What do you think?
Rate this book
Demagoguery and Democracy
A clear-eyed guide to demagoguery—and how we can defeat it
What is demagoguery? Some demagogues are easy to They rise to power through pandering, charisma, and prejudice. But, as professor Patricia Roberts-Miller explains, a demagogue is anyone who reduces all questions to us vs. them .
Why is it dangerous? Demagoguery is democracy’s greatest threat. It erodes rational debate, so that intelligent policymaking grinds to a halt. The idea that we never fall for it—that all the blame lies with them —is equally dangerous.
How can we stop it? Demagogues follow predictable patterns in what they say and do to gain power. The key to resisting demagoguery is to name it when you see it—and to know where it leads.
What is demagoguery? Some demagogues are easy to They rise to power through pandering, charisma, and prejudice. But, as professor Patricia Roberts-Miller explains, a demagogue is anyone who reduces all questions to us vs. them .
Why is it dangerous? Demagoguery is democracy’s greatest threat. It erodes rational debate, so that intelligent policymaking grinds to a halt. The idea that we never fall for it—that all the blame lies with them —is equally dangerous.
How can we stop it? Demagogues follow predictable patterns in what they say and do to gain power. The key to resisting demagoguery is to name it when you see it—and to know where it leads.
135 pages, Hardcover
First published June 13, 2017
99 people are currently reading
985 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 113 reviews
May 2, 2020
This is quite possibly one of the best books I have read on any subject ever. To start with, the subject matter is of the greatest importance and urgency: how to talk and think about personal and political differences in ways that do more good than harm. To that aim, there is hardly a sentence in the book that isn't relevant and insightful. Further, Roberts-Miller's writing is extraordinarily clear and precise, avoiding unexplained and unnecessary jargon as well as oversimplification. Throughout, she displays mastery of one of the most important skills of persuasive writing: being considerate of one's audience so as not to be boring or veer off-topic. On top of being helpful, interesting, well-written, and gobsmackingly important, the book has the virtue of being short and concise.
Roberts-Miller is a scholar of rhetoric, a field that combines elements of philosophy, linguistics, communications, psychology, and literary studies, and she approaches the old problem of how we should do democracy through the lens of her expertise, with the result that she combines a great set of interdisciplinary insights into these complicated problems. She deftly walks the reader through an understanding of what a demagogue is (a short version is that it's a person who talks and thinks primarily in terms of "us versus them," in-group versus out-group, and bases most of their reasoning and logic on this binary distinction). She lays out how this can be harmful to democracy, and lays out a contrasting model of democratic deliberation. Democratic deliberation operates on principles of fairness, inclusivity, and discussions revolving around the substance of policies rather than the goodness or badness of different identity groups.
There is one thing in the book that I disagree with, and that is her evaluation of Plutarch's definition of demagogues as those speakers who are "just looking out for themselves who pretend to be populists and who rouse the ignorant masses through appeal to emotion." Roberts- Miller thinks the part about "just looking out for themselves" is wrong because we can't easily tell who is just looking out for themselves or not, so the definition doesn't help us figure out who is a demagogue and guard ourselves against falling prey to demagoguery. However, I think that just because it doesn't help us identity demagogues doesn't mean it's wrong or irrelevant. If we get a mild sore throat, the symptom doesn't necessarily clue us in as to whether it's a viral or bacterial infection, but that doesn't mean it's unimportant or wrong to understand the nature of the illness as viral or bacterial, even if it might not be relevant for how we respond to the mild symptom. But it doesn't really affect her argument that much, as she is less interested in underlying causes than in how to respond to the symptoms of the illness in practice.
I do think that the "just looking out for themselves" part of Plutarch's definition is something very worth exploring and thinking about, this just isn't the book for that, and that's okay, because it's fantastic at doing what it's trying to do, which is to give readers a toolbox for thinking and talking in responsible and constructive ways. It cannot be emphasized enough that this is not a "feel-good" book that will pat you on the back for being right and smart and trying to fix things while "they" are wrong and dumb and messing everything up. It is very much a call to self-examination and humility, and an exhortation to be strict with ourselves to make sure "we" are not the demogogues or the ones falling prey to demagoguery. An alternate title to the book could maybe be "How Not to Be the Demagogue You Think Other People Are Being." She is clear that demagoguery can and does happen all along the political spectrum. A takeaway for me is that we have to "be the change we want to see in the world" through our speech, arguments, and how we think about others who see the world differently than we do.
