Demagoguery in Barack Obama's America
Thanks, Mike, and thanks to Lila and the others at TPMCafe, for inviting me to participate in the discussion of Mike Signer's Demagogue. I want to pick up on some of the points Mike raised in his post, and raise an additional question that's related to Mike's book and the problem of demagoguery in President Barack Obama's America.
Mike argues that demagogues pose the greatest threat to democracy, but I'm wondering why, given economic turmoil at home and flagging support for two wars overseas, America today hasn't seen more support for the sort of demagogues that Mike so nicely describes in his book. In moments of chaos, when there's a sense that things are spinning out of control, one could argue that now is the opportune time for a demagogue to rise up, appeal to the disaffected masses, and gain a considerable following using talk radio and the blogosphere to gin up their followers. As far as I can tell, however, this hasn't really happened. We haven't seen anybody who's emerged that poses a serious threat to democracy along the lines of Father Coughlin in the 1930s or Joe McCarthy in the early 1950s. What's preventing the emergence of such a demagogue?
Mike's book does a terrific job of describing a constitutional conscience as almost a bulwark that quashes would-be demagogues in all resilient democracies. Perhaps America has developed such a fine-tuned aversion to demagoguery and such a strong commitment to constitutionalism that we're increasingly invulnerable to base appeals from such figures.
And yet, we witnessed during the campaign some demagogic stirrings--scurrilous Internet rumors that Obama was Muslim, wild allegations that he palled around with terrorists, and racist innuendo coming from some quarters on the far-right. Even now some of Obama's critics question whether he was born in the United States. But these rants and specious charges don't strike me as much of a movement and it's hard to find a single figure around whom these anti-Obama forces have rallied. As ugly as such attacks have been, they don't necessarily augur the "reign of KING MOB," as Mike, quoting Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, says in his book. Does Mike's culture of constitutionalism help to explain why we haven't seen a series of powerful demagogues emerge on the American scene amid the economic emergency of 2009?
Mike says in his post that "the answer to the threat demagogues...pose to democracy is constitutionalism"--I'm wondering, then, whether America's politics is now so rooted in "constitutionalism" that demagogues can't find a foothold within our political system, as they once seemed more able to do. Or, perhaps I'm just missing something and there are demagogues in our midst who enjoy a mass following akin to the historical figures that Mike so ably captures in his important and provocative new book. Would be curious to hear what Mike and others think. Looking forward to this week's discussion.
















Have you turned on the radio in the past 20 years? What do you mean demagogues haven't gotten a foothold? Surely you are not serious. If you really believe that I guess you haven't taken a cross country drive listening to the radio in a long, long, long time. I can tell ya out here in the midwest, despite the favorable election results we have a serious problem just under the surface and if you don't recognize it for what it is you'll be sorry when this vile, reactionary right wing pushes back and they will.
If you ever listened to Rush on a roll you've heard Father Coughlin and Joe McCarthy on steroids! And Rush is just the #1 franchise for demagoguery. He has dozens and dozens of imitators and mini-me's out there on the airwaves. Many of those mini-me's say things that make Rush look like a skilled senior diplomat. What you've written reminds me of the famous quote of the east coast columnist after the 72 election saying she didn't know what happened since none of the people she knew voted for Nixon.
Now, this is a bit tongue in cheek because you've obviously heard of Rush, et al... but it seems you really misinterpret or don't appreciate their vast power and that they have barely turned up the volume. They aren't stupid. They know their side has been blamed for the crash and rightly so (pardon the pun). They now lie in wait for the slightest failure of the new Democratic administration so they can go balls to the wall blaming the black President in thinly and not so thinly veiled references and declare themselves the saviors of the "real" America. America was nearly captured by these people and much of the corporate media was cowed into imitating them for several of the Bush years. Tell the Dixie Chicks about how the demagoguery of the right can't get a foothold. Right wing demagoguery is alive, well, thriving and it is an extent threat to our republic.
Take a good look at how "constitutionalism" protected our liberty in the face of a lawless criminal gang under Bush. Most of the people in a postition to object to all the illegal and unconstitutional activities were terrified of saying anything because they might be targeted by Bush and Rush and their coterie of character assassins. If those in a position to use constitutionalism to block demagoguery are too chicken to asser themselves it seems a perfect environment for demagoguery to win the day.
February 23, 2009 10:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm thinking it has nothing to do with constitutionalism and everything to do with the fact that in 2009 it's pretty easy to Google a nutcase and to expose him as such.
