In Defense of Demagogues...
In the first place, they are disruptive forces in the body politic. They stir things up. Second, they supposedly fail to play the game in appealing to the base emotions, rather than to cool reason. From this stems the third charge: that they appeal to the unwashed masses with emotional, extreme, and, therefore, unsound views. Add to this the vice of ungentlemanly enthusiasm, and we have about catalogued the sins of the species demagogue.
The charge of emotionalism is surely an irrelevant one. The problem of an ideology is not whether it is put forth in an emotional,a matter-of-fact, or a dull manner. The question is whether or not the ideology is correct. Almost always, the demagogue is a man who finds that his ideas are held by only a small minority of people, a minority that is apt to be particularly small among the sober and respectable. Convinced of the truth and the importance of his ideas, he sees that the heavy weight of public opinion, and particularly of the respectable molders of this opinion, is either hostile or indifferent to this truth. Is it any wonder that such a situation will make a man emotional?
All demagogues are ideological nonconformists and therefore are bound to be emotional about the general and respectable rejection of what they consider to be vital truth. But not all ideological nonconformists become demagogues. The difference is that the demagogue possesses that quality of mass attraction that permits him to use emotion to stir up the masses. In going to the masses, he is going over the heads of the respectable intellectuals who ordinarily guide mass opinion. It is this electric, short-cut appeal direct to the masses that gives the demagogue his vital significance and that makes him such a menace to the dominant orthodoxy.
The demagogue is frequently accused by his enemies of being an insincere opportunist, a man who cynically uses certain ideas and emotions in order to gain popularity and power. It is almost impossible, however, to judge a person's motives, particularly in political life, unless one is a close friend. We have seen that the sincere demagogue is very likely to be emotional himself, while stirring others to emotion. Finally, if a man is really an opportunist, the easiest way to acclaim and power is to play ball with the ruling orthodoxy, and not the opposite. The way of the demagogue is the riskiest and has the least chance of success.
It is the fashionable belief that an idea is wrong in proportion to its "extremism" and right in proportion as it is a chaotic muddle of contradictory doctrines. To the professional middle-of-the-roader, a species that is always found in abundance, the demagogue invariably comes as a nasty shock. For it is one of the most admirable qualities of the demagogue that he forces men to think, some for the first time in their lives. Out of the muddle of current ideas, both fashionable and unfashionable, he extracts some and pushes them to their logical conclusions, i.e. "to extremes." He thereby forces people either to reject their loosely held views as unsound, or to find them sound and to pursue them to their logical consequences. Far from being an irrational force, then, the silliest of demagogues is a great servant of Reason, even when he is mostly in the wrong.
A typical example is the inflationist demagogue: the "monetary crank." The vast majority of respectable economists have always scoffed at the crank without realizing that they are not really able to answer his arguments. For what the crank has done is to take the inflationism that lies at the core of fashionable economics and push it to its logical conclusion. He asks; "If it is good to have an inflation of money of 10 percent per year, why isn't at still better to double the money supply every year?" Only a few economists have realized that in order to answer the crank reasonably instead of by ridicule, it is necessary to purge fashionable economics of its inflationist foundations.
Demagogues probably first fell into disrepute in the 19th century, when most of them were socialists. But their conservative opposition, as is typical of conservatives in every age, never came to grips with the logic of the demagogues’ position. Instead, they contented themselves with attacking the emotionalism and extremism of the upstarts. Their logic unassailed, the socialist demagogues triumphed, [as argument always will conquer pure prejudice in the long run. For it seemed as if the socialists had reason on their side.
Now socialism is the fashionable and respectable ideology. The old passionate arguments of the soap box have become the tired cliches of the cocktail party and the classroom. Any demagogy, any disruption of the apple cart, would almost certainly come from the individualist opposition. Furthermore, the State is now in command, and whenever this conditions prevails, the State is anxious to prevent disruption and ideological turmoil. In their wake, demagogues would bring "disunity," and people might be stirred to think for themselves instead of falling into a universal goose-step behind their anointed leaders. Furthermore, individualist demagogues would be more dangerous than ever, because they could now be equipped with rational arguments to refute the socialist cliches. The respectable statist Left, then, fears and hates the demagogue, and more than ever before, he is the object of attack.