Roberts-Miller is a scholar of rhetoric, a field that combines elements of philosophy, linguistics, communications, psychology, and literary studies, and she approaches the old problem of how we should do democracy through the lens of her expertise, with the result that she combines a great set of interdisciplinary insights into these complicated problems. She deftly walks the reader through an understanding of what a demagogue is (a short version is that it's a person who talks and thinks primarily in terms of "us versus them," in-group versus out-group, and bases most of their reasoning and logic on this binary distinction). She lays out how this can be harmful to democracy, and lays out a contrasting model of democratic deliberation. Democratic deliberation operates on principles of fairness, inclusivity, and discussions revolving around the substance of policies rather than the goodness or badness of different identity groups.
There is one thing in the book that I disagree with, and that is her evaluation of Plutarch's definition of demagogues as those speakers who are "just looking out for themselves who pretend to be populists and who rouse the ignorant masses through appeal to emotion." Roberts- Miller thinks the part about "just looking out for themselves" is wrong because we can't easily tell who is just looking out for themselves or not, so the definition doesn't help us figure out who is a demagogue and guard ourselves against falling prey to demagoguery. However, I think that just because it doesn't help us identity demagogues doesn't mean it's wrong or irrelevant. If we get a mild sore throat, the symptom doesn't necessarily clue us in as to whether it's a viral or bacterial infection, but that doesn't mean it's unimportant or wrong to understand the nature of the illness as viral or bacterial, even if it might not be relevant for how we respond to the mild symptom. But it doesn't really affect her argument that much, as she is less interested in underlying causes than in how to respond to the symptoms of the illness in practice.
I do think that the "just looking out for themselves" part of Plutarch's definition is something very worth exploring and thinking about, this just isn't the book for that, and that's okay, because it's fantastic at doing what it's trying to do, which is to give readers a toolbox for thinking and talking in responsible and constructive ways. It cannot be emphasized enough that this is not a "feel-good" book that will pat you on the back for being right and smart and trying to fix things while "they" are wrong and dumb and messing everything up. It is very much a call to self-examination and humility, and an exhortation to be strict with ourselves to make sure "we" are not the demogogues or the ones falling prey to demagoguery. An alternate title to the book could maybe be "How Not to Be the Demagogue You Think Other People Are Being." She is clear that demagoguery can and does happen all along the political spectrum. A takeaway for me is that we have to "be the change we want to see in the world" through our speech, arguments, and how we think about others who see the world differently than we do.
Read
July 29, 2018Αυτό το βιβλίο καταφέρνει μέσα στις λίγες σελίδες του να συμπυκνώσει με λόγο σαφή, προσιτό και λιτό, γνώσεις που θα έπρεπε να έχουμε όλοι οι πολίτες, ιδίως όσοι θέλουμε να συζητούμε τις πολιτικές αποφάσεις και να λαμβάνουμε ενεργά μέρος σε αυτό που λέγεται δημόσιος διάλογος.
Για την ακρίβεια, πεποίθησή μου είναι πως ειδικά στη χώρα μας, που πιστεύω πως οι περισσότεροι συμφωνούμε ότι η ποιότητα της δημόσιας αντιπαράθεσης και της λειτουργίας της δημοκρατίας έχει πέσει πολύ χαμηλά αυτό το βιβλίο θα έπρεπε να είναι υποχρεωτικό ανάγνωσμα στην εκπαίδευση αντί για αρκετή αμφίβολης αξίας ύλη που συμπεριλαμβάνεται στα προγράμματα.
I think that this short book is a must-read for all citizens really caring about the way democracy works and eager to re-examine their attitudes towards policies and participate in discussions about politics. You should read this before rejecting or supporting any proposed policies!
Για την ακρίβεια, πεποίθησή μου είναι πως ειδικά στη χώρα μας, που πιστεύω πως οι περισσότεροι συμφωνούμε ότι η ποιότητα της δημόσιας αντιπαράθεσης και της λειτουργίας της δημοκρατίας έχει πέσει πολύ χαμηλά αυτό το βιβλίο θα έπρεπε να είναι υποχρεωτικό ανάγνωσμα στην εκπαίδευση αντί για αρκετή αμφίβολης αξίας ύλη που συμπεριλαμβάνεται στα προγράμματα.
