and cracy means to rule. The ancient Greeks understood the pitfalls of democracy so it’s no coincidence that they also gave us the word demagogery. Demagogue literally means a leader of the people but it has come to mean “a person, especially a political leader, who wins support by exciting the emotions of ordinary people rather than by having good or morally right ideas.”

Angie Hobbs, a professor at the University of Sheffield, offers Plato’s chilling account of how a democracy can be subverted by an opportunistic demagogue:

The demagogue gains power by democratic means, claiming to be a champion of ‘the people’ and making wild promises . . .   Anyone who opposes the demagogue is labeled an ‘enemy of the people’ and exiled or killed. Such tactics naturally create genuine enemies, and the demagogue quickly acquires a large bodyguard, and eventually a private army.  External conflicts are also stirred up to keep the people in need of a strong leader.

It is in the demagogue’s interests to keep his supporters poor as well as fearful. When they start to rebel, protesting that this is not why they voted him in, he attacks them too and the full-blooded tyrant is born.

Eli Merritt, a political historian at Vanderbilt University puts the matter more simply. Demagogues destroy democracies, he says. He calls this the “golden rule of democracies”:

The preservation of a healthy constitutional democracy in the United States in the coming decades hinges critically on whether Americans heed a golden rule of this free form of government as taught throughout the ages by democracy experts like Plato, Aristotle, Thucydides, Livy, Edward Gibbon, Alexis de Tocqueville, Abraham Lincoln and especially the framers of the U.S. Constitution.

The drafters of our founding documents understood the golden rule, even though they didn’t call it that. In 1787, when the nation was in chaos because the Articles of Confederation were failing, George Washington wrote to Lafayette to express his fears that a demagogue would take advantage of the chaos to seize power:

The pressure of the public voice was so loud, I could not resist the call to a convention of the States which is to determine whether we are to have a Government of respectability under which life—liberty, and property secured to us, or whether we are to submit to one which may be the result of chance or the moment, springing perhaps from anarchy dictated perhaps by some aspiring demagogue who will not consult the interest of his Country so much as his own ambitious views. (Emphasis added)

Plato didn’t have much confidence in the ability of the people to withstand the power of a demagogue. By the time the Articles of Confederation were failing, the founders also seemed to be having doubts.

The demagogue either takes advantage of existing chaos or invents a problem and then offers a solution that benefits the demagogue. Prof. Harold Hill in The Music Man demonstrates:

Friend, either you’re closing your eyes to a situation you do not wish to acknowledgeOr you are not aware of the caliber of disasterIndicated by the presence of a pool table in your communityWell, ya got trouble, my friendRight here I say, trouble right here in River City.

Harold Hill’s solution to the problem he invented was for the people to buy what he was selling.

A “Pseudo Biography”

The rise of tyrants follows certain patterns. One is that they come to power by disseminating what is known as a pseudo biography.

The first known instance of this was a guy named Darius of Persia (522 BCE to 486 BCE) who carved the Behistun Inscription into the side of a cliff. If we believe the story he told about himself, he was descended from a long line of great kings. His kingdom was given to him by the supreme god Ahura Mazda. He defeated 19 armies in a single year, overthrew nine kings, and never lost a battle.

Trump also presented a pseudo biography that went like this: I am a successful businessman:

“I’m the most successful person ever to run for the presidency, by far,” he said. “Nobody’s ever been more successful than me. I’m the most successful person ever to run. Ross Perot isn’t successful like me. Romney — I have a Gucci store that’s worth more than Romney.”

In 2015 and 2016, while running for president, he jetted around in a private plane and referred to himself as a billionaire.

During a debate before the 2016 election, Hillary Clinton told viewers that Trump actually paid no taxes. He said, “That makes me smart.” She pointed out the number of times he filed bankruptcy. He responded by bragging that he “used brilliantly” the laws of the country to his advantage.

