Demagoguery and Democracy
Ratings5
Average rating3.7
15
Ratings5
Average rating3.7
A clear-eyed guide to demagoguery—and how we can defeat it What is demagoguery? Some demagogues are easy to spot: They rise to power through pandering, charisma, and prejudice. But, as professor Patricia Roberts-Miller explains, a demagogue is anyone who reduces all questions to us vs. them. Why is it dangerous? Demagoguery is democracy’s greatest threat. It erodes rational debate, so that intelligent policymaking grinds to a halt. The idea that we never fall for it—that all the blame lies with them—is equally dangerous. How can we stop it? Demagogues follow predictable patterns in what they say and do to gain power. The key to resisting demagoguery is to name it when you see it—and to know where it leads.
Reviews with the most likes.
The best part about this book is that it made full use of the the balance between quality (information) and quantity (amount of pages), covering everything neatly in VII chapters each describing Demagoguery from one way or another. Some points are given more attention and repeated more throughout the book, which Mrs. Roberts-Miller points out as well. A great advantage for me was the humour scattered on the pages, I wish there was more of it tho!
The central idea is, surprise-surprise, the role of demagoguery and demagogues, which we all are accustomed to in our everyday lives. It's not particularly politicians or newscasters who are positioned as the “Demagogues”, it can be anyone a person at work, a neighbour a family member, etc., more precisely it is any individual who uses flawed argumentation (be it claims, illogical correlation to causation links or arguments ad hominem).
Or as defined by the author (on page 33): “Demagoguery is discourse that promises stability, certainty, and escape from the responsibilities of the rhetoric by framing public policy aim terms of the degree to which and the means by which (not whether) the out-group should be scape-coated of the current problems of the in-group”.
Elaborating on the “in and out-groups mentioned in the definition”, one primary thesis revolves constantly throughout the book about the relationship between “in-group” and “out-group”, using radical rhetorical polarisation between them as the illustration of of modern demagoguery, based on the same notions as it did 2000 or more years ago (ahahah hello to progress, right?).
To put simply: individuals, for the sake of convenience and reaffirmation of their biases/beliefs, usually tend to simplify things which are inherently complicated in nature. When we put all people in two camps those who argue the same as we are, aka the “good people” and those who argue the contrary, aka the “bad people”.
By ignoring the arguments and sticking to the “group view”, we are engage in a flawed way of thinking, where everything is either “black or white”, giving us superiority in our judgment and beliefs over the “bad people who obviously don't know what they are talking about”. Even by using such a simple example, we can easily see how applicable this is for our society now, especially in the internet where people are prone to indulge in group-based thinking without actually considering responding to claims or arguments based on evidence.
To highlight one more important point from the book, let's go back in history to the 1942 case of “Japanese Americans imprisonment” run by the respected Attorney General of California at the time Mr. Earl Warren. I completely agree with Mrs. Roberts-Miller that we are used to the “obvious demagoguery” but it does not pose as much potential danger and negative implications as the “subtle demagoguery”. And what I mean by “subtle” is that sometimes respected people, be it intellectuals, judges, scientists or experts can/do engage in demagoguery without actually acknowledging(or maybe wilfully ignoring the signs) that they do so. As in the case with the case to preventively imprison Japanese Americans on the basis of them being potential spies which will “do harm against the Satte if we don't act now”. The book goes in detail about describing this in more detail, showing that the claims, evidence, respected judge (who thankfully later regretted and acknowledged his mistake for what it's worth) still led to the flawed decision derived from an obviously wrong conclusion, because the decision was pushed through the court under the influence of fallacies and mistakes made in the argumentation on the highest government level.
It is to be argued that everyone needs to watch their argumentation and claims the make, while also being able to admit when they are wrong. But, I personally feel this is even more necessary and vital for influencers, experts or public intellectuals to own up to the responsibility of being the source of information and forefront of the public view, since nowadays people don't have time to look at all the claims and arguments themselves and thus tend to blindly believe their “authoritative sources”.
To finish the review, I would like to refer to the quote mentioned in the final chapter of the book, which I feel is the main message and advice for the reader to take from the book. When describing what's required of people in the democracy Hanna Fenichel Pitkin writes: “the ability to fight-openly, seriously, with commitment, and about things that really matter - without fanaticism, without seeking to exterminate one's opponent.”