I think that this short book is a must-read for all citizens really caring about the way democracy works and eager to re-examine their attitudes towards policies and participate in discussions about politics. You should read this before rejecting or supporting any proposed policies!
August 21, 2017
I'm not exaggerating when I say this is the most important book I've read this year. Perhaps you can think of someone who needs it.
The fact is we all need it. Roberts-Miller argues that when we think of demagoguery, we usually think of demagogues-- silver tongued seducers who memorize their audience into doing stupid things they would normally never do. These lying liars know what they’re saying is false, but they know it will manipulate the sheeple follow them. But that’s not the direction it goes. “We don’t have demagoguery in our culture because a demagogue came to power,” she argues, “when demagoguery becomes the normal way of participating in public discourse, then it’s just a question of time until a demagogue arises” (2). So if we should be focusing less on individual demagogues and more on the practice of engaging in demagoguery, if it’s something you and I could be doing, how do we know if we’re doing it?
“Demagoguery,” Roberts-Miller says “is about identity. It says that complicated policy issues can be reduced to a binary of us (good) versus them (bad). It says that good people recognize there is a bad situation, and bad people don’t; therefore, to determine what policy agenda is the best, it says we should think entirely in terms of who is like us and who isn’t” (8). In other words “demagoguery says that only we should be included in deliberation because they are the problem” (20 emphasis in original).
There are some useful tips to avoid engaging in demagoguery in the text, and she's a big fan of learning some of the formal fallacies to spot inconsistent reasoning in your and others' argument, but also she points out how useful it is to give stories and examples of people, not abstractions, that counter us-vs-them narratives. Ultimately, we can't keep saying that everyone else is sucking at democracy--it's up to us to resist dismissing all the others.
I've recommended this books to so many people I've lost count.
The fact is we all need it. Roberts-Miller argues that when we think of demagoguery, we usually think of demagogues-- silver tongued seducers who memorize their audience into doing stupid things they would normally never do. These lying liars know what they’re saying is false, but they know it will manipulate the sheeple follow them. But that’s not the direction it goes. “We don’t have demagoguery in our culture because a demagogue came to power,” she argues, “when demagoguery becomes the normal way of participating in public discourse, then it’s just a question of time until a demagogue arises” (2). So if we should be focusing less on individual demagogues and more on the practice of engaging in demagoguery, if it’s something you and I could be doing, how do we know if we’re doing it?
“Demagoguery,” Roberts-Miller says “is about identity. It says that complicated policy issues can be reduced to a binary of us (good) versus them (bad). It says that good people recognize there is a bad situation, and bad people don’t; therefore, to determine what policy agenda is the best, it says we should think entirely in terms of who is like us and who isn’t” (8). In other words “demagoguery says that only we should be included in deliberation because they are the problem” (20 emphasis in original).
There are some useful tips to avoid engaging in demagoguery in the text, and she's a big fan of learning some of the formal fallacies to spot inconsistent reasoning in your and others' argument, but also she points out how useful it is to give stories and examples of people, not abstractions, that counter us-vs-them narratives. Ultimately, we can't keep saying that everyone else is sucking at democracy--it's up to us to resist dismissing all the others.
I've recommended this books to so many people I've lost count.
February 7, 2021
Ένα πολύ ενδοιαφέρον βιβλιαράκι που σου δίνει τροφή για σκέψη και με έκανε να κατανοήσω λίγο περισσότερο τον κόσμο αυτό.
April 16, 2017
The Trump presidency would seem to be the ideal time for pondering demagoguery and Patricia Roberts-Miller, as Professor at the Department of Rhetoric and Writing at the University of Texas, appears particularly well placed to shed light on that phenomenon.
Her ‘Demagoguery and Democracy’ is a relatively short book (of just over 130 pages with a fairly large typeface) and the central text would be shorter still if its definitions of various forms of fallacious argument had been relegated to a glossary. It is, nevertheless, a densely argued and thought-provoking book which considers what demagoguery is, how it operates and what can be done to address it.
The style of writing is always engaging although sometimes uneasily sliding from the scholarly (talk of rhetors and arguments ad Verecundiam) to the colloquial (“rhetorically pantsed” and “dipshit”).
