The Victorian Demagogue: 19th Century Words on a Modern Danger(mimimatthews.com)
mimimatthews.com
The Victorian Demagogue: 19th Century Words on a Modern Danger
https://mimimatthews.com/2016/08/11/the-victorian-demagogue-19th-century-words-on-a-modern-danger/
38 comments
Ironically, today it's the national newspapers in the UK that play the role of the demagogue. Headlines that shriek at readers in hysterical tones. Foaming-at-the-mouth outrage deliberately manufactured to inflame public opinion. Lies, deceit, distortion - it's the stock in trade of newspapers both left and right (although our right wing press are particularly vicious and nasty). Honest, truthful reporting is barely to be seen.
“Under the spreading chestnut tree
I sold you and you sold me:
There lie they, and here lie we
Under the spreading chestnut tree.”
So, if not in the Proles, where does our hope lie?
So, if not in the Proles, where does our hope lie?
I don't think John Bright was given as an example of a demagogue so much that he was referenced in a quote used from the 19th century, the writer of which thought he was a demagogue.
In the classical "Amusing Ourselves to Death" Neil Postman makes a case that politics, and the quality of political debate, has deteriorated a lot from 18-19th century standards.
Back in 1850s, Stephen A. Douglas and Abraham Lincoln debated with three hours speeches each. It wouldn't sit well with the attention span of modern audience.
Back in 1850s, Stephen A. Douglas and Abraham Lincoln debated with three hours speeches each. It wouldn't sit well with the attention span of modern audience.
.. whereas the outcome of the process seems to have (unevenly) improved in the 20th century.
Lincoln had to persuade people that slavery was a bad idea. We have now, largely, climbed that particular hill and are working on the next society-wide injustices.
Also, that three hour debate would be all you got. We have 24 hour rolling news now.
(I have to admit that Trump is contradicting this thesis rather badly)
Lincoln had to persuade people that slavery was a bad idea. We have now, largely, climbed that particular hill and are working on the next society-wide injustices.
Also, that three hour debate would be all you got. We have 24 hour rolling news now.
(I have to admit that Trump is contradicting this thesis rather badly)
I'm not so sure about that. Nowadays politicians have to convince people that banning gay marriage is a bad idea and scientists have to convince politicians that blasting all those greenhouse gases into the atmosphere might not be a good idea.
It's always easy to look back and say "Why did this issue even need an argument?!".
It's always easy to look back and say "Why did this issue even need an argument?!".
Because a lot of people have a lot of mental furniture that they have to move to get there, and that makes this hard for them.
"Marriage is between a man and a woman" was a standard for a very long time. It wasn't arbitrary. It had a really solid and complicated derivation. The Stonewall Riots were 47 years ago, but in the early '90s, even Obama and Ms. Clinton agreed with "man and woman", at least in public.
And there are still people who will hold that this is a "sin" and you can't really tell them otherwise because they use a different moral toolkit than you do.
AGW research dates to roughly 1989 - call that 27 years ago. That's not that long. It's also balanced on a very tricky spot in our economic system. It is inherently political. There's also no clear path to mitigate it beyond granting government(s) a lot of power.
"Marriage is between a man and a woman" was a standard for a very long time. It wasn't arbitrary. It had a really solid and complicated derivation. The Stonewall Riots were 47 years ago, but in the early '90s, even Obama and Ms. Clinton agreed with "man and woman", at least in public.
And there are still people who will hold that this is a "sin" and you can't really tell them otherwise because they use a different moral toolkit than you do.
AGW research dates to roughly 1989 - call that 27 years ago. That's not that long. It's also balanced on a very tricky spot in our economic system. It is inherently political. There's also no clear path to mitigate it beyond granting government(s) a lot of power.
Equal marriage is very much an example of the process working, from homosexuality being illegal within many people's lifetimes. Social change always takes a long time as it involves gradually changing norms, not just legal process. Persuading people that the alleged "harm" is entirely mythological.
GHG on the other hand is a problem where lots of people's incomes depend on ignoring it.
GHG on the other hand is a problem where lots of people's incomes depend on ignoring it.
I'd say most people's lives ( or at least quality of life ) somehow depend on ignoring it for now. Is the Sub Belt going to empty out? Weill we go fully towards public transport? Will suburbs disappear? These are quite disruptive.
I have to disagree. I think each society is a product of its environment, both natural and social. It's extremely hard to be pacifistic when your neighbors are rattling guns.
As an equal marriage (and general civil rights) proponent, I think it's less that "the process works" and more that we have gotten very lucky that the Supreme Court has accumulated far more power than it was ever intended to have and has largely used that power to override the democratic will of the majority in cases where it has been oppressive to various minority groups. If we had to wait for the "right" laws to pass through legislatures, I don't believe we would have nearly the level of civil rights that we do today.
I think the courts and bureaucracy being unresponsive to popular opinion, social norms (social stare decisis if you will), and the regular rules of American democracy (i.e., actually amending the Constitution when appropriate) has resulted in the rising popularity of figures like Donald Trump.