February 23, 2009 10:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I thought a short excerpt from the book might clarify what I mean by constitutionalism, which I define specifically.
"[T]he most robust and useful idea of constitutionalism, which Alexis de Tocqueville described most powerfully, [is]: a living culture of political values among ordinary people that (1) promotes the individual’s private sense of self-worth and responsi-bility for democracy’s success and (2) publicly operates as a counter-vailing political force on those who would gather power and break rules in doing so. The sum of constitutionalism is that it controls those who seek an undue amount of authority. In the words of another scholar.
"The contemporary political theorist George Kateb has written that, constitutionalism works by “chastening authority.” Mark Brzezinski explains that constitutionalism “is a state of mind, an expectation, a norm in which politics must be conducted in accordance with standing rules or conventions, written or unwritten, that cannot easily be changed; it is a principle whereby all power is limited, and whereby forces of power can act and decide only within strict limits defined by the national constitution.”
"The two valences of constitutionalism—the internal and the external—allow the people collectively to militate against demagogues and constantly perpetuate a just, equal, and fair political order. In the words of another one political scientist, a “positive requirement of a working democracy is an intelligent distrust of its leadership, a skepticism stubborn but not blind, of all demands for the enlargement of power, and an emphasis upon critical method in every phase of social life.”
"In the end, constitutionalism is about ordinary people doing ordinary things in their ordinary lives to an extraordinary end. As Voltaire said in Candide, “Cultivate your garden.” Constitutionalism is not a glamorous affair; it is, instead, weeding and tending. As Arendt argued, a constitution can be both a written document and a constant act of a people constituting their government."
"[C]onstitutionalism isn’t about laws, precisely—it’s about the spirit that underlies those laws. As Strauss put it, “The politeia is more fundamental than any laws; it is the source of all laws.” Constitutionalism is the culture that fights concentrated authority; it is a constant warning, in the people’s hearts and minds, to those who would be strongmen."
This doesn't mean America's constitutionalism has been perfect - certainly it has not been, and it requires vigilance as well as alertness to when we are tested (such as by the Bush administration's oversteps, including the very dangerous "unitary executive" theory). It is to say, however, that in a time when many Americans are suffering "democracy fatigue" after Iraq and Afghanistan, that we should refresh our understanding of constitutionalism as the soul of a successful democracy, and renew our drive to understand, build, and maintain these alive and self-aware system, both here and abroad.
February 24, 2009 12:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Unfortunately it's within the realm of foreign policy and security policy where the ability of the people to keep demagogues in government from concentrating too much power is at its weakest.
Intelligence agencies keep us in the dark about the true nature of threats that we do and don't face. Corporate members of the military industrial complex buy politicians. The foreign policy establishment is hostile to non-mainstream views to the point where there's nobody seriously questioning your statement that we should be in the business of democracy building outside our borders.
It seems like our foreign and security policy establishments are under the influence of a tyranny of experts and the well-connected few.
American democracy needs a lot more work than you seem to think it does.
February 24, 2009 12:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Seems to me the voters threw out the bums not because of any concern for the trashing of the constitution but because they failed to make the trains run on time. The lesson of the Bush years is that american democracy is quite vulnerable to a determined dictator and that fact is not likely to go unnoticed.
If the present congress/administration allows the userpations of the Bush administration to go unanswered and unpunished (as it looks like they will) the stage will be set for the next round of thugs. The vote rigging machine is firmly in place, the idea that a private army is normal, warentless secret suveilence stands unquestioned and on and on.
First the pardon of Nixon then the pass on Iran/Contra now this avalanch of skuldugary. It has become clear that this kind of activity is now the norm and it is only a matter of time before some gang says, "Elections? We don't need no stinkin' elections. What are you gonna do about it?" And the people, looking down the barrel of a gun will answer...?
February 24, 2009 2:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well Said,
February 24, 2009 1:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Michael,
Thank you very much for posting this synopsis for us slackers who did not get the reading done. It is very helpful. There is a lot to chew on here.
"is a state of mind, an expectation, a norm in which politics must be conducted in accordance with standing rules or conventions, written or unwritten, that cannot easily be changed; it is a principle whereby all power is limited, and whereby forces of power can act and decide only within strict limits defined by the national constitution."
Forgvive me I am not a trained political scientist, I am curious about how and when those rules should move. Is it only when the motives are pure? How does one know? How does a polity recogonize that some rules are helpful while dismissing those that have outlived their usefulness?
