
The Victorian Demagogue: 19th Century Words on a Modern Danger - Avawelles
https://mimimatthews.com/2016/08/11/the-victorian-demagogue-19th-century-words-on-a-modern-danger/
======
Malarkey73
This 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
Ironically, 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
“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?

------
V-2
In 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.

~~~
pjc50
.. 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
I'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?!".

~~~
pjc50
Equal 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.

~~~
sanderjd
As an equal marriage (and general civil rights) proponent, I think it's less
that "the process works" and more that we have gotten very lucky that the
Supreme Court has accumulated far more power than it was ever intended to have
and has largely used that power to override the democratic will of the
majority in cases where it has been oppressive to various minority groups. If
we had to wait for the "right" laws to pass through legislatures, I don't
believe we would have nearly the level of civil rights that we do today.

~~~
humanrebar
I think the courts and bureaucracy being unresponsive to popular opinion,
social norms (social stare decisis if you will), and the regular rules of
American democracy (i.e., actually amending the Constitution when appropriate)
has resulted in the rising popularity of figures like Donald Trump.

It's hard to argue that the system isn't rigged when the rules of the system
aren't as important as the outcome that relatively powerful decision-makers
want to see.

~~~
sanderjd
I agree with you that populist movements are a natural result of systems like
ours that are not fully democratic. Whether or not you think the system is
"rigged" depends on what you think the system is. If "the system" is the form
of government we've had since at least the end of the civil war (but really,
since close to the beginning), with a strong non-representative bureaucracy, a
powerful judiciary, and powerful private political parties, then it isn't
"rigged", it just has components that don't answer directly to the people at
large. But if you think "the system" is a pure democracy, then yes, it has
been "rigged" from the start. Personally, I'm a much bigger fan of our system
with all its checks and balances between competing interests than I would be
of the more democratic system that a lot of people seem to think we have.

------
difftest
Demagoguery vs literal oligarchy (rich donor dictating to SecState:
Https://wikileaks.org/Clinton-emails/emailid/28972 ), take your pick.

~~~
sanderjd
That link does not appear to work.

~~~
cgriswald
Presumably, he means this one: [https://wikileaks.org/clinton-
emails/emailid/28972](https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/28972)

------
stcredzero
It'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.

------
andrewclunn
If 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
It'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
Dan 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
Will check it out. Thanks.

------
csydas
As 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.

~~~
stcredzero
_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._

The biggest factor in determining whether someone listens to a demagogue, is
how well their message aligns with the listener's self interest. This applies
to all levels and kinds of education.

