Reader John Ogozalek offers advice about how to spot a demagogue. John, a graduate of an Ivy League college, teaches in upstate New York:
Just went and read (once again) the definition of a demagogue. There’s a particularly good Washington Post piece about how Trump went from being a “garden variety blow-hard” to full on threat to our Republic. It’s by Michael Signer.
To quote: “In 1838, American author James Fenimore Cooper observed that true demagogues met four criteria: they posture as men of the common people; they trigger waves of powerful emotion; they manipulate this emotion for political benefit; and they threaten or break established principles of governance.”
Of course, Trump fits the bill. I find the fact that he meets the fourth criteria to be especially troubling. He disregard for established norms, protocol, institutions and even the rule of law has set our country on a crash course with becoming a pseudo-democracy, a Potemkin republican. And, by aiding and abetting Trump’s dangerous choices (including DeVos) the G.O.P. is helping to seal our fate. If ever there was a need for genuine “Profiles in Courage” sort of behavior in our nation, now is the time. Will our United States Senators stand up for what is right?
I know people are always knocking Wikipedia. But just quickly read the list of “methods of demagogues” from there:
4.1 Scapegoating
4.2 Fearmongering
4.3 Lying
4.4 Emotional oratory and personal charisma
4.5 Accusing opponents of weakness and disloyalty
4.6 Promising the impossible
4.7 Violence and physical intimidation
4.8 Personal insults and ridicule
4.9 Vulgarity and outrageous behavior
4.10 Folksy posturing
4.11 Gross oversimplification
4.12 Attacking the news media
Sound familiar? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demagogue
The Washington political establishment seems like deer caught in headlights -stunned, unable to act.
Ironically, maybe the people, the majority of citizens that did NOT vote for Trump, are the only real check and balance on our nation unraveling right before our eyes. Perhaps that’s why Trump seems to be so obsessed with delegitimizing the very election that brought him to power?
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Diane & John Ogozalek & Diane Fans: Just a personal note. Michael Signer, author of Demagogue, is the son of one of my lifelong very best friends Marjorie Signer of Arlington VA, who does not follow this blog as I do of course!!!! Michael is currently Mayor of Charlottesville VA and and ran unsuccessfully for Dem nomination for LT Gov of VA, a good friend of Tim Kaine. He is the author of newish book on Madison and spoke on it at Library of Congress a few weeks ago. His marriage, which I attended, at age 39 a couple of years ago to Emily Blount was a NYT wedding story. They now have twin sons.
LikeLike
Eleanor Roosevelt’s 1938 THIS TROUBLED WORLD, A Book Opposing Rising Fascism
“How can we study history, how can we live through the things that we have lived through and complacently go on allowing the same causes over and over again to put us through those same horrible experiences?
I cannot believe that we are going to go on being as stupid as that. If our civilization is to survive, our people must turn to love not as a doctrine but as a way of living. …You laugh, it seems fantastic, but this subject will have to be discussed throughout the world for many years before it becomes an accepted rule.
We will have to want peace, want it enough to pay for it, pay for it in our own behavior and in material ways. We will have to want it enough to overcome our lethargy and go out and find all those in other countries who want it as much as we do. …”
https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/001154140
LikeLike
Excellent quote. Thanks for sharing it, Kathy!!
LikeLike
Excellent quote. Thanks for sharing it, Kathy!!
LikeLike
The Hathi Trust is an incredible resource for books that our out-of-print! Too bad the deforming philanthropic capitalists don’t support worthy endeavors like this which actually support education.
LikeLike
I see our country as currently going through an existential trauma. It’s interesting that you say that the political establishment seems stunned and like a deer caught in the headlights. When we feel in danger, we have either a fight or flight response. When we feel trapped, we often freeze, collapse and stop talking and disengage. Psychically, many may feel trapped by the new administration because of the power and force he (Trump and others) has and how he is boldly and openly using anger, pain, fear to control and sway people. Also, when people do not feel SEEN, they do not feel calm and safe. Trump refuses to SEE and recognize those who do not agree with him. He even VILIFIES them. It’s an abusive relationship. One of the first things that helps with a traumatic experience is to touch or cling to another person. This may be why many are coming together with people who are like minded, and this is one of the best things many can do to begin to heal. It’s important to feel that we’re not alone.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Most of us are still in shock and are experiencing varying degrees of PTSD (Post Trumpmatic Stress Disorder). Not to mention all his heinous decisions and appointments and the fact that a person like Bannon is his confidante and adviser.
LikeLike
The US is notorious for having low voter turnout; perhaps we are learning a lesson which must be made clear to all citizens: VOTE. Passive non-involvement is a dangerous stance.
LikeLike
James F. Cooper was referring to
his ingrained fear of democracy. Coming from the conservative, Federalist side of the American political dialog at the time, he believed that the proliferation of “democracy” would lead to “demagoguery.” Fact is that Cooper was much more comfortable with a government dominated and run by the wealthy few. There is a long history of an anti-democratic wealthy few trafficking in the fear of a demagogue. Trump is not that. Trump did not “bubble up” from an over-active democracy. Trump ascended to power via an addled, constrained, and sick democracy mixed with a thorough right-wing machine that has cultivated fear, manipulated districts, and enlisted the support of a global authoritarian right wing (Putin).