It is true that, in the long run, we will never be free until the intellectuals--the natural molders of public opinions--have been converted to the side of freedom. In the short run, however, the only route to liberty is by an appeal to the masses over the heads of the State and its intellectual bodyguard. And this appeal can be made most effectively by the demagogue--the rough, unpolished man of the people, who can present the truth in simple, effective, yes emotional, language. The intellectuals see this clearly, and this is why they constantly attack every indication of libertarian demagoguery as part of a "rising tide of anti-intellectualism." Of course, it is not anti-intellectualism; it is the saving of mankind from those intellectuals who have betrayed the intellect itself.
Murray Rothbard dated 1954(link)
Thought this was an interesting and relevant article with all the discussion of demagoguery and its possible usefulness. I think Rothbard makes a great point about having to go over the heads of the "respectable intellectuals" who serve as bodyguards to the state. Now I don't find these "intellectuals" that populate our cable news networks to be that respectable or intellectual but I digress.
Murray Rothbard died in 1995 and wrote that in 1954 apparently
But I'm guessing you know that so I imagine that is directed at me. I think Trump is good for the race, good for US politics, he has brought to forefront some important issues that would not of been talked about, he single handedly destroyed Jeb Bush's campaign, smashing political correctness, plus he took all these politicos I hate down a peg as well. Would I vote for him? Maybe, I definitely know I won't vote for Hillary Clinton and every other Republican other than Rand and maybe Cruz. There will be a game of chicken going on between Trump and the establishment, I think most people expect Trump to run as a third party candidate if doesn't get the nomination but the real question to me is whether or not the establishment would try to try to spoil the election with a candidate of their own even if Trump does win the nomination. I think general election Trump will might be a bit different than primary Trump, probably incorporating more left-wing populist ideals and trying to make more of an appeal to the poor and working class that have traditionally voted for Democrats. Fascinating election season.
I liked Rothbard's other point too
It is the fashionable belief that an idea is wrong in proportion to its "extremism" and right in proportion as it is a chaotic muddle of contradictory doctrines. To the professional middle-of-the-roader, a species that is always found in abundance, the demagogue invariably comes as a nasty shock. For it is one of the most admirable qualities of the demagogue that he forces men to think, some for the first time in their lives. Out of the muddle of current ideas, both fashionable and unfashionable, he extracts some and pushes them to their logical conclusions, i.e. "to extremes." He thereby forces people either to reject their loosely held views as unsound, or to find them sound and to pursue them to their logical consequences. Far from being an irrational force, then, the silliest of demagogues is a great servant of Reason, even when he is mostly in the wrong.
FWIW, kind of off topic but I've always thought Obama was tremendously overrated as a speaker. I remember seeing him in person in 2008 at some town hall in Waukesha and his stump speech was nothing special and all I was hearing was how this was how amazing he was as a speaker but then again I guess what would of lived up to expectations? Maybe on an individual level he is charismatic but on screen especially away from the teleprompter he is not. Obama seemed more popular because who he was as a representation of change altho I should note that Obama ran against the Bush's policies and made frequent remarks about the Constitution and civil liberties, far way from where he is now.
I don't see Obama as being charismatic.
Through his experiences, he seems to have become a rather conventional President in a lot of ways.
In retrospect, I think he will be rated as a rather average president. He's had a strong tendency to attempt to take the "middle road" on things. Sometimes, with success; other times, without success.
He's no dangerous socialist--that's for sure.
Through his experiences, he seems to have become a rather conventional President in a lot of ways.
In retrospect, I think he will be rated as a rather average president. He's had a strong tendency to attempt to take the "middle road" on things. Sometimes, with success; other times, without success.