The arguments are usefully illustrated with examples which are sometimes abstract, sometimes drawn from personal experience and sometimes historical, with the antebellum South, Weimar and Nazi Germany and the internment of those of Japanese ancestry in World War Two comprising the most important points of reference. Although Roberts-Miller acknowledges that demagoguery has its roots in Ancient Greece, for her it became the dominant mode of US public discourse in the days leading up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
This is somewhat ironic as those who purchase her book might feel that they’ve done so on a false prospectus insofar as she rejects the conventional understanding of the term ‘demagoguery’ (comprising rhetorical appeals to the emotions rather than to the reason of the masses), preferring to define it as a form of identity politics in which the world is seen in binary, polarized terms, so that ‘they’ are automatically assumed to be mendacious whilst ‘we’ believe ourselves to be the embodiment of integrity, authenticity and light. I suspect that this is a view of politics which, even post-Brexit, applies far better to the United States than to the United Kingdom.
Demagoguery, we are further told, “isn’t about what politicians do” but “about how we, as citizens, argue, reason and vote.” This is the most tendentious part of the book for even in the age of social media it is surely the politicians, the spin-doctors and the denizens of mainstream media outlets who frame public discourse, demagogic or otherwise, rather than you and I.
It follows from this that Roberts-Miller’s four strategies “that might help correct our course” are misconceived. We are told, for example, that “We can work to reduce the profitability of demagoguery by consuming less of it ourselves, and shaming media outlets that rely heavily on it”. But by definition those in thrall to what she refers to as the factionalized media’s “informational enclaves” will not be sufficiently self-reflective to take such steps because they won’t even appreciate the existence of the problem in the first place.
It is doubtless true that empathy provides the key to “open the Faraday cage of demagoguery” and highly desirable that people should have open minds and not posit statements that are unfalsifiable but what if some hearts are always hard, if some minds are always closed and some people are simply constitutionally incapable of recognising a valid argument? It is certainly an unhappy paradox that those who would benefit most from reading Roberts-Miller’s book are precisely those people who will never do so.
In short, this is a stimulating read, with Roberts-Miller making a very powerful case that we need to think about how we argue and not just what we argue, as well as clearly identifying what makes particular arguments good or bad. Nevertheless, I can’t help feeling that she’s largely preaching to the converted and doing so on the basis of some rather problematic assumptions.
Her ‘Demagoguery and Democracy’ is a relatively short book (of just over 130 pages with a fairly large typeface) and the central text would be shorter still if its definitions of various forms of fallacious argument had been relegated to a glossary. It is, nevertheless, a densely argued and thought-provoking book which considers what demagoguery is, how it operates and what can be done to address it.
The style of writing is always engaging although sometimes uneasily sliding from the scholarly (talk of rhetors and arguments ad Verecundiam) to the colloquial (“rhetorically pantsed” and “dipshit”).
The arguments are usefully illustrated with examples which are sometimes abstract, sometimes drawn from personal experience and sometimes historical, with the antebellum South, Weimar and Nazi Germany and the internment of those of Japanese ancestry in World War Two comprising the most important points of reference. Although Roberts-Miller acknowledges that demagoguery has its roots in Ancient Greece, for her it became the dominant mode of US public discourse in the days leading up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
This is somewhat ironic as those who purchase her book might feel that they’ve done so on a false prospectus insofar as she rejects the conventional understanding of the term ‘demagoguery’ (comprising rhetorical appeals to the emotions rather than to the reason of the masses), preferring to define it as a form of identity politics in which the world is seen in binary, polarized terms, so that ‘they’ are automatically assumed to be mendacious whilst ‘we’ believe ourselves to be the embodiment of integrity, authenticity and light. I suspect that this is a view of politics which, even post-Brexit, applies far better to the United States than to the United Kingdom.
Demagoguery, we are further told, “isn’t about what politicians do” but “about how we, as citizens, argue, reason and vote.” This is the most tendentious part of the book for even in the age of social media it is surely the politicians, the spin-doctors and the denizens of mainstream media outlets who frame public discourse, demagogic or otherwise, rather than you and I.
It follows from this that Roberts-Miller’s four strategies “that might help correct our course” are misconceived. We are told, for example, that “We can work to reduce the profitability of demagoguery by consuming less of it ourselves, and shaming media outlets that rely heavily on it”. But by definition those in thrall to what she refers to as the factionalized media’s “informational enclaves” will not be sufficiently self-reflective to take such steps because they won’t even appreciate the existence of the problem in the first place.
