I've really enjoyed reading all of your terrific posts. I agree that George W. Bush doesn't meet the definition of a demagogue. Just because he undermined America's image in the world, weakened America's commitment to human rights, and failed to be a sound economic steward and a competent wartime commander in Iraq doesn't necessarily make him a demagogue. Moreover, the concept of "demagogue" doesn't, in my view, capture and fully do justice to Bush's legacy--whether we're talking about his supply-side economic policies, positions on abortion or civil rights, and crusading post-nine-eleven policies in waging the war on terror.
What most interests me about this discussion is the idea, which Heather's post touched upon, that fear is a political force coursing through the country's post-nine-eleven economic and national security debates. Fear has been featured in our political debates in recent months and years.

Read more »

Ok, Katulis, you got me. The experience of the last eight years shows that a leader can inflict enormous damage on American institutions, American civil society, and indeed the global polis without meeting the formal definition of demagogue -- which, I would argue, Bush (and Cheney) do not. They gained and retained power not so much by building and exploiting a popular movement outside our system but by cleverly gaming our system from inside at every turn, then engaging segments of the public just enough (and, opportunistically exploiting fear when 9/11 gave them the chance to make use of it) and actively trying to shut down the public the rest of the time.

This suggests that the political science construct Mike is working with is either:

not updated to the ways that the societal-technical changes I wrote about in my previous post make demaoguery both more and less of a threat to us; or

only one of a number of paths by which democracy can be undermined from within.

To Brian's questions about accountability, I think there's an answer that comes straight from the pages of Mike's book. Can we hold our leaders and institutions accountable in ways that actually strengthen the institutions going forward, without degenerating into a media circus of accusation and counter-accusation that actually winds up weakening them?

I had the privilege of listening to Ted Sorensen walk through the pros and cons of accountability last night. (He's on the advisory board of the National Security Network, which I run; neither he nor we has taken a position on the various proposals circulating.) The challenges he laid down were formidable ones: can an accountability process be made bipartisan or non-political; can it avoid draining energy from the President's forward-looking initiatives; and can it lead to actual institutional change? In Michael's words, can it become a seminar in advancing constitutionalism, or is it inevitably a circus that actually leaves the parameters of constitutionalism more in doubt?

Interesting discussion so far, but I must say there's an air of unreality here. And I smell more than just a whiff of collective amnesia that makes me want to shout out to my friends here - "Wake up! Are we forgetting what just transpired in our beloved land of the free and home of the brave during the George W. Bush era?"

I'm really surprised that the question of whether or not George W. Bush was a demagogue hasn't been explored in-depth. Matt asked, "Why America today hasn't seen more support for the sort of demagogues that Mike so nicely describes in his book;" and Heather outlined some arguments as to why demagogues don't do better in America. But what about the disastrous train wreck that America just experienced for the last eight years, the administration of George W. Bush?

In the wake of 9/11, didn't we have a leader who in essence became a demagogue and used the popular support he garnered in the wake of those devastating attacks to run roughshod over our cherished constitution and take America into an unnecessary war of choice in Iraq on false pretenses and bad information?

Read more »

I'm pleased to have a chance to take part in this discussion of Mike Signer's book, which is not only a rewarding meditation on politics in its own right but also a timely intervention in the public debate following the collapse of the neoconservative attempt to identify U.S. foreign policy (at least in rhetoric) with democracy promotion. Let me begin by defending Mike's roundly-criticized reference to Hugo Chavez as a demagogue. If Chavez is not a demagogue, then neither was Juan Peron or Huey Long or any number of other populist politicians who bent or broke the law in the name of defending the people against exploitative elites or foreign nations.

In most cases, the evils that demagogues claim to oppose on behalf of the people are real, even if the demagogue exaggerates them. We shouldn't assume that, because demagogy is a bad system, the groups that oppose the demagogue are necessarily virtuous. On the contrary--societies that produce electoral or extra-legal rebellions led by demagogues almost invariable are deeply flawed societies in need of reform. The goals of the demagogic leader's movement may be perfectly legitimate--an end to colonial rule or foreign economic domination, the concentration of wealth and power in an aristocracy, plutocracy or self-perpetuating political class. The problem lies with the methods, not the goals. Populism channeled through constitutional democracy has a chance to produce lasting reform. Populism channeled against constitutionalism all too often replaces one form of lawless misrule with another.

Read more »

I share Matt and Rachel's enthusiasm for Mike's writing, but bring a little more skepticism to the idea that our own constitutionalism is so strong that we are safely inoculated from an individual or small cabal coming to power through demagoguery. Here's why: a set of socio-cultural trends at home that have made the hill steeper for demagogues to climb have also, I think, undercut the foundations of our constitutionalism. I'll focus on the domestic questions here and take up the issue of democracy promotion in a subsequent post.