He's no dangerous socialist--that's for sure.
Do you see conventional presidents "fundamentally transforming America?"
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/3 ... vis-hanson
Socialist or not, he is fundamentally (detrimentally) transformative. Seems dangerous to me.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... bama-poll/
A day ahead of President Obama’s trip to Selma to commemorate the 50th anniversary of Bloody Sunday, a new poll shows that nearly half of Americans believe race relations have worsened over the course of his presidency.
Civil unrest is not something a president usually wants happening on his watch.
GoonSquad
Veteran
Joined: 11 May 2007
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,748
Location: International House of Paincakes...
Murray Rothbard died in 1995 and wrote that in 1954 apparently
But I'm guessing you know that so I imagine that is directed at me. I think Trump is good for the race, good for US politics, he has brought to forefront some important issues that would not of been talked about, he single handedly destroyed Jeb Bush's campaign, smashing political correctness, plus he took all these politicos I hate down a peg as well. Would I vote for him? Maybe, I definitely know I won't vote for Hillary Clinton and every other Republican other than Rand and maybe Cruz. There will be a game of chicken going on between Trump and the establishment, I think most people expect Trump to run as a third party candidate if doesn't get the nomination but the real question to me is whether or not the establishment would try to try to spoil the election with a candidate of their own even if Trump does win the nomination. I think general election Trump will might be a bit different than primary Trump, probably incorporating more left-wing populist ideals and trying to make more of an appeal to the poor and working class that have traditionally voted for Democrats. Fascinating election season.
I liked Rothbard's other point too
It is the fashionable belief that an idea is wrong in proportion to its "extremism" and right in proportion as it is a chaotic muddle of contradictory doctrines. To the professional middle-of-the-roader, a species that is always found in abundance, the demagogue invariably comes as a nasty shock. For it is one of the most admirable qualities of the demagogue that he forces men to think, some for the first time in their lives. Out of the muddle of current ideas, both fashionable and unfashionable, he extracts some and pushes them to their logical conclusions, i.e. "to extremes." He thereby forces people either to reject their loosely held views as unsound, or to find them sound and to pursue them to their logical consequences. Far from being an irrational force, then, the silliest of demagogues is a great servant of Reason, even when he is mostly in the wrong.
Here's the problem. Our system is designed to allow a diverse group of people to live together in relative peace and with maximum freedom. It is supposed to run on compromise.
The founders were afraid of demagogues because they're extreme. When extremists hole power, someone is going to be oppressed. But I suppose that doesn't matter to you as long as it's your brand of extremist in power.
If you want to see how toxic demagogues are to a republic, study roman politics and pay particular attention to the office of Tribune of the Plebs starting with Gracchus in the 130's bc. The founders did. That's why we're supposed to have indirect election of the president and an appointed senate.
_________________
No man is free who is not master of himself.~Epictetus
Maybe now, in the heat of passion, you might see dangerous features to Obama's presidency.
However: Civil unrest has occurred under the watch of most, if not all, Presidents.
Obama made an attempt to be transformative--but Congress used its check and balances to prevent that. Obamacare sucks for many people--but Obamacare is more of a bad compromise than something that is radical/socialistic.
What's alarming is the increase in school shootings. Lots of alienation is revealing itself. I don't think it's Obama's fault, though. I just think the times, in general, they are a changin' to a more cynical phase. People are believing the glass is half-empty, rather than half-full.
I believe, 50 years from now, Obama will be seen as being a pretty average President. He turned from being a "reform-minded" President to a pretty pragmatic one. This, like I said, was forced upon him by Congress--especially the House.
He did do a pretty job at not making his "race" a paramount issue during his presidency. His mixed racial heritage has no relevance to how we will judge him in the future.
Not on a soapbox calling for the Workers to take the means of production, but just mentioning that wages have declined over the last forty years, and jobs have been vanishing since NAFTA.