Trump is not a demagogue. He is an imposter and the end result of a right wing juggernaut that has as its core values the absolute privatization of everything and a loathing of democracy.
It matters what and how we deploy terms.
And again, DeVos is a bumbling incompetent with dangerous positions on education. Duncan was competent with dangerous positions on education. There is no option for a pro-public education secretary of education. HRC’s pick would have been awful as well. We must apprehend the fact that the reform side of the equation has so completely dominated the argument that both sides of our political world are consumed by their vision. DeVos is probably the best option, as our choices are only between competent and incompetent reform minded privatizers.
LikeLike
I’ve seen how Democrats delayed votes on other nominees by not showing up to the committee votes. Why didn’t this happen with DeVos? It seemed like they have as many issues with the procedure of the confirmation hearing as with the candidate, herself. Is it all lip service? Also seeing a potential filibuster to Gorluch. Could there be one for Education Secretary? My guess is that there won’t be. As usual, I’m underwhelmed by the Democratic Party with regards to education (and have zero expectations for Republicans).
LikeLike
At least two of the Democrats have stated they will “give Trump a chance” and hear his Supreme Court nominee. Democrats need to close ranks and form a wall just like the Republicans. Without total agreement, Democrats cannot filibuster. When the Democrats have boycotted votes, the Republicans change rules for the vote and continue without opposition.
LikeLike
Regarding Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, Gorsuch: the Democrats should give him every much of a chance as the Republicans gave to Obama’s nominee Merrick Garland.
Which is to say, none.
I am sick and tired of those Democrats who have called for any kind of “giving Trump a chance” or any kind of co-operation with the current administration.
Filibuster, filibuster, filibuster. Obstruct, obstruct, obstruct.
Trump and his administration are dangerous. Democrats need to find their spines.
LikeLike
Zorba, I am with you. The Trump cohort is dangerous. A wait and see attitude just gives him more time to entrench himself.
LikeLike
Speduktr, we are living in dangerous times now. We have to keep fighting, calling, emailing, demonstrating when necessary, supporting and voting for those politicians on the same page we are (inluding at the local and state level), supporting causes and non-profits we believe in, basically whatever else we are each able to do.
(BTW, may I ask, given your username, are you a special educator? Because I am a retired special education teacher.)
LikeLike
I am. I miss teaching every day but the climate today is toxic, and, in addition to the age factor, I am afraid I no longer have it in me to take the abuse.
LikeLike
Con men, demagogues, and fascists are of misdirection all compact …
LikeLike
“The secret spring of the confidence game is an unmet need of the mark, the catch being that the need is unmeetable, mostly on account of its deriving from infantile fantasies.”
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=5003&st=0&p=19501&#entry19501
LikeLike
James F. Cooper was referring to
his ingrained fear of democracy. Coming from the conservative, Federalist side of the American political dialog at the time, he believed that the proliferation of “democracy” would lead to “demagoguery.” Fact is that Cooper was much more comfortable with a government dominated and run by the wealthy few. There is a long history of an anti-democratic wealthy few trafficking in the fear of a demagogue. Trump is not that. Trump did not “bubble up” from an over-active democracy. Trump ascended to power via an addled, constrained, and sick democracy mixed with a thorough right-wing machine that has cultivated fear, manipulated districts, and enlisted the support of a global authoritarian right wing (Putin).
Trump is not a demagogue. He is an imposter and the end result of a right wing juggernaut that has as its core values the absolute privatization of everything and a loathing of democracy.
It matters what and how we deploy terms.
And again, DeVos is a bumbling incompetent with dangerous positions on education. Duncan was competent with dangerous positions on education. There is no option for a pro-public education secretary of education. HRC’s pick would have been awful as well. We must apprehend the fact that the reform side of the equation has so completely dominated the argument that both sides of our political world are consumed by their vision. DeVos is probably the best option, as our choices are only between competent and incompetent reform minded privatizers.
LikeLike
“The Washington political establishment seems like deer caught in headlights -stunned, unable to act.”
This depends on how you are thinking about the Washington political establishment. There is no shortage of “action” from Trump’s in-crowd. They are blasting and plowing ahead, making only those course corrections they choose. Most Republicans are going along with the methods of these demagogues and some are themselves master practitioners.
Given the decision to put Jerry Falwell, Jr in a poit position for higher education, I am awaiting a Trump/Bannon’s appointment of Rush Limbaugh to a task force to determine the fate of National Public Radio, the National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities, and the National Science Foundation…add the National Park Service.
