Demagoguery and the Dangers of Oppositional Politics

An earlier version of this essay was to be called “Hugo Chavez and the Dangers of Anti-Imperialism,” but I don’t really want to single him out, because it’s clear that Chavez means well, despite his flair for the theatrical.  We swim in a sea of oppositional politics, and like fish in water, we have difficulty seeing its pervasiveness.  The American founding fathers didn’t bother to think much about the subject, probably because they felt that the democracy they envisioned would improve matters—and while it has done so in many respects, I believe that in some ways it has made demagoguery and oppositional politics worse.

Demagoguery—or the inflaming of the passions of the masses to achieve political goals—is probably as old as human social and political relations.  The public’s passion is the lifeblood of politicians and religious leaders; that passion generates an energy that seems to enable or stimulate great change—and anyone who has ever attended any political rally, protest march, rock concert, sports event, or religious gathering, can testify to the awesome power generated collectively by mobs and masses of people.  Politicians, preachers, dictators, popes, kings, and congressmen alike, all harness that dynamic energy, but usually for their own personal ambition.  The “change” they achieve is usually little more than to throw out the old, corrupt system, and replace it with another, with themselves at the top.  Thus politics has cycled for thousands of years.

The problem—the tragedy, really—is that it is much easier to inflame people against something rather than for something—and, to point out the obvious, it is always easier to find and attack the many problems in society, rather than to come up with creative solutions to them.  Even easier is to find a scapegoat to blame for those problems, and to direct the public’s anger, frustration, and energy at that scapegoat.  Given how easy it is to do so, is it any wonder that politicians become addicted to that shortcut to power, rather than taking the long, hard path of trying to get the public to understand the problems they face, and engage in the complex and difficult processes necessary to find solutions?  The tragedy of Hitler’s Germany is not that it represents something unique, but rather something universal!

Consider the success of demagogues versus thoughtful problem-solvers.  Does anybody remember the name Dennis Kucinich from the 2004 American presidential election?  I hear he’s going to run again, and I’m glad.  A thoughtful guy, who bothered to put together a platform based on real solutions to problems, and to propose ideas outside of the mainstream.  Who didn’t engage in negative politics.  He didn’t do too well, did he?  Probably the explanation many would give is that he lacked charisma—but what is political charisma other than demagoguery?  The tragedy is that we need some real change, and we say we want it, but we keep turning to the flashy, charismatic leaders who give us style over substance—like a woman who keeps being seduced by abusive men, and never goes out with the nice guys she wants to be “just friends” with.  Human culture is that woman, Dennis Kucinich is one of the “nice guys,” and I’m the exasperated girlfriend who can’t do anything about her best friend’s addiction to abusive relationships, no matter how much I point out to her that she’s stuck in a vicious circle.  I can shout myself blue in the face, but it won’t make a bit of difference until she (you; the world) wakes up to that realization herself.   

I have used the language of psychology and self-help books, because I believe that there are several aspects of this issue that can be stated in terms of addiction: politicians are addicted to the energy of a public galvanized against some enemy; people are addicted to mob energy as well as to the charisma of politicians; and because that energy is spent in just putting some other jerk into power rather than achieving any real change, people are constantly seeking to get that energy back—so some new demagogue comes along and capitalizes on it, and the cycle continues.  We’re addicted to false promises and easy solutions, because real solutions take too much work, too much honesty, and too much looking at ourselves in the mirror.  We reject any politician who might actually have a chance at engaging us in that work—and so any hopeful politician has to turn into a demagogue to achieve any real political success.  A number of years back, when I was young and naïve, a cynical older female friend gave me a brilliant analysis of men and women: she said that women in their twenties are shallow and prefer assholes over nice guys, so all the nice guys turn into assholes in order to get laid.  Then by the time women get to their thirties, they start to tire of being abused, and look for a nice guy—but there aren’t any left.  I would add: the men who start out nice but turn nasty, become too addicted to the success they get from being jerks, to be able to change back.  And the women who say they want a change are still too addicted to the thrill of charismatic abusers, to find the deeper, longer lasting (but slower developing!) joy that comes from a balanced relationship.  We, the human race, are still too addicted to the thrill of charismatic leaders; and our politicians are still too addicted to the quick power that comes from stirring up the public’s passions.