The causes of our problems are not Cosmic, most were caused by Congress.
Our wages have declined because Minimum Wage rates have lagged behind the cost of living,
Our jobs have declined because shipping jobs offshore was not offset by tariffs on the import of the goods produced.
Our jobs have declined because of lack of Border Control, and internal employment control that lets people come here illegally and mostly avoid taxes, and then send their money out of the country.
We once had good education. That has eroded over time. Sometimes it was the Right, make them pledge allegiance to the flag every morning, and to God! Sometimes the Left, Everybody is equal to everything, and Union teachers are there to enforce social conditioning.
Somewhere along the way Reading, Writing, Thinking, Math, got lost, along with History, Geography, and other useless subjects. We have stood at 38th in world rankings for a while, between Bulgaria and Romania.
An educated workforce is the first pick of business, and the strongest factor in maintaining a Government of The People.
In 1963 the Dollar was an ounce of silver. The wages were enough to live, buy a house, car, have a non working wife, two point five kids and a dog. There were choices in employment, anyone who applied themselves could improve their standard of living.
We now have more people out of the workforce than during The Great Depression. An entry level job does not pay enough to rent an apartment, and eat. Those who prepared themselves for work, now find no jobs, and they are saddled with lifetime debt.
I was against the National Debt before Obama, who has doubled it, ran it up more than all Presidents before him combined. He has been spending a Trillion more than income every year, but we have nothing to show for it.
Someday, not only no more running up the debt, spending a Trillion less each year, but also paying back a Trillion a year, to cover the Social Security of the War Babies for several decades. They paid in over their working life, Congress took the money and left an IOU. Everybody knew when they had to pay that back.
Congress does not have the money to pay it back. The younger workers paying in is not enough to cover the retired. The can has been kicked to the end of the road where it meets a cliff.
By all of History, the next step is the government prints more money, the value of money drops, until it is worthless. Hyper Inflation. History says, all paper money has become worthless.
The cure is worse, Deflation. When government can no longer survive on income tax, it taxes assets. We already have Property Tax. As those taxes rise the property becomes worth less. Next comes a tax on Bank Accounts and Securities. As government sucks the life blood out of the economy money becomes more valuable, and the price of all things drops. No one wants to buy because money is hard to come by and worth more, and all assets will be cheaper next year.
History also says the only way to avoid this, revive the economy, bring stability, is to tax those who have benefitted from the previous laws. To tax their assets.
One way was to elect a Dictator for five years who could write new laws. Another way was to murder a rich family and steal everything.
Trump has proposed a 14.2% tax on assets, Net Worth, which equals the National Debt. Paying off the National Debt puts twenty Trillion dollars in circulation at inflation. It reduces the interest paid. Taxes can be lower.
Interest produces asset bubbles. Inflation drives up prices. Deflating those bubbles assets are worth less because money is worth more.
For most people, living paycheck to paycheck without much assets, their paycheck buys more, their savings retain value.
Greece and Rome both knew they faced a French Revolution situation, if the people cannot buy bread, the rulers heads come off.
Taxing the rich and dismissing government has never been popular with the rich and government. Following WWII Ike had a 90% top tax rate, and kept it till the War Debt was paid, Europe was rebuilt, win the peace, the American Autobahn was built, and we transitioned from a war economy to one of peace. It brought general prosperity and formed the Middle Class.
Ike also closed the country to immigration, threw out the illegals, sent the people of Europe back to the country of their birth, and made the US Dollar=One Ounce of Silver the world benchmark of money.
While some claim to be smarter than anyone else, because they are educated, the wisdom of the common man is rarely wrong. 80% of people think we are going in the wrong direction.
As JFK said, "Those who do not make revolution possible, make it inevitable."
