The demagogue usually knows full well what he is doing

July 30, 2024 1:11 AM

Here, a factor enters the equation that is consistently underestimated by those who view only error, blindness, or illusion at work in demagoguery — and, accordingly, seek to oppose it by means of reasonable objections. Counter to what such enlightened optimists believe, the demagogue — along with those in his train — usually knows full well what he is doing. He does not advance his claims in spite of the fact that they will offend reasonable people but because he can be sure to provoke them by doing so. The reflexive outrage he triggers does not unsettle him; rather, it affords him a kind of contemptuous exhilaration. In “Mein Kampf,” Hitler openly declares that propaganda is a means to an end. It is supposed to make “everyone … convinced that the fact is real”; therefore, it excludes debate of the matter’s merit — or lack thereof. ... Even though his rhetoric does not discount the truth as a category of appeal, in the broader context of everything else he writes, it represents a secondary consideration deriving from the power of speech itself — that is, something constituted in circular fashion by the efficacy and force of pure assertion. from ‘Mein Kampf’ as a Propaganda Playbook [MIT Reader]

CW: Hitler, Mein Kampf, Nazis, Anti-Semitism

An excerpt from On Hitler's Mein Kampf: The Poetics of National Socialism (Untimely Meditations) by Albrecht Koschorke (2017)

posted by chavenet (12 comments total)

We're all thinking about a specific demagogue as we read this, but remember that this form of rhetoric has pervaded US politics in our lifetimes—provided you were alive in 2000 or so. One example that this brought to mind is of Bush's baby talk. (The Journal of Aesthetics and Protest Press is worth exploring at length and has many useful answers to the problem posed above.) Also, was it Powell or Cheney who said they didn't need to find WMD in Iraq but to create the fact of it out of whole cloth?
posted by criticalyeast at 4:45 AM on July 30 [7 favorites]

(Oh good, I didn’t want to be the first comment with my minor quibble. I guess the second comment isn’t that much better. But the word “demagogue”, like “populist”, grates on me. “Populist” is at least understood to potentially be a bit more neutral, but “demagogue” has always been negative. Its definition seems to reflect anti-democratic 18th century fears that if the vote were extended to all people, that the general populous would be easily swayed by appeals to emotion instead of rational and moral reasoning. But implicit in that is the idea that those who previously held political power more exclusively were always rational and moral, and that ordinary (read: poor) people voting in their own interest were irrational or immoral. At least with “populist” there is, within academic political science circles at least, potentially an understanding that “the people” being appealed to could be a rather exclusive subset of the actual people, as in the case of Hitler, Trump, and other right-wing populists. The definitional underpinnings of “demagogue” seem to be inherently classist though. Which makes its use in describing someone like Hitler or Trump - who also demonize the poor (and yes, most of the critiques of Vance’s Hillbilly Elegy are that it’s actually quite classist against its purported subjects) - a bit discordant, even as the methods they use fully fit within the more fleshed-out definition.)
posted by eviemath at 5:02 AM on July 30 [9 favorites]

(Like: pre-Trump, the only person I knew who used “demagogue” regularly was a Libertarian who was of the opinion that only people who owned property should be able to vote.)
posted by eviemath at 5:04 AM on July 30 [5 favorites]

Hitler was able to appeal to unconscious factors long latent in the German psyche. Wotan's image had been rattling around the unconscious of the German people for decades. Through his use of symbolic marches replete with visual symbols he and his propaganda crew were able to stimulate these underlying energies within the populace. Trump has been using similar tactics. This is one reason why he has been so effective with middle America and the Christian right. He has too many people mesmerized. No matter what he says they are like sheep hanging on his every disjointed sentence.
posted by DJZouke at 5:21 AM on July 30 [4 favorites]

I've been really fascinated by the Harris campaign's general media astuteness, and especially how they've figured out that constantly pointing out how Creepy and Weird the fascists are is incredibly effective with low-information voters. My teen daughters are very politically aware, but a lot of their friends not as much, and while my kids were beating their heads into the ground with "Trump and the Republicans are evil!" and their friends having been grabbed by "both sides suck", but "Trump and the Republicans are weird and creepy!" really worked: their friends are like holy shit we've got to elect Harris. Making people outraged doesn't seem to work, as this article points out: it's too serious. But making people squicked out is startlingly effective—and it really triggers the fascists, too. Remarkable.
posted by outgrown_hobnail at 6:13 AM on July 30 [42 favorites]

The fascist playbook, which Trump has been masterful at working From, has always been to tell people with a little bit “I’m gonna help you”, but instead to say “those guys over there are scheming to take what little you have, and only I can stop them”. At the recent bitcoin conference (lol), Trump even went so far as to say that the Democrats haven’t destroyed them yet because he is somehow extending his aura to psychically protect them.
posted by Jon_Evil at 7:24 AM on July 30 [4 favorites]

"trump is so cringe"
posted by egypturnash at 7:35 AM on July 30 [9 favorites]

"They not like us" seems to be an incredibly powerful message.
posted by being_quiet at 8:57 AM on July 30 [7 favorites]

Demagogues, and their ilk, are not trying to win arguments, they are trying to make it impossible to have them. Either by suppressing dissent in the first place, or allowing it but rendering debate meaningless by flooding the zone with endless nonsense and inconsistency.
posted by Pouteria at 2:05 PM on July 30 [7 favorites]

Harris really seems to have the right amount of zest for eviscerating her opponent and eye on the larger policy / prize. I chalk it up to the lawyer in her - there’s a guy at my Buddhist temple, a devout guy and all that but when the lawyer switch gets thrown it’s like watching a husky go after a squirrel. I’ve never seen anyone go from “let’s all bliss” to “I will joyfully end you” like that.

Well…
Till now lol

It’s not that Harris not aiming high (a la “when they go low we go high”) but she’s not going to suffer fools and will happily shove your stupidity in your face. It’s like she’s demanding that they be a better opponent for her to win against. And they’re scattering like rats it’s glorious.
posted by St. Peepsburg at 3:52 PM on July 30 [7 favorites]

Neg the player, not the game
posted by Reasonably Everything Happens at 5:12 PM on July 30 [2 favorites]

Maybe I will look at TFA. As I read the pull quote I found myself thinking of Sartre's "Anti-Semite and Jew,"

Never believe that anti‐ Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti‐Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past. It is not that they are afraid of being convinced. They fear only to appear ridiculous or to prejudice by their embarrassment their hope of winning over some third person to their side.

That last phrase kind of brings into focus the whole outrage play by Rs on being called "weird," doesn't it?
posted by Aardvark Cheeselog at 10:03 AM on July 31 [3 favorites]