So it’s clear why demagoguery is pervasive: it works.  I was just browsing through Barnes & Noble today, and I gravitated toward the “current affairs” section, of course—and what did I see?  Books against this, books against that.  A lot of anti-Bush books.  And, on the other side, a lot of books describing how evil the Islamic world is, how the terrorists are setting up a whole network in America, how Arab society is hopelessly tribal and incapable of civil society (a myth that has been passed down through the ages in the west—read Edward Said's classic book Orientalism if you want a thorough analysis of how myths about the Middle-East and the Other have been passed down generation after generation, and accepted unquestioningly by new generations of “experts” on the Middle-East, who rarely know anything at all about the subject they discuss).  Fear-mongering, of course.  Evidence that demagoguery sells books about as well as sex sells automobiles and deodorant.

Demagoguery often works through the creation of some kind of enemy, a target toward which the public can direct their anger, frustration, rage, grief, desperation, whatever.  The problem, of course, is that the image of the enemy blocks out perception of the realities on the ground.  Arabs and Muslims are fully functional, normal human beings, with fully developed capacities for morality, rational thought, compassion, love, grief, etc.  They also have basic human needs like the rest of us, food, water, housing, safety, protection, and fundamental human rights.  The reality that some of them out there are suffering as a result of US or Israeli policy, and might have legitimate grievances, is completely masked by the image of them as being primarily terrorists, or incorrigibly tribal, or subject to an insane political ideology, or full of hate for the West, or for Freedom and Democracy, or whatever image conservative demagogues choose to put before the public eye.  But having an enemy to rage against is enormously effective for politicians, as we’ve seen in recent years—but that has been true throughout our history.

Another aspect of this issue is the fact that there are, of course, demagogues on both sides.  Bush & Co., Fox News, the New York Post, and the like, all rant and rave about the danger to American Civilization posed by Islamic Radicalism “Islamo-fascism.”  At the same time, Osama bin Laden, Mahmoud Ahmedinajad, Saddam Hussein, and hundreds of Imams across the Middle East rant and rave about the dangers posed to Muslim and/or Arab Society by Western Imperialism, Zionism, Materialism, Military Occupation, etc.  Now, the enemies the Western Demagogues attack are precisely those figures who are attacking them—the Eastern Demagogues.  And vice-versa.  Fox News allows those radical muslim demagogues to represent all of muslim society, rather than revealing that they are a small segment of that society, and in no way reflect the totality of Eastern political thought.  Osama bin Laden allows Bush to represent all of Western society.  So it’s not that they hate us, or that they hate freedom—the truth is, they hate Bush & what he represents.  They hate an image of us they have been given.  The problem comes when they believe that all of Western society is totally monolithic, united behind Bush’s agenda, and they take their rage at that agend out on innocent bystanders.  We do the same thing in assuming that the Arab/Muslim world is totally monolithic, and therefore we can rack up as many civilian casualties as necessary to wipe out terrorism.

The Demagogues on both sides feed off each other; in fact the vast majority of people are innocent bystanders, and in some cases misled sheep, who basically just want to live normal lives.  It is the demagogues, on both sides, that give us this notion of a “Clash of Civilizations,” because it aids their political ambition.  It is the demagogues who create enemies for us, and those enemies are really just caricatures of the opposing demagogues.  If we realized that, we would recognize that WE (the ordinary people) HAVE NO REAL ENEMIES.

Demagoguery and American Democracy

One of the central problems of our American democracy is the personality politics and negative campaigning that are so much a part of our political life.  Chomsky gave an address in Boston last week in which he pointed out that American democracy is not really democratic compared to lots of countries in South America, where politics does a good job of substantatively addressing issues of concern to the populace (I believe that he was referring to recent elections in Bolivia, but don’t quote me).  As I pointed out in “The Anti-War Vote,” we never really had a referendum on the war in Iraq here in America, we had a vote in which many candidates who claimed to be against the war were elected.  But who’s to say that wasn’t an instance of more demagoguery on the Democratic side?  Just politics as usual, in order to win elections?  I think in many cases, that’s exactly what it was.  To me, the essential problem behind this aspect of American politics is the fact that we don’t vote on issues, we vote for people.   