The way he “used” the laws to avoid taxes wasn’t quite as brilliant as he thought. As you no doubt heard a judge found that Trump owes $355 million for having repeatedly defrauded the state. The amount is $450 million with prejudgment interest. This is on top of an $88 million judgment for sexually assaulting and then repeatedly defaming E. Jean Carroll. In addition, there are numerous other fines and penalties he owes. (Citizens for Ethics has been tracking his finances and says he does not have the cash on hand to pay these judgments or put up the money to appeal.)

When liars are caught, they pivot to new lies. Here is how Trump reacted to the latest verdict against him:

“This ‘decision’ is a Complete and Total SHAM. The Democrat Club-controlled Judge Engoron has already been reversed four times on this case, a shameful record, and he will be reversed again. We cannot let injustice stand, and will fight Crooked Joe Biden’s weaponized persecution at every step.”

“The Justice System in New York State, and America as a whole, is under assault by partisan, deluded, biased Judges and Prosecutors. Racist, Corrupt A.G. Tish James has been obsessed with “Getting Trump” for years, and used Crooked New York State Judge Engoron to get an illegal, unAmerican judgment against me, my family, and my tremendous business.”

In other words, he is still a successful businessman, but he’s so powerful and dangerous that he is the target of radical leftists and corrupt courts who are out to get him.

His followers, of course, believe it. One of his followers started a GoFundMe to raise money to pay his judgement. They see no contradiction in raising money to pay the judgment for a successful businessman who lives in gold-plated mansions and flies in private planes.

There are no quick fixes

This makes sense, right? If, since ancient times, wise people have understood that democracy has a treacherous pitfall, it is unlikely there is a quick fix. If you have a democracy (government by the people) you will have unscrupulous people trying to gain power for their own benefit or subvert democratic systems.

It isn’t clear what Brandy X. Lee means by “accountable.” It also isn’t clear which “people” she is referring to, but social media users who commented on the post understood her to be talking about Trump and the threat of right-wing extremism.

For years, in what we might call the MSNBC-CNN-left-leaning-social-media environment, a talking point has been that we have a problem with lawbreaking demagogues (the radicalized right-wing) because there have not been enough consequences or accountability. Generally what they mean is that there have not been enough criminal consequences (which is why this particular media bubble spent years heckling Merrick Garland and blaming him for the fact that the right-wing still poses a threat. For what I mean, see this post.)

For a long time, I tried to debunk this talking point by showing all the consequences, like this (many of these indictments are now convictions. I haven’t updated this for at least a year):

No matter how long the list grew, people in this particular media ecosystem responded by saying things like “the consequences were not harsh enough” or “those are not real consequences.”

So I stopped updating the list and wrote this FAQ page explaining why the criminal justice system cannot solve a political problem and why criminal consequences will never put an end to the threat of right-wing extremism. Here I tried to explain why we can’t solve the problem of demagoguery by putting all the liars in jail.

The problem with any conspiracy thinking (“the evil is caused by nefarious actors who are refusing to hold Trump accountable either because they are weak or corrupt”) is that if we embrace conspiracy thinking, we fail to recognize the problem. If we don’t understand the problem, how can we address it?

The solution to the Firehose of Falsehood is not to debunk each lie. The solution is to put raincoats on the population* (and this is not easy)

*From the Rand Corporation.

Debunking each falsehood is like trying to put out a forest fire with a squirt gun. The solution instead is to teach people to see when someone is manipulating their emotions (or offering easy solutions to tricky problems, like “we just need to start holding people accountable.”)

Unspun Interview (transcript)

That’s why some university professors have taken up the task of teaching media literacy for a new generation. Prof. Amanda Sturgill, for example, hosts a podcast called Unspun to help listeners acquire the ability to think critically about the news.  She offers real examples, past and present, of newsmakers attempting to mislead and manipulate the truth. The goal is to help people avoid being swayed by misinformation.

I spoke to Amanda last week on her podcast. I’ve edited the transcript for brevity. (Okay, yes, I left in the nice things she said about my book.)

AS: (Amanda Sturgill): I have Teri Kanefield here today to talk about her terrific upcoming new book, A Firehose of Falsehood. This book takes us through the origin of disinformation and does so in a unique way: in the form of a graphic novel. I would love it if you could tell me a little bit about the history of the book itself, what inspired you to tackle this subject, and why you chose the graphic novel format.

