6 ms·
The Victorian Demagogue: 19th Century Words on a Modern Danger
- V-2 10y agoIn 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.
- Avawelles 10y agoAttentions spans are very short nowadays. Probably why everything politicians say seems to be in soundbites now.
- digi_owl 10y agoNah, 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
- rm_-rf_slash 10y agoCorrect. 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.
- jandrese 10y agoI have a tough time believing that people were sitting with rapt attention for the full duration of two 3 hour stump speeches.
- Avawelles 10y agoI 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.
- pjc50 10y ago.. 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)
- adrianN 10y agoI'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?!".
- V-2 10y ago> Nowadays politicians have to convince people that banning gay marriage is a bad idea They don't "have to", they want to
- HemanHeartYou 10y agoYou don't know what they want.
- pjc50 10y agoEqual 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.
- Ygg2 10y agoI 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.
- jkot 10y agoMaybe it is better, politics is now more open and problems can be recognized faster. In 1850s British government did not notice, that millions were dying in Great Famine.
- douche 10y agoDidn't notice, or didn't care?
- csydas 10y agoAs 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.
- andrewclunn 10y agoIf 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.
- ajuc 10y agoIt'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.
- snerbles 10y agoDan 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.
- andrewclunn 10y agoWill check it out. Thanks.
- humanrebar 10y ago> Like most sideways assaults on Trump, it completely misses the point. I don't follow. Which point?
- cgriswald 10y agoWell, 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.
- Malarkey73 10y agoThis is an odd article because the main "demagogue" featured is John Bright who was more regarded as an economic and social reformer and great parliamentary orator. 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.
- chestnut-tree 10y agoIronically, 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.
- triplesec 10y ago“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?
- Avawelles 10y agoI 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.
- difftest 10y agoDemagoguery vs literal oligarchy (rich donor dictating to SecState: Https://wikileaks.org/Clinton-emails/emailid/28972 ), take your pick.
- stcredzero 10y agoIt'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.