Matt asks a question that Mike also discusses in some detail in the book: why don't demagogues do better in American society? I want to suggest some societal changes that have taken place since the days of Father Coughlin and Joe McCarthy.

Read more »

This is a wonderful discussion that reflects the tensions in our pursuit of democracy today. Rachel has brought up trenchant thoughts on the value of culture and power in democracy, Matt has raised provocative questions about whither demagogues in America today, and Brian asks how we go about building democracy in Afghanistan in light of the perils there today.

All good questions that I urge you to look into and comment about.

But I'd like to concentrate instead here on two posts by readers.

Read more »

Thanks for the invitation to take part in this exchange. I've enjoyed reading the posts and the comments from TPMCafe's readers so far, and I wanted to offer my two cents.

Michael Signer's book is a worth the read for those interested in how to take political theory and relevant examples from history and apply them today's policy challenges. As I saw Michael develop his central thesis and ideas when we were colleagues at the Center for American Progress, the one question that I kept circling back to was: Can the United States actually translate these ideals into policy in 2009 and beyond, especially in challenging places like Iraq and Afghanistan?

I'm in favor of promoting democracy, human rights, and constitutionalism around the world, and I spent several years in places like Egypt, the Palestinian territories, and Iraq engaged in democracy promotion efforts, working with groups outside of the government. These experiences left me with a healthy sense of skepticism about how well the United States actually does in promoting these ideals of democracy and constitutionalism. I'm doubtful that the United States, particularly the United States government, is currently capable of doing a good job at this without implementing major reforms and policy shifts in its overall national security infrastructure, as I argued in this recent paper on democracy promotion efforts in the Middle East. This question of efficacy is particularly important at a time of economic crisis at home and reduced credibility globally, but I think it must be overcome if we are going to get to the root of some of the most pressing national security challenges.

Read more »

Terrific to be back on Talking Points Memo--thank you for having me. I really have to send out a special plug for this book. It's rare that we get a chance to read a new work of political philosophy, written for a mass audience. Demagogue is a very special, unique piece of work, and I really encourage readers not just to read our cliffs' notes version, but to buy the real thing.

I think the answer to Matt's question is very simple. Demagogue's thesis is that the reason we haven't seen the rise of a demagogue in the U.S. as this crisis unfolds is that we have developed, over 200 years, a very deep constitutional culture. It's the same reason that when the most powerful office in the world was up for grabs after the 2000 election, and again in 2004, no one ever imagined that the military might come out on the side of one of the candidates. Think about that: when elections are that close in Kenya, Albania, Zimbabwe, and all sorts of less powerful countries, we don't bat an eye when Parliament refuses to convene, or violence breaks out. But when the American presidency was so close that it came down to a few hundred hanging chads, it was over unthinkable that our military would get involved, or that Congress would refuse to accept the Supreme Court's ruling--even a very politicized ruling. I was in Bangladesh to monitor their elections this December, and one thing that impressed them about our elections was how quickly and graciously McCain accepted his defeat. That didn't happen in their own elections, or in many other countries the world over. That is the power of a constitutional culture.

I think Mike's point about the deep importance of culture is worth driving home, for two reasons. First, as we recover from the debacle of the Bush years, it suggests ways to strengthen our own democracy so such Presidential excesses are unlikely to happen again. And second, it points to important modifications in how we support democracy abroad.

Read more »

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?

Read more »

First, thanks to TPM for hosting this forum on Demagogue. It's an especially rough time for books, especially with the Post's tragic decision recently to close Book World as a stand-alone section. It's especially urgent that we have forums like this where books can be discussed seriously.

Thanks also to my great partners here -- we will all benefit from having the great minds of Lind, Katulis, Kleinfeld, Hurlburt, and Dallek trained on this topic of democracy, constitutionalism, and the future direction of American national security policy.

This book emerged from a longstanding fascination of mine about why democracy can prosper, on the one hand, and disintegrate, on the other. It's therefore a book not only about demagogues -- who can cause democracy to collapse -- but about freedom itself. And this is a particularly American story.

Read more »

Hugo Chavez, Moqtada Al-Sadr, Sen. Joe McCarthy, George W. Bush: charismatic mass leaders, and democracy's most dangerous enemies? This week at Cafe, we have a Book Club discussion on Michael Signer's Demagogue: The Fight to Save Democracy from Its Worst Enemies. In it, he explores the history of the rise of popular leaders and the threats they pose to the democracies that produce them.

Signer was Foreign Policy Advisor on Sen. John Edwards presidential campaign and he is Senior Policy Advisor at the Center for American Progress and Senior National Security Policy Fellow at Third Way.

Joining him are Rachel Kleinfeld, co-founder and Executive Director of the Truman National Security Project; Heather Hurlburt, speechwriter and policy advisor in the Clinton Administration; Michael Lind, Whitehead Senior Fellow at the New America Foundation; Brian Katulis, Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress; and Matt Dallek, professor at the University of California Washington Programme. See you there!