TK: I had no intention of writing a graphic novel!

A few years ago I came to believe that disinformation was the greatest threat to democracy. I started writing short pieces in various mainstream outlets. I wrote a piece for Slate Magazine on why Trump supporters believe all of his lies. I wrote a piece for The Washington Post about Trump’s rhetoric.

The editor of First Second Books at Macmillan approached me and asked me to write the text for a graphic novel. I said okay. Until that point, my only real connection with graphic novels was when my son was about 10 and I believe I single-handedly kept a graphic novel bookstore in business in San Francisco.

The illustrator of A Firehose of Falsehood was phenomenal — he did meticulous research and understood how to bring the text alive. I was impressed.

AS: I thought so, too. I thought the visuals were strong and wonderful.

One thing I thought was interesting was the development of the ideas through important moments in history. Why do you think the historical approach is important for understanding the moment we are in?

TK: History offers perspective and gives us a way of understanding the present.

When Trump first came to office, most people had no way of understanding why he was so outrageous and why his followers were so devoted. The more outrageous and shocking his behavior, and the more outrageous his lies, the more his followers liked him.

That’s still happening. People expected criminal indictments to crater his support, but the opposite happened: criminal indictments boosted his support. That’s because his appeal to his supporters is the way he lies and cheats. That’s counter-intuitive to people who are more inclined toward what we might call the democratic or rule-of-law way of thinking.

AS: Pretty early on in the book you introduce the idea of a concealed war. Can you please explain what that is?

TK: The idea of a concealed war can be traced back to the Mauryan Empire. Those in the Mauryan empire explained it this way: There are two kinds of wars, open war and concealed or silent wars. An open war is when two armies meet on the battlefield. Lines are drawn. Everybody knows there is a war.

A concealed war is what today we might call a disinformation campaign. The goal is to turn the people of the enemy country against their leaders, ideally so they attack and even assassinate their own leaders or crumble their own government. It’s a lot easier to get the citizens of your enemy country to attack their own government than for you to do it.

The idea was echoed by Hitler’s henchman Joseph Goebbels who said there are two ways to make a revolution: You can blast your enemy with machine guns until he acknowledges the superiority of those holding the machine guns or you can blast them with propaganda.

Dirty tricks in the spirit of a concealed war were the norm during the Cold War. Czech intelligence officers during the Cold War published a fake letter in an Eastern-bloc newspaper allegedly written by American businessman Rockefeller to president Eisenhower. The fake letter outlined a plan to use the American military to manipulate foreign countries. The fake story was picked by Western newspapers, who ran the story as if was true. Some Americans turned against their own government.

The campaign was so successful that Soviet disinformation operators followed up with a forged document that appeared to be written from Secretary of State John Foster Dulles to President Eisenhower revealing that the “real, hidden objective” of American foreign policy in the Middle East was to “suppress Arab national independence” and “establish the US as the colonialist heir to France and Britain” in order to seize middle eastern oil.

AS:  You went on to talk about the story of Russian Empress Catherine the Great, where you introduced the idea of people lying to the leader. Do you think some of the information problems of today are related to that?

TK: Certainly. People lie to the leader to flatter the leader. People also lie to the leader because they have the same agenda and the lie they tell the leader serves the agenda. Sometimes autocrats get ideas for lies from their top supporters. A recent example would be the reporting that, on Election Night in November of 2020, a drunken Rudy Giuliani repeatedly urged Donald Trump to “just say we won” when clear Trump would lose.

AS: In the section on slavery you bring up the idea of using “experts” to dehumanize Black people. Using experts this way is relevant to Covid where experts were brought in to provide bad information. Here is what I wonder: In a modern context, say Covid or immigration, are the experts just lying, or is it something about the nature of experts themselves that leads to being easy to misunderstand or manipulate?

TK:I think both happen. The racism lie is still being told. There is a thing called “scientific racism.” I looked earlier and the Harvard Library has a resource page for confronting these theories. Basically these theories use fake scientific methods to prove that white people are superior.