It's hard to argue that the system isn't rigged when the rules of the system aren't as important as the outcome that relatively powerful decision-makers want to see.
It's hard to argue that the system isn't rigged when the rules of the system aren't as important as the outcome that relatively powerful decision-makers want to see.
I agree with you that populist movements are a natural result of systems like ours that are not fully democratic. Whether or not you think the system is "rigged" depends on what you think the system is. If "the system" is the form of government we've had since at least the end of the civil war (but really, since close to the beginning), with a strong non-representative bureaucracy, a powerful judiciary, and powerful private political parties, then it isn't "rigged", it just has components that don't answer directly to the people at large. But if you think "the system" is a pure democracy, then yes, it has been "rigged" from the start. Personally, I'm a much bigger fan of our system with all its checks and balances between competing interests than I would be of the more democratic system that a lot of people seem to think we have.
> Nowadays politicians have to convince people that banning gay marriage is a bad idea
They don't "have to", they want to
They don't "have to", they want to
We now impose many injustices, like imprisoning any person who refuses to hand over a third of the currency they receive in private trade, that we did not in the 19th century, and have adopted an ideology (social democracy) that glorifies these injustices and ridicules those who call attention to them.
Attentions spans are very short nowadays. Probably why everything politicians say seems to be in soundbites now.
I have a tough time believing that people were sitting with rapt attention for the full duration of two 3 hour stump speeches.
I think over time public speakers have seen a benefit in reducing ideas to memorable slogans. This way their words are understandable to everyone and not just those who can understand the complexity of the issue. Whether this is good or bad for society is certainly up for debate.
Nah, i think that's from the use of modern marketing techniques.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Century_of_the_Self
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Century_of_the_Self
Correct. Much of modern society is the way it is because it was deliberately manufactured to be that way, from throwaway consumerism to sound bite politics.
Demagoguery vs literal oligarchy (rich donor dictating to SecState: Https://wikileaks.org/Clinton-emails/emailid/28972 ), take your pick.
That link does not appear to work.
Presumably, he means this one: https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/28972
It's not only the technique of the Victorian demagogue that's still at play. Many of the irrational societal prejudices of the Victorian era still plague society. These are just as simplistic and pernicious as the Victorian idea that "wolves are bad." (Which caused the mismanagement of US national parks.) Curiously enough, the political left and the right object to different ones, or at least spin them differently.
If people feel that their "democracy" is rigged, then they'll rally behind a demagogue as a means of bringing the system down. Like most sideways assaults on Trump, it completely misses the point.
It's not just Trump. It's also Orban, Kaczyński, brexiters, and probably others from countries I don't hear about. It seems last few years people everywhere decided to "show the establishment" by electing irrational politicians.
Dan Carlin has a good take on this in his Common Sense episode "Revenge of the Gangrenous Finger". There's a largely neglected segment of the population, and they're getting angry enough to burn everything down.
Will check it out. Thanks.
> Like most sideways assaults on Trump, it completely misses the point.
I don't follow. Which point?
I don't follow. Which point?
Well, for one, it perpetuates the rather elitist view that the not-as-educated-as-me cannot make rational decisions for themselves. Anyone who follows a demagogue (not necessarily a true demagogue, but one defined by media or elites) is labelled as ignorant and unable to think for themselves. They are "fooled" by the demagogue. And the person labelled demagogue is presumed to only seeking power at the expense of those he is fooling, which may or may not be the case (i.e. the supposed demagogue may actually be passionate about his causes as well).
While true demagogues exist, the application of the label demagogue is largely political. In this case, she is clearly talking about Trump (but cleverly not naming him so has plausible deniability). She is pointing only towards things which draw parallels to Trump to the exclusion of the larger picture, and the implication is that people only support demagogues out of ignorance. But ignorant people don't support demagogues when they feel they are being adequately represented.
It is disenfranchisement that lead to popular support for emotional appealers. And not every person who rides to power on this wave of disenfranchisement is a automatically a demagogue (see current top comment about John Bright). When your options are "vote for the guy who says what feels good and might actually represent me" versus "vote for someone who has shown he won't represent me" (whether that thinking is correct or not), the supposed demagogue is the rational choice.
Education doesn't fix it in any case. There are many candidates who have run on platforms that appeal to educated voters, but have clearly only done so for power, because their actions in office have, at best, been neutral towards their supposed passionate platforms, but have personally enriched themselves. Educated voters still line up behind them.
While true demagogues exist, the application of the label demagogue is largely political. In this case, she is clearly talking about Trump (but cleverly not naming him so has plausible deniability). She is pointing only towards things which draw parallels to Trump to the exclusion of the larger picture, and the implication is that people only support demagogues out of ignorance. But ignorant people don't support demagogues when they feel they are being adequately represented.
It is disenfranchisement that lead to popular support for emotional appealers. And not every person who rides to power on this wave of disenfranchisement is a automatically a demagogue (see current top comment about John Bright). When your options are "vote for the guy who says what feels good and might actually represent me" versus "vote for someone who has shown he won't represent me" (whether that thinking is correct or not), the supposed demagogue is the rational choice.