The result of our people-centered politics is that politics is more personality-oriented than issues-oriented.  Politicians almost never give a detailed platform of what they will vote for or against.  Instead, they present themselves as people, as personalities, and they attack their opponents.  But there is rarely a substantive debate on issues, and even when there is, it usually isn’t the reason a candidate gets elected (otherwise there is no way Kerry would have lost to Bush in 2004).  So issues get lost, and we, the public, are not well served.  But what choice do we have?

Politics in America today encourages demagoguery: politicians emphasize their personalities more and more, and the aspect they emphasize is their willingness to “fight for us” against whatever corruption they are able to pin on the opposing party or candidate.  Is it any wonder negative campaigning works so well?  The only thing that will motivate people to go out to vote is the feeling that unless they do so, some unspeakable evil will take over their world.  Every Democratic candidate elected will only further the homosexual agenda of destroying the American family, which will ultimately lead to a land of sin and godlessness run by Muslims, with Palestinian suicide bombers as police.  Every Republican elected will support Bush’s Imperialist agenda.   The result is that neither party has to touch issues; as a result of that, the public is even less convinced of the effectiveness of our democracy, which, unfortunately, means that they are even more prey to demagoguery, as the only motivating force for participation.

The overall result: the increasing polarization of party politics.  Each party has been able to turn the other into a bogeyman.  And as has been pointed out lately, each side appeals more and more to the extremes to stir passions (although, I must admit, even though the republican party does a good job of appealing to far right, the democrats don’t actually appeal much to the left’s actual concerns and passions, they just appeal to anti-Bush, anti-Republican sentiment).  Thus is demagoguery institutionalized, because people have to get elected.  And since elections are held every two years, most of politicians’ time and energy is spent in demagoguery and partisan politics.

But that increasing polarization of party politics is the best ruse of all, because the Republicans and Democrats differ very little from each other in actual policy.  Anyone from left of the political spectrum will have to admit that both Democrats and Republicans are to the right of center (though not too far), and their policies on business, trade, the military, spending, etc. are very close.  Anyone to the far right also knows that the Republicans, though they talk a good show, very rarely actually implement successful right-wing policy.  The huge bluster surrounding politics hides the complete lack of diversity in our political representation.  Many voices and opinions aren’t represented in Washington (or the state capitals) at all—like any serious voice critical of Israel, any opinion that we have too high a military budget, etc.  Lots of Democratic politicians say they want Universal Healthcare—but I haven’t seen it seriously debated in congress.  The Republicans and Democrats represent each other using the extremes of the party, but in actual practice they are very narrow.  So this constant Republican-Democratic negative-campaigning battle is nothing more than a show to keep us distracted, while elites and lobbyists run the country.  True Democracy is the greatest victim here.

Let’s go back to question I asked above in regard to Kucinich, this time with regard to the Iraq Study Group.  A lot of thoughtful, hard work went into preparing a study that was a compromise.  But everyone has to score political points off of it.  My prediction: the whole thing will devolve into partisan politics, and nothing will get done, & we’ll still be mired in Iraq in 2009.  Despite the fact that it doesn’t call for immediate withdrawal, it still, in essence, calls for a definite withdrawal, and not an indefinite-open-ended presence.  People against the war should embrace these findings and push for their implementation—because getting out a year from now with some chance of stabilizing Iraq is better than 2-6 more years of “stay the course” vs. “cut and run” bickering that gets us nowhere, all the while we become more & more mired in the civil war.

My cynical side suspects that perhaps the Democrats secretly want this, so they still have Bush & the Iraq war to rail against, and they can win the presidential election in 2008.  Notice congressional democrats (like Hillary Clinton) saying, regarding a change in Iraq policy, “it’s all in the president’s hands.”  If so, it is cynical & disgusting.  In fact, congress has enough power that they could force the president’s hand, if they wanted to.  They could cut the Iraq War budget.  They could pass all kinds of laws and recommendations; they could debate the ISG recommendations seriously, along with other recommendations, instead of letting the “Decider” decide.  But perhaps they don’t want to.  A huge quagmire like Iraq is a giant opportunity for demagogues, and while real people suffer, politics goes on as usual.