Murray Rothbard died in 1995 and wrote that in 1954 apparently
But I'm guessing you know that so I imagine that is directed at me. I think Trump is good for the race, good for US politics, he has brought to forefront some important issues that would not of been talked about, he single handedly destroyed Jeb Bush's campaign, smashing political correctness, plus he took all these politicos I hate down a peg as well. Would I vote for him? Maybe, I definitely know I won't vote for Hillary Clinton and every other Republican other than Rand and maybe Cruz. There will be a game of chicken going on between Trump and the establishment, I think most people expect Trump to run as a third party candidate if doesn't get the nomination but the real question to me is whether or not the establishment would try to try to spoil the election with a candidate of their own even if Trump does win the nomination. I think general election Trump will might be a bit different than primary Trump, probably incorporating more left-wing populist ideals and trying to make more of an appeal to the poor and working class that have traditionally voted for Democrats. Fascinating election season.
I liked Rothbard's other point too
It is the fashionable belief that an idea is wrong in proportion to its "extremism" and right in proportion as it is a chaotic muddle of contradictory doctrines. To the professional middle-of-the-roader, a species that is always found in abundance, the demagogue invariably comes as a nasty shock. For it is one of the most admirable qualities of the demagogue that he forces men to think, some for the first time in their lives. Out of the muddle of current ideas, both fashionable and unfashionable, he extracts some and pushes them to their logical conclusions, i.e. "to extremes." He thereby forces people either to reject their loosely held views as unsound, or to find them sound and to pursue them to their logical consequences. Far from being an irrational force, then, the silliest of demagogues is a great servant of Reason, even when he is mostly in the wrong.
Here's the problem. Our system is designed to allow a diverse group of people to live together in relative peace and with maximum freedom. It is supposed to run on compromise.
The founders were afraid of demagogues because they're extreme. When extremists hole power, someone is going to be oppressed. But I suppose that doesn't matter to you as long as it's your brand of extremist in power.
If you want to see how toxic demagogues are to a republic, study roman politics and pay particular attention to the office of Tribune of the Plebs starting with Gracchus in the 130's bc. The founders did. That's why we're supposed to have indirect election of the president and an appointed senate.
I would say that our founders were pretty extreme but I do not see Trump as so much as an extreme ideologue compared to the neoconservatives and "progressives" that dot the political landscape. He has a pretty hard line stances on immigration and trade but no one else wants to solve the problem because everybody else is owned by the money and the big money wants unlimited immigration, cheap labor, more outsourcing, more H1bs. The Democratic Party has played a zero-sum game with it's black and latino voters, they've abandoned blacks to welcome in an invasion of hispanics because they think that will permanently entrench themselves in power. For those of us on main street, immigration and the destruction of the American worker is the big issue and the finger is getting pointed at these awful trade deals, illegal immigration, and massive corruption. Part of Trump's whole appeal is his ability to make a deal, he's running specifically as a non-partisan, someone not beholden to party or someone else's money, he's someone that say's he'll get things done. We have a 3 supposedly equal branches of government, I do not worry too much about Trump being any sort of dictator. He has a public persona that might appear ugly and crass to you but I think he is very smart and competent person. I see upside with Trump, there is none with Hillary.
At this point, profiling is preferable to full fledged surveillance police state. We are at war with radical Islam and I understand why Obama might not want to say that but it is the truth, we shouldn't be molesting grandmas and people in wheelchairs at the airports because we have to be fair and randomly screen people. It's just the epitome of stupid, yes it is possible for us to be attacked still but we can mitigated 90% of the risk. Israel has had much success at this at their airports, they even allow you to bring liquid onto planes but that's because Israel is honest with where its biggest threat comes from. Some Jewish grandma or Christian Holy Land tourist probably isn't going to blow themselves up, that's just the truth. Not all Muslims are jihadists but all jihadists are Muslim, this might be a relatively small population altho Democratic congresswoman Loretta Sanchez puts the numbers at somewhere between 5-20% of worldwide Muslims want to establish caliphate by any means possible. If that is accurate then we don't have a war against terrorism, we have a clash of civilizations. I'd be interested in know where she got that number from and what the tabs where in different regions, she does sit on the committees for Homeland Security and Armed Services. I'd imagine the Sunni Arabs if they were separated to be much higher percentage.