AS: It also happens with media when people accuse media of not covering certain topics. We find ourselves in the era of calling things “Fake News”. What does history teach us about the effort to remove the respectability of the press?

TK: History teaches that autocratic regimes always shut down the press or seek to discredit the press.

One of the difficulties right now is that we are in an information disruption. New technologies like the printing press or the Internet flood people with more information than they know how to evaluate. As a result, traditional media is in a disruption and people don’t know how to find reliable information.

AS: As journalism is trying to figure out its funding model, we get into a situation where bad information is free, and good information costs money. It then gets more expensive as fewer people seek it out.

Do you see the attempt to devalue media and institutions on both the left and the right?

TK: What I see on the left is a bit different. When the left attacks the newspapers, they criticize reputable newspapers for sensational reporting or elevating views they think are dangerous.

The far right is deliberately seeking to put forward lies and undermine media to gain control.

AS: it’s easy for people to think that whatever side they agree with is doing everything right.

You called the book Firehose of Falsehoods, referring to the Rand Corporation study with that name. Is the issue of bad information a solvable problem?

TK:  One question is: Will people develop media literacy rapidly enough to sort out the garbage out there so they can hold on to truth quickly enough before the autocrats can tear everything down? It’s like a race. Will people become new-media savvy in time to rescue the truth?

Before law school, I taught college and university-level English. We taught students how to evaluate sources, but that was before the Internet, so it was simpler to distinguish reputable publications from disreputable ones.Consumers now need an entirely new orientation.

AS: What about government? Can we rely on the government, for example, to help? The government regulates the food that we eat, for example. Can they regulate the information we get?

TK: We have a First Amendment which specifically prevents the government from regulating information. But the government can help by better funding education.

The real solution has to come from citizens and communities. Putting too much power into the hands of the government to regulate information can backfire if bad actors gain control of the government.

AS: What about businesses?

TK: I wouldn’t rely on businesses to do what is right because they protect their own economic interests. But businesses often respond to pressure campaigns. Pressure campaigns have to originate in the community.

If democracy survives it will be because enough citizens step forward. After all, democracy literally means rule by the people.

*  *  *

Now that it’s primary time, JJ would like to demonstrate civic responsibility:

Subscribe and I’ll tell you when a new blog post is ready:





37 thoughts on “The Perennial Problem of Demagogues”

  4. James Lovegren

    Lest I continue to commit the fallacy of “argumentum ab auctoritate” by endlessly quoting Teri Kanefield to my wife an others, I have ordered your book.

    Can’t wait!

    JL

    Reply
  5. Ed Haase

    “ We taught students how to evaluate sources, but that was before the Internet, so it was simpler to distinguish reputable publications from disreputable ones.Consumers now need an entirely new orientation.”
    Could you please give your thoughts and expand on the last sentence? I have found that it is one thing to have a conversation with my college educated friends and quite a different thing to have one with my less educated ones (generally high school or less). Most (but not all) of the the people I know who support Trump fall into the second category and I have found it impossible to have a meaningful conversation about any slightly complex topic or issue. Especially with (at in their minds) more informed “media outlets” disputing my arguments or discussion points. Thanks for all you are doing.

    Reply
  6. DonA In Pennsyltucky

    The hue and cry about schools indoctrinating students with liberal ideas is largely due to the fact that learning to think independently is necessary and is based on having the ability to question — to be skeptical. Conservatives rely on faith in revealed wisdom — what they were told was true,
    For me it is summed up in the T-shirt phrase “I’d rather have questions that can’t be answered than answers that can’t be questioned.”

    Reply
  7. Shauna

    Thank you, Teri, for this eye-opening article. I wish all success to your new book, and hope to read it soon.

    The point mentioned in your interview about how it seems to be more and more difficult for well-intentioned citizens of a democracy to access simultaneously affordable and accurate media sources strikes home for me. That’s one of the reasons I’m so glad to have access to your newsletters, freely available . Thank you for that, and for your clear-sighted analysies of current events, with both historical and legal perspectives. So helpful.

    Tell your pup I’ve voted (from overseas). Good message!