It is doubtless true that empathy provides the key to “open the Faraday cage of demagoguery” and highly desirable that people should have open minds and not posit statements that are unfalsifiable but what if some hearts are always hard, if some minds are always closed and some people are simply constitutionally incapable of recognising a valid argument? It is certainly an unhappy paradox that those who would benefit most from reading Roberts-Miller’s book are precisely those people who will never do so.
In short, this is a stimulating read, with Roberts-Miller making a very powerful case that we need to think about how we argue and not just what we argue, as well as clearly identifying what makes particular arguments good or bad. Nevertheless, I can’t help feeling that she’s largely preaching to the converted and doing so on the basis of some rather problematic assumptions.
April 5, 2022
Αυτό το βιβλίο το αγόρασα τελείως τυχαία κυρίως λόγω του μικρού μεγέθους του (152 σελίδες) και της χαμηλής τιμής του. Ξεκίνησα, λοιπόν, να το διαβάζω χαλαρά και σιγά σιγά συνειδητοποίησα ότι το βιβλίο αυτό μιλάει με απτά παραδείγματα για τη δημαγωγία, ένα πολύ σοβαρό και διαχρονικό θέμα στην πολιτική και την επικοινωνία της ενημέρωσης.
Δες τι ξεχώρισα από το βιβλίο και την αναλυτική μου άποψη γι αυτό στο blog μου: Δημαγωγία και Δημοκρατία: ένα βιβλίο που πρέπει να διαβάσεις
Η συγγραφέας μας παρουσιάζει τι είναι δημαγωγία, πώς λειτουργεί, πώς να την αναγνωρίζουμε και τι μπορούμε εμείς να κάνουμε γι αυτό. Χρησιμοποιεί απλά παραδείγματα αλλά και πραγματικά περιστατικά για να σε βοηθήσει να καταλάβεις πώς να αναγνωρίζεις το φαινόμενο. Υπάρχουν κάποια σημεία που χρησιμοποιούνται κάποιοι ειδικοί όροι που αν δεν είσαι εξοικειωμένος με ακαδημαϊκού τύπου διάβασμα, ίσως σε κουράσουν. Θεωρώ όμως ότι σε γενικές γραμμές το βιβλίο είναι απλά γραμμένο και κατανοητό.
Εγώ προσωπικά, καθώς το διάβασα, συνειδητοποιούσα σταδιακά πόσο σοκαριστικ�� μεγάλο μέρος καλύπτει η δημαγωγία στον δημόσιο λόγο, από την πολιτική μέχρι τα μέσα μαζικής ενημέρωσης.
Δες τι ξεχώρισα από το βιβλίο και την αναλυτική μου άποψη γι αυτό στο blog μου: Δημαγωγία και Δημοκρατία: ένα βιβλίο που πρέπει να διαβάσεις
Η συγγραφέας μας παρουσιάζει τι είναι δημαγωγία, πώς λειτουργεί, πώς να την αναγνωρίζουμε και τι μπορούμε εμείς να κάνουμε γι αυτό. Χρησιμοποιεί απλά παραδείγματα αλλά και πραγματικά περιστατικά για να σε βοηθήσει να καταλάβεις πώς να αναγνωρίζεις το φαινόμενο. Υπάρχουν κάποια σημεία που χρησιμοποιούνται κάποιοι ειδικοί όροι που αν δεν είσαι εξοικειωμένος με ακαδημαϊκού τύπου διάβασμα, ίσως σε κουράσουν. Θεωρώ όμως ότι σε γενικές γραμμές το βιβλίο είναι απλά γραμμένο και κατανοητό.
Εγώ προσωπικά, καθώς το διάβασα, συνειδητοποιούσα σταδιακά πόσο σοκαριστικ�� μεγάλο μέρος καλύπτει η δημαγωγία στον δημόσιο λόγο, από την πολιτική μέχρι τα μέσα μαζικής ενημέρωσης.
April 7, 2024
The best part about this book is that it made full use of the the balance between quality (information) and quantity (amount of pages), covering everything neatly in VII chapters each describing Demagoguery from one way or another. Some points are given more attention and repeated more throughout the book, which Mrs. Roberts-Miller points out as well. A great advantage for me was the humour scattered on the pages, I wish there was more of it tho!