LikeLike
A demagogue is a con man for the masses —
Back in the heyday of the The Wikipedia Review we had much occasion to discuss the phenomena of mass con artistry. Here is one thread on the theme with a lot of links to literature —
☞ Confidence Games & Pyramid Schemes • There’s One Born Every Nanosecond
LikeLike
Count me in as one who knocks Wikipedia, but not always. It’s a convenient source of information about films, television shows and other trivia. For example, I often check in on the page of Dr. Who episodes to make sure I’m watching the ones I have in my dvr in order. Or to find movies of actors or directors I like. I’ll even admit to using it as a cheat sheet to refresh my memory of scientific terms in my work.
But to use Wikipedia as a source or basis of an opinion, for serious history, or in analysis, it is a case of buyer beware and demands skepticism. I have often found misrepresentations, outright falsehoods, agenda-driven edits or points of view, or to be charitable, innocent mistakes in its articles. Just yesterday I commented on the misquoting of the famous quote of Martin Niemöller. Wikipedia’s entry helps perpetuate a myth about the poetic simplicity about something that was actually a bit more messy in reality. Using Wikipedia doesn’t absolve one of the responsibility of doing the hard work of research. Indeed, if you take the Wikipedia section out of John’s post above, it does nothing to diminish his well-stated point.
On the other hand, if you’re serious about a subject, the sources in an article might be helpful to lead you to other sources. But if I were still teaching today, I would require a student who cited Wikipedia as a source for a paper to either find a reputable source or risk getting an F. I have a good friend, a university professor, who allows his first year students a first strike to correct any attributions to Wikipedia. Second year students and older get an automatic out for doing so. A few days ago I finished reading the revised edition of “The Death and Life of the Great American School System” and, while perusing the notes, I don’t recall finding one Wikipedia citation. Nor do I recall ever seeing it cited in any non-fiction book or article I have read.
An over reliance or over use of Wikipedia, in my opinion, reveals a intellectual laziness and shallowness. It’s like using spices in cooking. A little bit at the right place in time might help in the appreciation of a dish; too much will make it both unpalatable and inedible.
LikeLike
As someone who grew up before anything like Wikipedia existed or was even imaginable, I’m constantly blown away by how reliable Wikipedia actually is. I think that has a lot to do with expectations. I view Wikipedia as what it is, an encyclopedia written and revised in real-time by an anonymous mob. Given how it’s authored and edited, my gut expectation would be that Wikipedia would be wildly inaccurate almost all the time. But over the years Wikipedia has impressed me enough that that, for quick reference purposes, I use it with a “trust but verify” mentality. I trust my skills as a reader and my internal BS-detector to raise red flags, and I check the footnotes as a matter of habit. One of the best uses for Wikipedia is as a menu of other sources to drill down on and test.
I would never, ever cite Wikipedia for purposes of formal research, and I want to pull my hair out when I see my daughter citing it in school papers and when she informs me that her teachers consider it an acceptable source. But then again, when I was a kid, people regularly used the Encyclopedia Britannica as a one-stop research source. Was the Encyclopedia Britannica more reliable than Wikipedia? I don’t know (although I recall seeing at least one study that concluded the error rates were essentially a wash), but at least Wikipedia’s open-source format allows and encourages readers to look under the hood.
Properly speaking, I would say that any citation to Wikipedia should included a nested parenthetical that identifies the underlying source for the proposition that Wikipedia’s being cited for. Wikipedia says X — what does it identify as the source for that statement? If there’s no underlying source, then why do you feel comfortable asking your reader to accept the statement’s truth? If there is an underlying source, would you be comfortable citing it directly as the basis for the statement’s truth? That’s a valuable exercise you couldn’t do with the old encyclopedias of my youth. We should take advantage of that opportunity today.
LikeLike
Very good points, FLERP!. I think we both share a healthy skepticism and your second paragraph essentially restates my argument a bit more coherently.
I think my greatest concern is how political pages are compiled. I tend to pull out what little is left of my hair when people cite Wikipedia for information about politics. It is an open secret that most politicians’ pages are written by their staffs. For example, I just randomly picked one, Ted Cruz, after reading your thoughts. If you scroll down to the paragraph titled “Government Shutdown of 2013,” you’ll see what I mean. This is a typical whitewashing of history that can be found over and over again in Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Cruz Reading this version, you’d think Cruz was eligible for a Profile in Courage Award.
Another area where I think we agree is that Wikipedia entries, however helpful they may be, do not make research easier or shorter. If you want to take them seriously, it requires more work and diligence.
LikeLike
If I’m reading it correctly, it’s interesting how the Wikipedia entry for demagogue has changed as Trump has ascended to political power. Trustworthy? Well…. Fascinating? Yes…..
LikeLike
I wouldn’t go as far as fascinating 🙂 . I think what you wrote was great. The Wikipedia part could have been excised and, in my opinion, it reads better that way.
LikeLike
Diane, it looks like a couple of my comments above are awaiting moderation, due to links maybe?
LikeLike
Reblogged this on BLOGGYWOCKY and commented:
Trump is not so much a demagogue as he is a narcissist, egotist, immature, and, by the way, very greedy.
LikeLike
Just want to point out that whenever Trump falsely accuses major media players like CNN and The NY Times of being fake news, he is issuing fake news and it is newsworthy, since he is the POTUS.
LikeLike