    Reply
  9. Angelica

    A major problem in resisting demagoguery is that not only are people uneducated, but that they are not INTERESTED in education. So many distractions nowadays – and always the demagogues and their aides ready to provide new ones, concepts to terrify and enrage – when we aren’t glued to the Superbowl or our iPhones. Teri, your essays are interesting, informative and thought provoking – but they are NOT an “easy read.” – at least, not to someone who’s heaviest usual read is The National Enquirer.
    Which is why Republican governments have defunded and reduced the US education to such a degree – an educated population sees through demagoguery. See trump’s “I love the uneducated!”. He has good reason to.

    Reply
    1. Michael

      Exactly. Even if Teri’s or anyone else’s writings were easy, it wouldn’t matter to the MAGA base. It’s very easy to state a general “solution” that education is the defense against demagoguery + misinformation; it’s beyond challenging to put an effective program of such education into effect.

      Reply
  11. Mark Rountree

    A small correction: Saying Eli Merritt is with “the University of Vanderbilt” is an error and would be like saying “Kanefield received her undergraduate degree at Pennsylvania University…” The correct name is Vanderbilt University. Teri, your penalty is that Vandy must be allowed to beat Penn in basketball. That seems fair.

    Reply
  12. Kirk Evans

    Congratulations on your book! and thanks for this discussion. I’ve often felt that arguing with right wingers is futility, because each antagonist is just one nearly identically programmed zombie out of millions. Instead, I felt I needed to go to the source, the propagandist who fills all these minds with garbage. That’s unlikely to happen, and so “the raincoat” (or inoculation) approach that you explain is the most realistic answer. Even then, people have to want to become media savvy, and it’s far too easy to be lazy.

    Minor and disturbing nit. Trump just got the SEC to pave the way for Truth Social to become a publicly traded company. It means a huge windfall for Trump, he holds 78 million shares, worth about $4 billion in aggregate. And so, Judge Engoron has shut down his businesses in NY, and he’s on the hook for half a billion in fines, but he’s just found another source for capital. To say nothing of his takeover of the RNC (which could be a boon for Democrats as he sucks this organization dry).

    reference
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2024/02/15/truth-social-trump-merger-sec/

    Reply
  13. Ande Jacobson

    Thanks for the link to the podcast. That was an interesting discussion, and a great introduction to your new book. I hope that it’ll be widely read.

    We’ll never be rid of demagogues, but if enough people want democracy to work, we can keep them from gaining power. That requires people to understand what is true and what is disinformation. We need to help people understand the difference. You’re certainly doing your part, and we all need to help get the word out.

    Reply
  15. Andrew Bjelland

    Our democratic institutions are designed to protect citizens against two tyrannies: the tyranny of the autocrat and the tyranny of the mob an autocrat enflames.

    Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 68 expressed his concern that someone unfit for office, but who possessed a talent for “low intrigue and the little arts of popularity,” might one day be elected president and subvert the rule of law.

    In Federalist No. 10, James Madison warned against the “mischiefs of faction” within our electoral system. He defined a faction as “a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens or to the interests of the community.” Clearly such a faction could devolve into a mob in service to a would-be autocrat — even into a mob that might dare to assault our nation’s Capitol and attempt to nullify the results of a free and fair presidential election.

    It is time, however, to turn away from our fixation on an individual demagogue, Donald J. Trump, and focus on a far graver threat: the institutionalized demagoguery of the GOP itself.

    Demagoguery effectively shuts down rational discourse and reflective consideration of alternative solutions to our nation’s many problems.

    Isn’t that what the Grand Obstructionist Party is all about?

    Among the GOP’s demagogic strategies are appeals to divisive “social/moral” issues; identification with a shallow militaristic “patriotism” and a
    narrow “Christian” nationalism; the branding of socially beneficial programs as “socialism”; signing on to Grover Norquist’s no-new-taxes pledge, etc.

    While pursuing these strategies, many GOP politicians and spokespersons–not just candidate Donald Trump–employ the demagogue’s favored techniques on a daily basis: gross oversimplification, fear mongering, scapegoating, emotional appeals, accusations that opponents are disloyal or weak, attacks on the news media, obstructive refusals of all compromise–and, yes, bald faced lies.