Demagoguery and Genuine Popular Movements

Now let’s return to Hugo Chavez, president of Venezuela.  I actually agree with what he stands for, with most of what he says.  Did you know that South America is actually trying to set up something akin to the European Union?  (I wouldn’t have known that if I hadn’t stumbled upon that recent speech by Chomsky.)  That Chavez is one of the major forces behind it?  That, continent-wide, former enemies are putting aside their differences in favor of economic cooperation and support for democracy?  Of course, the American press doesn’t even mention that, because America’s participation in the region’s politics has been so ugly (almost continual support for right-wing anti-democratic regimes over the last 50 or so years), and because it furthers our ends more to make sound-bytes out of Chavez’s speeches than to actually examine South American politics.

And therein lies the problem.  Even Jon Stewart, whom I normally admire, has been able to reduce Chavez to sound-bytes.  It’s funnier.  Who can forget Chavez calling Bush the Devil on the floor of the UN, saying “the podium still smells of sulfur?”  But did you listen to the rest of his speech?  It was excellent.  Yet even the anti-Bush media only picked out that one quote to replay, and make him look ridiculous.  In using such language, Chavez plays into the hands of demagogues on this side of the continental divide, and that is an illustration of what I referred to earlier—demagogues on both sides feed off each other.

What about Yasser Arafat?  Even worse, he used violence and terrorism as a tool, and those tools completely obscured the fact that he represented a just cause: the liberation of a people subject to brutal Israeli occupation and oppression.  It is so much easier to point to his use of terrorism, in order to obscure the injustices being committed by the other side.  He played right into the hands of the Israeli right-wing, and his decades-long feud with Ariel Sharon completely prevented any movement on substantive issues.

Communism is another excellent example: the basis of Karl Marx’s thought was a genuine concern for all people, a genuine desire to see economic, social, and political justice in the world.  His writings have inspired many over the last century and a half.  And many of his ideas are sound, though in many cases you’d never know it by looking at the historical implementation of them.  V. I. Lenin turned a genuine movement for change into another dictatorship of elites, and another imperial adventure.  And American Anti-Communist demagogues were able to use the threat of a Russian communist empire as an excuse to quash genuine popular movements all over the globe.  What was the Cold War but another standoff between demagogues on two opposing sides? 

The demagoguery of one side is the easiest target for the demagoguery of the other side.
Therefore, radicals who want real change will have to find another way to address the problems important to people.  No matter how much change they want, in engaging in oppositional politics it is inevitable that they will only maintain the status quo.  They will feed the endless cycle of violence and meaningless change.  To enact real change, we must change the way that problems are addressed—because the real source of most of the world’s problems is conflict among peoples.  War can never bring peace.  Instead of seeing those on other continents or belonging to other political parties and religions as enemies, we must see them as friends.  But our demagogues are able to point to their demagogues as evidence that those people are our enemies.

Seeing Through the Hype

We, the people, have a responsibility to recognize the demagoguery that is pervasive everywhere, if we wish to move forward in addressing the world’s real problems.  We should see through the demagogues who try to rally us against someone else: those who call us to violence, war, or just simply hatred or opposition.  Demagogues abound, whether they be pundits, professors, preachers, or politicians.  Anyone who calls us to oppose some other group, hate some other group, attack some other group, deny some other group their rights, is a demagogue.

And while we have a great responsibility in seeing through the demagoguery that is directed at us, there is an even greater challenge: recognizing the genuine people, and genuine concerns, behind the demagogues on the “other side.”  Once we recognize how easy it is to fall prey to demagoguery, how it is, in fact, nearly impossible to avoid in today’s world, how tempting it is for ambitious leaders to use it, we should recognize that the hatred directed at us (whoever we may be—Americans, Jews, Muslims, Whites, Blacks, Chinese, etc.) is an illusion masking something else.

