On Defeating Demagogues

There are two surreal features about this year's Democratic primary: first, it seems self-consciously modeled on the 2015/16 Republican primary  that nominated Donald Trump: a multiplicity of candidates debating each other on TV. The main point of this exercise is to maximize profit(s) for TV stations and, secondarily, for Democrats to own the so-called news-cycle. What the Democrats lack is a candidate that understands how to generate huge ratings. (Compare this year's ratings, while better than 2016s, with the Republicans in 2016.)* Second, the Democratic contenders, with the notable exception of Marianne Williamson, all seem to assume that a professional politician with well-honed ordinary political skill can defeat President Trump.

I understand the desire for the restoration of 'normalcy.'** Moreover, it's not as if there aren't grounds to think that a disciplined political campaign could defeat Trump. While I was relatively early (recall) in seeing in Trump a serious political demagogue, I cannot deny that the President has also been an extraordinarily lucky politician, benefiting from decades of attacks on Hillary Clinton (who, it is often forgotten, was too ill to campaign at a crucial junction), from James Comey's lack of judgment, from rule changes by Republicans, to winning the electoral college with a minority of the votes cast, and with a host of other well known concurring causes. But luck can run out: a worsening economy, freely chosen conflicts with China and Iran that may escalate in unpredictable ways, dangerous developments in Kashmir and Hong Kong that may simply give a sense that the President is not a safe pair of (ahh) hands in times of crisis.

Yet, there has been no sign of weakening of President Trump's core political skill set: the ability to dominate and shape the news-cycle and ratings. He is a demagogue in the standard sense: he exploits fears and prejudices and he lies routinely to gain and keep power. As I have emphasized his zero-sum (recall) outlook gives his political tactics an overall coherence (recall) that one may miss if one focuses on the contradictions in what he says. In office, he violates even minimal democratic norms routinely and he uses the threat of violence strategically to keep power. This last point deserves some commentary.

There have been lots of commentators who compare Trump to fascism or Nazism. While I understand the rhetorical force of the comparison,I have resisted this because in practice, these ideologies relied on paramilitary street violence and assassinations organized from the top down. (And Trump has also been noticeably uninterested in starting wars so far.) Moreover, even with the levers of state power, and the dreadful treatment of immigrants and refugees, the President has, despite the very clear dangers emanating from  (recall Jacob T. Levy) the cruelty, arbitrary powers, and militarization of the border police, stopped well short of imposing martial law, taking control of the media, imprisoning opponents, and abolishing competitive elections. 

But President Trump's rhetoric has incited a kind of statistical violence.+ By this I mean that he names (purported) general threats and some radicalized white supremacist take violent action against some instance of the (purported) threat. This mode of operation lowers trust, increases polarization, and spreads fear. These are the ingredients in which other democratic norms can be eroded and in which demagoguery thrives. While it may put a clear ceiling on the President's popularity, it shapes a renewed path to electoral victory.

If one looks at the long history of US demagogues (e.g., Benjamin Ryan Tillman [a white supremacist who did use paramilitary forces], Huey Long, Joseph McCarthy) one notices that they are rarely defeated at the ballot box (James Vardaman being an interesting exception). Their core voters tend to stick with them. I invite readers to call attention to scholarship that has explored how to defeat a demagogue (without limiting the franchise); I couldn't find any. 

Let me return to the Democrats. As I indicated above, I have been surprised by the Democrats' decision to organize their primary by emulating the Republicans without recruiting the kind of candidates (celebrities, other demagogues) that can exploit the process and set the agenda to full advantage. The unwillingness to abandon politicians professionalized during the last few decades, is a sign, I fear, the opposition still believes the political terrain is familiar.++ I hope I am wrong in thinking this is a disastrous mistake. 

 

*In fairness, the ratings increased as the story increasingly became dominated by Trump.

**As regular readers can intuit (recall) I think demagogues are predictable consequence of democracy when the authority and self-confidence/esprit des corps of party elites are undermined.

+This is a term I have seen mentioned--I would love to credit somebody, so feel free to make some suggestions. UPDATE: Brandon N. Towl helpfully suggests I mean the phrase, "stochastic terrorism."

++Sure, it may also be a sign of principled commitment to democracy.

Comments

[Mark Lance]

Eric,
aren”t there quite a few who don”t fit the “professional politician with well-honedskills” model?
Beto, deblasio, and Pete have very little political experience. As I recall, a couple of the bland white guys are rich non-politicians. Bernie is an experienced politician, but presents as anything but polished. He has the rhetorical style of a demagogue without the lying.

But i mostly disagree that they need tocopy the republicans to win, or that they should. You point to the factors that actually lost last time. Warren, say, would have won. This time what matters is turnout of people who normally don’t vote. There are no undecided voters. That calls for exciting new ideas - an array of single plans that will get people off the couch. This is the best chance we will ever have to elect a real progressive

[Eric Schliesser]

Hi Mark,
I am not claiming Democrats need to copy Republicans to win. I am claiming (i) they have copied Republicans halfheartedly; (ii) I don't see evidence they have thought through how to beat a demagogue.
Beto O' Rourke "represented Texas's 16th congressional district in the United States House of Representatives from 2013 to 2019."
De Blasio has held elected office since 2001.
Pete Buttigieg since 2011.
I agree their profile deviates from the senator/governor type we have seen in the past. But they are professional politicians.
I agree Bernie Sanders appeals to a certain species of authenticity. (I think he did not run the kind of campaign in 2016 that showed he thought he could win; that has clearly changed.) In Europe we have seen Corbyn get close to victory with such an appeal. So, I am not belittling it.
Getting people to vote who normally don't vote is the holy grail of American politics. It would be interesting even heartening if that could be achieved with an array of plans.

[Howard]

If the Democrats were savvy, which they're not, they'd say something like: all our candidates are great and will beat and make a better President than Trump, and even though our party is diverse, that is our core strength and we have core values that we all agree upon and that separate us from our opponents.
Trump is an unconventional weapon but if you call him out he is easy to defuse. He is con man used to having his own way, show him for the circus geek he actually is
Use group psychology such as Bion or sociology like Goffman
Use science to actually do something prodductive