    Donald Trump’s candidacy is the symptom of the rot that is the Republican Party.

    The voters can readily reject this individual buffoonish demagogue.

    What are the for the reform from within of an entire major political party that so obviously is wedded to demagoguery?

    Reply
    1. Sean Salsman

      Hear hear! Couldn’t have said it better myself. I’ve been shouting that from the rooftops. DJT is a symptom, not a cause. One head gets struck down, three take its place. That’s why I’m so pessimistic about the future of our democracy.

      Reply
  17. Carolyn Hartman

    We all know how the Music Man ends. Everyone loves Professor Hill, because of how he made them feel, and he gets away with everything. I loved that movie when I was a kid, and we watched it dozens of times.
    We laughed at the con job. But I could never, ever, even contemplate watching it again, ever. The parallels to DJT are terrifying.

    Reply
    1. Tien Le

      Not simply because of how he made them feel. They used his con to create a real marching band with they instruments that they purchased. It was a tangible result that improved their lives and brought a sense of community. And Prof. Hill was not wrong about the billiards parlor. The real con was that he didn’t know the first thing about music or how to create a band. I still appreciate that Hill got caught up in his own grift because he fell for Marion. Comparing Hill to toxic narcissist does a real disservice to the movie.

      Reply
  18. Anne Hammond-Meyer

    Hi Teri
    Are you doing any speaking tours with your book? I’m wondering if groups like Indivisible would want to present the information to their members. How do we get this into America’s hands?
    My husband is now reading the book!

    Reply
  19. John Callender

    You wrote: “…many of these indictments are not convictions. I haven’t updated this for at least a year.” I’m guessing from the context that you meant to write “many of these indictments are NOW convictions.”

    Thank you, as always, for bringing so much clarity to a topic where so much murk exists.

    Reply
  20. Bruce

    “and mention that the latest judgment against Trump was for $344 million ($450 million with prejudgment interest)?”

    More fun even still is to add the E Jean Carroll judgements to the total. We’re well clear of 1/2 billion. Unless he actually gets a $4Byn payout from the Truth Social thingy, he doesn’t have the cash.

    Reply
  21. Tien Le

    This is an excellent piece. I agree we need more media literacy and education is key.

    I do have a question about the use of Professor Harold Hill as an example of a demagogue. My father was a con man; that might be why I grew up with such strong sales resistance as a basis for critical thinking. Prof. Hill was a con artist playing on people’s fears to sell a product. Is there any distinction between con artists and demagogues?

    Reply
  22. Lucidamente

    Alexander Hamilton, himself not immune to the charms of demagoguery, wrote this in 1792:

    The truth unquestionably is, that the only path to a subversion of the republican system of the Country is, by flattering the prejudices of the people, and exciting their jealousies and apprehensions, to throw affairs into confusion, and bring on civil commotion. Tired at length of anarchy, or want of government, they may take shelter in the arms of monarchy for repose and security.
    Those then, who resist a confirmation of public order, are the true Artificers of monarchy—not that this is the intention of the generality of them. Yet it would not be difficult to lay the finger upon some of their party who may justly be suspected. When a man unprincipled in private life desperate in his fortune, bold in his temper, possessed of considerable talents, having the advantage of military habits—despotic in his ordinary demeanour—known to have scoffed in private at the principles of liberty—when such a man is seen to mount the hobby horse of popularity—to join in the cry of danger to liberty—to take every opportunity of embarrassing the General Government & bringing it under suspicion—to flatter and fall in with all the non sense of the zealots of the day—It may justly be suspected that his object is to throw things into confusion that he may “ride the storm and direct the whirlwind.”

    https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-12-02-0184-0002

    Reply
    3. Phil

      Great quote! But Hamilton’s prose is impenetrable to the average voter. It needs to be, not dumbed down, but recast in language understandable at a fifth grade level, to be comprehensible to them. Think about the average language level of effective PowerPoint presentations.

      Reply

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top