Is That Legal?

Republicans aren't really demagogues. Let me explain.

Demagoguery arises “where the laws are not sovereign [but the people] for the common people become a single composite monarch,” says Aristotle. He also cites Homer, when the latter says “‘no blessing is the lordship of the many,’ [because] a people of this sort…become despotic, so that flatterers are held in honor.” Aristotle continues: “a democracy of this nature is comparable to the tyrannical form of monarchy, because their spirit is the same…and the decrees voted by the assembly are like the commands issued in a tyranny, and the demagogues and flatterers are the same people…” Politics, 1292. (Loeb translation)

Elsewhere Aristotle reiterates that flattery is intertwined with demagoguery: “the demagogue is a flatterer of the people…” Politics 1318.

The targets of the demagogues are typically the wealthy: “[the demagogues] cause the owners of property to band together, partly by malicious prosecutions of individuals among them…and partly by setting on the common people against them as a class.” Politics 1304.

The goal of demagoguery is power: “Dionysis established a claim to become tyrant when he accused…the rich, since his hostility to them caused him to be trusted as a true man of the people.” Politics, 1305.

Finally, Cicero suggests that demagoguery is easy to identify when he says that “all who attempt to win men’s favor by banquets or dinners or extravagant entertainments show clearly that they lack true honor, which comes from virtue and merit. De Re Publica, unplaced fragment. Loeb translation.

As such, unfortunately, classic demagoguery is a Democratic/liberal/Marxist trait, not generally a Republican one. The term demagoguery means “leader of the people”, from the root “demos” meaning people.

However, people of all political views can find comfort and support in antiquity. As Cicero says, “[Just] as the sailor, when the sea suddenly grows rough, and the [patient] when his illness becomes severe, both implore the assistance of one man, so our people, that in times of peace and while engaged at home wield authority, threaten even their magistrates, refuse to obey them, and appeal from one to another or to the people, yet in time of war yield obedience to their rulers as to a king; for safety prevails over caprice. Indeed in wars of more serious import our people have preferred that all the power should be granted to one man without a colleague.” De Re Publica 63. This “fear-mongering” describes the Republicans better.

Besides, if Republicans are so pro-rich you shouldn’t say demagoguery at all. You should say “platogoguery” or “oliogoguery” or something.

Tim - that's quite a fancy list of quotes from classical literature, and makes a decent case for the etymological speculation with which you conclude your comment. A decent case, but a wrong one, at least as far as a typical modern American dictionary is concerned:

dem‧a‧gogue  [dem-uh-gog, -gawg] noun, verb, -gogued, -gogu‧ing.

–noun 1. a person, esp. an orator or political leader, who gains power and popularity by arousing the emotions, passions, and prejudices of the people.
2. (in ancient times) a leader of the people.
–verb (used with object) 3. to treat or manipulate (a political issue) in the manner of a demagogue; obscure or distort with emotionalism, prejudice, etc.
–verb (used without object) 4. to speak or act like a demagogue.

Also, dem‧a‧gog.
--------------------------------------------------
[Origin: 1640–50;
Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.

But you're entitled to insist upon more primary sources, and I'm not qualified to dispute your understanding of the word in the ancient context. However, you lost me when you followed the excerpts from Aristotle, Homer and Cicero with, "As such, unfortunately, classic demagoguery is a Democratic/liberal/Marxist trait, not generally a Republican one." I think that assertion is what you classical scholars call a "non sequitir."

Then you use that old dodge of conflating Democrats and liberals with Marxists. I suspect you are well-read enough to know better. If I'm right about that, then you're engaging in a bit of demagoguery (in the colloquial, pedestrian Webster's sense of the word to which my understanding had been limited before reading your comment.)

In the end, we agree - as you say, the Republicans are "fear-mongering." One other thing: my post does not say that Republicans are "pro-rich." By that phrase, I suppose you mean that I think they make policy choices that favor wealth over work and a tax code that protects the wealthy at the expense of others. I do believe that, but I didn't say it in my post. Perhaps it is on your mind during this electoral season (along with the notion that the President is a demagogue, hardly the main point of my post.) I think virtually all Americans, including Democrats, are "pro-rich," the dispute is over whether we shall have policies that make it possible for more people to be rich, or simply protect and further enrich those who already are rolling in the dough. To promote the latter course would be platogoguery or oliogoguery. Or something.

You are right, I could have made my point without mentioning Marx. I was incorporating some typical Democrat assumptions (like “pro-rich”) into my post. If I refer specifically to something you did not post, I don’t mean for it to be taken personally or as an attack, I am just incorporated broader stereotypes into my argument.

I was not trying to deflect any criticism away from Republicans. This, even though I have been a Republican my whole life, and have almost always voted for Republicans. But I do not defend their actions if they are wrong. I see their actions for what they are. An appeal to fear by a magistrate, designed to influence a citizen to surrender his political power/liberty to the magistrate, is a classical trait of an authoritarian or perhaps even tyrannical inclination. We see this sort of activity committed by each party. From global warming to gun control to terrorism, politicians attempt to scare us and convince us that our salvation lies in their policies.

Some fear in all things is a healthy thing, for moderate fear breeds vigilance. But excessive fear leads to cowardice. Which brings me to the broader point: moderation in all things is the best policy. The dose makes the poison. We intuitively know this to be true.

A demagogue is simply, etymologically speaking, “a leader of the people.” It is a neutral term. But demagoguery, by its very definition, is an appeal to the interests of “the people.” Whether those interests are in themselves legitimate (freedom, equality) or not (jealousy, anger) is irrelevant if the demagogue promotes those interests to an excessive degree. All things, even intrinsically “good” things, (like liberty or equality) can be poisonous to the state or the society if there is too much of them. Just as drinking too much water can kill a man just as easily as drinking too little. This might be hard for a people so conditioned to seek, praise, and defend such ideals to accept, but history is replete with such examples.

My basic point is that if the Republicans prey on fear, and are deserving of the title “fear-monger” or if they prey on the animosities and greed of the wealthy, and are deserving of the title “plutogogue”, (and I meant pluto, not plato, in my earlier post) then the Democrats are no less deserving of the title “demagogue” when they prey on the interests, animosities, motivations, desires, or emotions of the people, whether those interests are in themselves good or bad for the state or its people. Etymologically, as I tried to demonstrate in my earlier post, the Democrats are more deserving of the name demagogue.

In the end, if we can agree that Republicans and Democrats both commit “agoguery” of some kind, I would be perfectly happy.