The central idea is, surprise-surprise, the role of demagoguery and demagogues, which we all are accustomed to in our everyday lives. It's not particularly politicians or newscasters who are positioned as the "Demagogues", it can be anyone a person at work, a neighbour a family member, etc., more precisely it is any individual who uses flawed argumentation (be it claims, illogical correlation to causation links or arguments ad hominem).
Or as defined by the author (on page 33): "Demagoguery is discourse that promises stability, certainty, and escape from the responsibilities of the rhetoric by framing public policy aim terms of the degree to which and the means by which (not whether) the out-group should be scape-coated of the current problems of the in-group".
Elaborating on the "in and out-groups mentioned in the definition", one primary thesis revolves constantly throughout the book about the relationship between "in-group" and "out-group", using radical rhetorical polarisation between them as the illustration of of modern demagoguery, based on the same notions as it did 2000 or more years ago (ahahah hello to progress, right?).
To put simply: individuals, for the sake of convenience and reaffirmation of their biases/beliefs, usually tend to simplify things which are inherently complicated in nature. When we put all people in two camps those who argue the same as we are, aka the "good people" and those who argue the contrary, aka the "bad people".
By ignoring the arguments and sticking to the "group view", we are engage in a flawed way of thinking, where everything is either "black or white", giving us superiority in our judgment and beliefs over the "bad people who obviously don't know what they are talking about". Even by using such a simple example, we can easily see how applicable this is for our society now, especially in the internet where people are prone to indulge in group-based thinking without actually considering responding to claims or arguments based on evidence.
To highlight one more important point from the book, let's go back in history to the 1942 case of "Japanese Americans imprisonment" run by the respected Attorney General of California at the time Mr. Earl Warren. I completely agree with Mrs. Roberts-Miller that we are used to the "obvious demagoguery" but it does not pose as much potential danger and negative implications as the "subtle demagoguery". And what I mean by "subtle" is that sometimes respected people, be it intellectuals, judges, scientists or experts can/do engage in demagoguery without actually acknowledging(or maybe wilfully ignoring the signs) that they do so. As in the case with the case to preventively imprison Japanese Americans on the basis of them being potential spies which will "do harm against the Satte if we don't act now". The book goes in detail about describing this in more detail, showing that the claims, evidence, respected judge (who thankfully later regretted and acknowledged his mistake for what it's worth) still led to the flawed decision derived from an obviously wrong conclusion, because the decision was pushed through the court under the influence of fallacies and mistakes made in the argumentation on the highest government level.
It is to be argued that everyone needs to watch their argumentation and claims the make, while also being able to admit when they are wrong. But, I personally feel this is even more necessary and vital for influencers, experts or public intellectuals to own up to the responsibility of being the source of information and forefront of the public view, since nowadays people don't have time to look at all the claims and arguments themselves and thus tend to blindly believe their "authoritative sources".
To finish the review, I would like to refer to the quote mentioned in the final chapter of the book, which I feel is the main message and advice for the reader to take from the book. When describing what's required of people in the democracy Hanna Fenichel Pitkin writes: "the ability to fight-openly, seriously, with commitment, and about things that really matter - without fanaticism, without seeking to exterminate one's opponent."
The central idea is, surprise-surprise, the role of demagoguery and demagogues, which we all are accustomed to in our everyday lives. It's not particularly politicians or newscasters who are positioned as the "Demagogues", it can be anyone a person at work, a neighbour a family member, etc., more precisely it is any individual who uses flawed argumentation (be it claims, illogical correlation to causation links or arguments ad hominem).
Or as defined by the author (on page 33): "Demagoguery is discourse that promises stability, certainty, and escape from the responsibilities of the rhetoric by framing public policy aim terms of the degree to which and the means by which (not whether) the out-group should be scape-coated of the current problems of the in-group".
Elaborating on the "in and out-groups mentioned in the definition", one primary thesis revolves constantly throughout the book about the relationship between "in-group" and "out-group", using radical rhetorical polarisation between them as the illustration of of modern demagoguery, based on the same notions as it did 2000 or more years ago (ahahah hello to progress, right?).
To put simply: individuals, for the sake of convenience and reaffirmation of their biases/beliefs, usually tend to simplify things which are inherently complicated in nature. When we put all people in two camps those who argue the same as we are, aka the "good people" and those who argue the contrary, aka the "bad people".