My point is that we must be wise in recognizing that other people fall prey to the same traps we do, and therefore we must not blame or attack other peoples because their leaders are also demagogues.  Demagogues take advantage of real needs and grievances of the people, and while we should condemn the demagoguery (& terrorism) that their leaders use, we should seek to understand those genuine needs and grievances underlying the political demagoguery.

Bin Laden is a classic demagogue, stirring up real resentment in the Middle-East toward American foreign policy, American occupations, and the Israeli occupation.  But just because Bin Laden is bad doesn’t mean that the passions he fed off were themselves wrong.  If we ignore those needs, concerns, grievances, and just attack Bin Laden, then another demagogue will take his place.  The real way to eradicate terrorism (which is really only one variety of demagoguery), is to address the issues and grievances underlying it.  Then people will have no reason to turn to terrorists to solve their problems.

Yes, we must punish the men and women who are directly guilty—the instigators, the profiteers, the war criminals, the terrorists.  But whole peoples should never be punished for the sins of their leaders, even if they voted in or otherwise supported that sin.  They did so in part out of ignorance—though everyone knows in their hearts that all other people are equal to them, are just as human as they are (I have to believe it of all my fellow human beings, despite the fact that they act as though they didn’t).  Their ignorance came in believing that they would be safer if they pretended that some particular group was all bad; their ignorance in allowing the demagoguery of politicians, rabble rousers, fanatics, preachers, to temporarily blind them to the basic humanity of all people.

If we punished all people who were aroused by the sweet lies of hungry politician-jackals, everyone on earth would have to be killed.  Whom would such a punishment benefit?  If we are to be just to all people—which we must accept as a principle of international diplomacy—then we must equally give all peoples, instead of punishment, amnesty and pardon for their sins.  Which is to say, our goal should be the elimination of all ongoing human rights violations and the prevention of any future or potential human rights violations—rather than the punishment of past violations, other than punishment of those directly involved in planning & carrying out attacks, who are still living.  Certainly retribution against entire peoples must be eliminated from world justice.

We realize that humans are as they are: easily swayed by charisma and seduced by false promises of easy solutions to their problems.  All peoples all over the world are that way, and their acceptance of the lies of scape-goating blame-casting politicians and pundits (since time immemorial) should not be taken as a sign that they themselves are inherently evil.

(The clever will recognize yet another excuse to reference the Stanley Milgram psychological experiments done in the sixties: the discovery being that two thirds of people will submit others to pain if they are ordered to do so, even if they feel uncomfortable about it, even if they believe there is no reason for it.  Just the authority of the scientist conducting the experiment led experimental subjects to push the button supposedly subjecting the person behind the glass to a painful electric shock.  For those who don't know about these experiments, they are, to my mind, one of the five or ten most significant results in psychology over the last century.  See the wikipedia article here.  My point being: people are very susceptible to demagoguery.  That doesn't make them evil.  It makes demagoguery dangerous; and it means that it is of paramount importance that we recognize the human beings behind those trapped and fooled by demagoguery.)

To the Americans: most Muslims are decent human beings, and they don’t hate you, they don’t want to destroy you.  Don’t listen to their demagogues, and ignore the speeches of their demagogues quoted by your demagogues.  Underneath, they are human beings with the same rights and needs as you have.

To the Muslim world: Most Americans are decent human beings, and they don’t want to kill you.  Unfortunately, many of them are stupid and uneducated and easily believe what they see on Fox News.  They may think they hate you, but they only hate the image of you they have been fed (which, you must admit, is a despicable, hateful image).  They, out of ignorance, don’t realize that you are human beings just like them; if they did, they wouldn’t wish harm upon you.  Forgive them their ignorance, and recognize that they are decent people.  Don’t blame them for Bush—even those who voted for him (less than half of the country) did so out of ignorance and fear.  Don’t blame them for the Israeli genocide against Palestinians: most of them have been so brainwashed they don’t even know it is happening.  Don’t blame them for what you yourselves have also done—listening to your hateful imams and sowing violence and destruction.  Reach out to them with friendship, overcome your own fears of them, so that they will have reason to see past all the haze of demagoguery.

In place of Demagoguery, let’s have instead: Dialogue.

Comments

[LeOgAhEr]

I Love you girls

Buy

[Bob Marley]

h