Typhoons and many other extreme weather events suck into themselves whatever they encounter, grind it up, then spew out a trail of destruction. That is how demagogy works and is one major difference between it and populism.
At the core of demagogy is a vacuum. That is not usually the case with populism, since populist leaders typically have firm commitments to specific policies. They stand for something. It can be asked whether what they propose seems wise or otherwise. Of the demagogue, however, a more fundamental question needs to be asked: whether there is any inner coherence at all, for a demagogue can blow hot and cold, this way and that, adopt phrases or policies from one source one day and repudiate them the next. There may be nothing at the core except a vacuum that sucks into itself clichés, slogans, facts, factoids and fabrications, fragments of ideologies, policies developed by others, sometimes those others themselves—whoever and whatever might help him gain power at any given moment. Then, at his whim, he disgorges it all. The political vacuum at the core of demagogy, moreover, may correspond to, and perhaps derives from, a moral vacuum, the absence of concern for anything other than the self.
This calls to mind one of my issues with David Brooks. As I have noted in the past, Brooks tends to equate Trump supporters with Sanders supporters, considering each as extremist and failing to note the differences between Trump's demagogy and Sanders' populism.
In looking through my past commentary on this subject, I found this blog post I wrote on December 12, 2011 concerning demagogy and populism. I actually quoted David Brooks in this:
As nearly everyone who has ever worked with Gingrich knows, he would severely damage conservatism and the Republican Party if nominated. [ David Brooks - "The Gingrich Tragedy" - NY Times 12/8/2011 ]
As I see it, Trump is a predictable product of the Republican party in recent decades, with Gingrich playing John the Baptist to Trump's Jesus. Here's another quote from Brooks in that article:
Gingrich seems to have walked straight out of the 1960s. He has every negative character trait that conservatives associate with ’60s excess: narcissism, self-righteousness, self-indulgence and intemperance. He just has those traits in Republican form.
But Gingrich is not really an exceptional Republican in age where contenders for the Republican presidential nomination have included Rick Perry, Michele Bachman, Herman Cain, Ben Carson, and Ted Cruz. Going back further were Republican leaders Sarah Palin, Karl Rove, Lee Atwater, Ronald Reagan, and Dick Nixon. Perhaps Reagan proved to be more of a populist than a demagogue, thereby gaining credibility for the Republican brand?
The thing to remember about the chaos ensuing in the GOP primaries, where each week a different candidate is the new new savior before publicly shitting the bed, is that this is all the fault of the Republican party itself. They allowed the party to create this alternate reality about, well, everything that happened the last decade. They are the ones who encouraged their party to believe that a center-left Democrat is actually an America hating socialist. They are the ones who made this mess, so when they are all horrified when each week a different candidate looks the fool by pandering to the base, remember, they are the ones who encouraged the base to think all this crazy shit. [ Balloon Juice, 12/9/2011 ]
I don't think Trump is a particularly effective demagogue. He lacks charisma and intelligence, in my opinion. So perhaps we're lucky that he was the Republican demagogue to break through to the presidency. Trump is discrediting the Republican brand and Democrats are favored to regain control of the House of Representatives in the elections later this year.
No comments:
Post a Comment