Education doesn't fix it in any case. There are many candidates who have run on platforms that appeal to educated voters, but have clearly only done so for power, because their actions in office have, at best, been neutral towards their supposed passionate platforms, but have personally enriched themselves. Educated voters still line up behind them.
While true demagogues exist
Pretty much all political discourse has sunk to this level.
Pretty much all political discourse has sunk to this level.
As much as I agree with the general prescription (a better educated public to deal with demagogues), part of the problem has very little to do with education. Many well educated persons are susceptible to the right kind of demagogary just by human nature - certain issues or concepts just cause people to get drummed up a lot easier than others, and it's not a fault of education, but a fault of passion.
We can see this with the "gotcha" videos that are all over social media where you ask voters about the actual issues, completely disassociated from any candidate or rallying cry, and almost all the time you'll end up with more moderate and carefully considered positions.
Education doesn't really have an impact on how susceptible or gullible we are - that's something else that has to be trained and practiced, and the individual has to recognize their susceptibility and be willing to act on it. Education alone does not solve this - consider all the smart persons who believe conspiracy theories - their education in these cases only serves to help them define what they see as logical connections, whereas someone less educated might not be as steadfast because they have less to rely on.
I think James Randi has offered an idea to the effect that "scientists are the easiest to fool because of their education." When someone registers and makes sense in their mind, a mixture of pride and their reasoning process drives them to stick to their guns when they reach a conclusion. Not to pick on anyone in particular, but look at Eric Raymond (ERS) and his blog - certainly a bright guy by many metrics, but believes absolutely crazy things.
Finally as an aside, one additional problem with education is that the instructors can add their own bias; often people understand this politically, so to use that as an example, consider left or right leaning politics entering education. Instructors speak from authority - what happens when political leanings are attached to actual facts? You have students walking away conflating opinion with fact from an authoritative source, sometimes unable to tell the difference. Omission of what is taught and what is not also affects this.
Demagogary is a complex issue and a bit of education isn't a complete solution. The issue is that people, even educated ones, can choose what they want to listen to, and that is truer now more than ever. Though echo chamber is bandied around as a buzzword now, it is really easy to fall in on that with how current trends for online discussion go. The integration of the social media aspect, voting systems, etc make having plain conversations very hard. Even on HN, which I do enjoy very much since the community by and large is willing to keep discussions civil but honest, has topics where any dissenting opinion is simply dimissed, not discussed.
We can see this with the "gotcha" videos that are all over social media where you ask voters about the actual issues, completely disassociated from any candidate or rallying cry, and almost all the time you'll end up with more moderate and carefully considered positions.
Education doesn't really have an impact on how susceptible or gullible we are - that's something else that has to be trained and practiced, and the individual has to recognize their susceptibility and be willing to act on it. Education alone does not solve this - consider all the smart persons who believe conspiracy theories - their education in these cases only serves to help them define what they see as logical connections, whereas someone less educated might not be as steadfast because they have less to rely on.
I think James Randi has offered an idea to the effect that "scientists are the easiest to fool because of their education." When someone registers and makes sense in their mind, a mixture of pride and their reasoning process drives them to stick to their guns when they reach a conclusion. Not to pick on anyone in particular, but look at Eric Raymond (ERS) and his blog - certainly a bright guy by many metrics, but believes absolutely crazy things.
Finally as an aside, one additional problem with education is that the instructors can add their own bias; often people understand this politically, so to use that as an example, consider left or right leaning politics entering education. Instructors speak from authority - what happens when political leanings are attached to actual facts? You have students walking away conflating opinion with fact from an authoritative source, sometimes unable to tell the difference. Omission of what is taught and what is not also affects this.
Demagogary is a complex issue and a bit of education isn't a complete solution. The issue is that people, even educated ones, can choose what they want to listen to, and that is truer now more than ever. Though echo chamber is bandied around as a buzzword now, it is really easy to fall in on that with how current trends for online discussion go. The integration of the social media aspect, voting systems, etc make having plain conversations very hard. Even on HN, which I do enjoy very much since the community by and large is willing to keep discussions civil but honest, has topics where any dissenting opinion is simply dimissed, not discussed.
Education doesn't really have an impact on how susceptible or gullible we are - that's something else that has to be trained and practiced, and the individual has to recognize their susceptibility and be willing to act on it.
The biggest factor in determining whether someone listens to a demagogue, is how well their message aligns with the listener's self interest. This applies to all levels and kinds of education.
The biggest factor in determining whether someone listens to a demagogue, is how well their message aligns with the listener's self interest. This applies to all levels and kinds of education.
Education, while not perfect, tends to lessen our propensity for succumbing to emotional appeals, instill a sense of confidence in our area of study, while simultaneously encouraging humility outside of those areas. Contrary examples abound, to be sure, but these are virtues which are by and large instilled in those with more education.
He may have aroused strong passions but was far from a populist having lost his seat opposing the then popular Crimean War.
Just because a newspaper - presumably a politically opposed newspaper- once called him demagogue doesn't make him so. Especially odd as the article ends by defining demagogues as unable to face their opponents in debate - the very talent that John Bright is historically remembered for.