It's the Wahhabis and Saudi Arabia, it has always been them, the head of the snake. We need to stop them from spreading their extremist filth into our countries and even worse moderate Muslim ones as well. They are the true enemy. We give them legitimacy, they lead the faith by control the two holy mosques so this problem will only get worse. Perhaps we should ban anybody that has studied at Saudi funded madrasa from entering this country, how many do we have in our country? I don't want to be involved in that part of the world, I see no reason why we have to be allies with the Saudis and if they keep funding terrorism. Perhaps we should buy from Russia and Iran instead? Coming together economically and facing our shared enemies is the way to peace, these inbred Saudi princes have no future and essentially enslave their people under brutal dictatorship that beheads more people than ISIS.
GoonSquad
Veteran
Joined: 11 May 2007
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,748
Location: International House of Paincakes...
I would say that our founders were pretty extreme but I do not see Trump as so much as an extreme ideologue compared to the neoconservatives and "progressives" that dot the political landscape. He has a pretty hard line stances on immigration and trade but no one else wants to solve the problem because everybody else is owned by the money and the big money wants unlimited immigration, cheap labor, more outsourcing, more H1bs. The Democratic Party has played a zero-sum game with it's black and latino voters, they've abandoned blacks to welcome in an invasion of hispanics because they think that will permanently entrench themselves in power. For those of us on main street, immigration and the destruction of the American worker is the big issue and the finger is getting pointed at these awful trade deals, illegal immigration, and massive corruption. Part of Trump's whole appeal is his ability to make a deal, he's running specifically as a non-partisan, someone not beholden to party or someone else's money, he's someone that say's he'll get things done. We have a 3 supposedly equal branches of government, I do not worry too much about Trump being any sort of dictator. He has a public persona that might appear ugly and crass to you but I think he is very smart and competent person. I see upside with Trump, there is none with Hillary.
Dude you are suffering from some MASSIVE cognitive dissonance. You're quoting this fire-breathing Austrian economist and then complaining about how immigration and free trade are hurtig American workers....
Libertarians and Austrian economists ARE ALL ABOUT FREE TRADE and LETTING LABOR MIGRATE TO THE JOB!! ! Your posts don't make sense.
And Trump doesn't have policies. He simply spews a bunch of vague, outrageous nonsense that could NEVER BE DONE.
We cannot round up and deport 12 million people. We cannot force Mexico to pay for a border fence. We cannot persecute Muslims at home without CREATING an entire generation of homegrown terrorists and we cannot expect Muslim countries to cooperate with us against ISIS while we oppress muslims here.
In short the reason that no other politician talks like Trump is because other politicians try to be at least slightly realistic. Trump deals is silly unrealistic BS.
I was going to comment on the other two paragraphs, but they're just culture war propaganda and islamiphobic paranoid fantasy.
Are you having a manic episode?
_________________
No man is free who is not master of himself.~Epictetus
They have a right to be demagogues, and their audience has a right to like their demagoguery and follow them.
_________________
The red lake has been forgotten. A dust devil stuns you long enough to shroud forever those last shards of wisdom. The breeze rocking this forlorn wasteland whispers in your ears, “Não resta mais que uma sombra”.
Here's the problem. Our system is designed to allow a diverse group of people to live together in relative peace and with maximum freedom. It is supposed to run on compromise.
The founders were afraid of demagogues because they're extreme. When extremists hole power, someone is going to be oppressed. But I suppose that doesn't matter to you as long as it's your brand of extremist in power.
If you want to see how toxic demagogues are to a republic, study roman politics and pay particular attention to the office of Tribune of the Plebs starting with Gracchus in the 130's bc. The founders did. That's why we're supposed to have indirect election of the president and an appointed senate.
QFT.