I ask because I think that in many ways our political evolution has stalled and is failing to adapt, and even exacerbating our current problems. I attribute that to the reverence we seem to hold the constitution and our inability to update it.
The list of flaws I see is long, from obvious ones like the electoral college and small state preponderance (go bush) to the travesty of DC not having the right to vote (or soon not to have senate representation). I mean California a state of 35 million people can't pass a budget because 1/3 of the statehouse are nihilist troglodytes.
Bush lacked a popular mandate for much of his presdency yet was able to continue atrocious policies, how I wished we had no confidence vote. Our is last election is a great example of the flaws of our system. It was a mere TWO YEARS LONG- while the credit crisis which started in july 2007 just barreled on down the tracks to send our economy over a cliff. But it was a great circus.
These are not strengths these are examples of system sclerosis, Our problems happen quicker, and entrenched powers have all the power and prevent change. I understand your argument centers on the system's ability to prevent demogouges, and I am not arguing that we should remove effective tools that maintain checks and balances. I just seems to me that there are some real negatives to our focus on our historical tradition of constitutionalism,
I think some common sense needs to reenter the dialogue. Our tradition prevents demogouges, but it also seems to require abject system wide failure in order to foster real change (civil war, great depression, WWII). I can't help but wonder if a more mature governing system might be possible if we were able to look outside our own historical blinders.
(I recognize that there is some occupational hazard inherent to discussing this line of thought, however I wanted to throw this out there.)
February 25, 2009 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ultimately, neither of these cranks achieved "threat to democracy" status. There were no revolutions in their name, no mountains of bodies to bury. Coughlin, in the '30s, drew a desperate audience seeking easy answers to difficult questions; McCarthy had a fearful America's ear for awhile, since the Soviet Union, led by Joseph Stalin, had armed itself with nuclear weapons.
But threat capacity? Low: American democracy up to now always has been made of sterner stuff; and when demogogues are shaken off, generally they disappear. When we take these rabble-rousers out of their context, out of the geography of the times that made them, they figure in stark relief against a more "refined" present, and seem more pivotal by losing elements that mitigated their phenomenon: Stalin was scary. ...And he had the bomb. The unfathomable nature of Coughlin's and McCarthy's initial impacts can only be sustained if we ignore that in the Depression and the immediate postwer era, fears were real. Although it does not excuse exploiting these crises, it does explain, without political mutation, incendiaries' transient bully pulpits.
February 24, 2009 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
its still a bit early.
wait 6-9 months from now when the economy is so bad that people will begin fighting for food.
tent cities and no food make for violence and the need to blame someone.
it may not need a single leader but if you listen to rush calling for Obama to fail and you see cartoons of a monkey shot to death, implying it is Obama, if you hear senators questioning the legality of the president...........
you can rest assured explosive violence is not far behind.
just pay attention to the escalation of the hate speech as the types of things i have described will get worse and worse.
there are powerfull forces coming together to destroy the Obama presidency and they care not a rats ass to how it affects the people and the country.
these voices are rabid like rush ,some are financial, while others are just war mongers that want to destroy anything Islamic.
look up my past posts less you dismiss what i say and you will find i have been 100% accurate and way ahead on the economy and its fallouts.
just watch.
February 24, 2009 4:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am replying to Jadz but the reply button isn't working.
In any event, I am in total agreement with your post and fear the same.
February 26, 2009 4:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nothing like a little provocation to stir up teh commenters, eh? I'll nominate the entire 'Republican Revolution.' Their rise to power, and takedown of Clinton is textbook demagoguery. Look around, and you'll still see Newt Gingrich, Tom DeLay rabble-rousing their black little hearts out on cable 'newz.'
If anything, right-wing newz outlets, and the gaming of the Washington media elite by the right wing have institutionalized and professionalized demagoguery.
February 24, 2009 5:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting stuff, I've jsut finished reading Demagogue by Michael Signer so this post really attracted my attention. Has politics ever not been about being a demagogue? Obviously there are extreme versions but surely the nature to democracy to some degree is about being a demagogue and appealing to the people's desires?
February 25, 2009 10:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Um...
Bush
Cheney
Gingrich
DeLay
McCain
Palin
Limbaugh
Hannity
O'Reilly
Coulter
Malkin
These weren't dangerous demagogues who threatened our democracy? What planet has someone been living on? Uranus?
February 27, 2009 8:24 AM | Reply | Permalink