By ignoring the arguments and sticking to the "group view", we are engage in a flawed way of thinking, where everything is either "black or white", giving us superiority in our judgment and beliefs over the "bad people who obviously don't know what they are talking about". Even by using such a simple example, we can easily see how applicable this is for our society now, especially in the internet where people are prone to indulge in group-based thinking without actually considering responding to claims or arguments based on evidence.
To highlight one more important point from the book, let's go back in history to the 1942 case of "Japanese Americans imprisonment" run by the respected Attorney General of California at the time Mr. Earl Warren. I completely agree with Mrs. Roberts-Miller that we are used to the "obvious demagoguery" but it does not pose as much potential danger and negative implications as the "subtle demagoguery". And what I mean by "subtle" is that sometimes respected people, be it intellectuals, judges, scientists or experts can/do engage in demagoguery without actually acknowledging(or maybe wilfully ignoring the signs) that they do so. As in the case with the case to preventively imprison Japanese Americans on the basis of them being potential spies which will "do harm against the Satte if we don't act now". The book goes in detail about describing this in more detail, showing that the claims, evidence, respected judge (who thankfully later regretted and acknowledged his mistake for what it's worth) still led to the flawed decision derived from an obviously wrong conclusion, because the decision was pushed through the court under the influence of fallacies and mistakes made in the argumentation on the highest government level.
It is to be argued that everyone needs to watch their argumentation and claims the make, while also being able to admit when they are wrong. But, I personally feel this is even more necessary and vital for influencers, experts or public intellectuals to own up to the responsibility of being the source of information and forefront of the public view, since nowadays people don't have time to look at all the claims and arguments themselves and thus tend to blindly believe their "authoritative sources".
To finish the review, I would like to refer to the quote mentioned in the final chapter of the book, which I feel is the main message and advice for the reader to take from the book. When describing what's required of people in the democracy Hanna Fenichel Pitkin writes: "the ability to fight-openly, seriously, with commitment, and about things that really matter - without fanaticism, without seeking to exterminate one's opponent."
June 9, 2020
"Demagoguery is the reduction of politics to in-group versus out-group, with the assumption and claim that the in-group is always and forever and in every way better than the out-group."
— Patricia Roberts-Miller, Demagoguery and Democracy
TL;DR: HIGHLY recommended.
While Patricia Roberts-Miller discusses larger philosophical underpinnings of demagoguery (and fascism), 'Demagoguery and Democracy is more of a practical instruction manual than conceptual exercise.
In simple terms she defines demagoguery, how to identify it, how to argue against it, and finally how to engage with those who espouse it.
If you happen too, occasionally, argue with people on the internet there is a lot of practical advice on recognizing and avoiding fallacies, and guidance on sticking to the main point.
— Patricia Roberts-Miller, Demagoguery and Democracy
TL;DR: HIGHLY recommended.
While Patricia Roberts-Miller discusses larger philosophical underpinnings of demagoguery (and fascism), 'Demagoguery and Democracy is more of a practical instruction manual than conceptual exercise.
In simple terms she defines demagoguery, how to identify it, how to argue against it, and finally how to engage with those who espouse it.
If you happen too, occasionally, argue with people on the internet there is a lot of practical advice on recognizing and avoiding fallacies, and guidance on sticking to the main point.
August 11, 2023
Fascinating and informative - this book is so timely and should scare the heck out of all of us paying attention to the United States supposed modern "democracy." Every citizen could benefit from reading and understanding what demagoguery is and how it threatens democracy - no matter what your political beliefs!
August 2, 2017
We are in the demogogic doldrums. It's increasingly difficult to distinguish "alternative facts" from unadulterated facts. Media literacy is crucial and Roberts-Miller suggests how to spot the demogogues spouting disinformation.
May 13, 2021
Με βοήθησε να συνειδητοποιήσω αλλά και να επαναξιολογησω κάποιες από τις τακτικές που ακολουθούνται σε μία ανταλλαγή απόψεων και επιχειρηματων με απώτερο σκοπό το να πειστεί η άλλη πλευρά. Εξαιρετικό!
January 12, 2021
Boy. I wish everyone on Twitter would read this.
Very even handed look at what Demagoguery is, proposing a in group vs out group view of life that proposes the in group knows everything about the out group without actually talking to them or reading their literature. This insulation of a group from reality gives them security, simplicity of choice, group approval, a feeling of superiority and goodness, and permission to enforce their correctness on those others who are misguided. The book addresses leaders who have used this to their advantage along with others who truly believed in their groups positions.
To be able to have a functioning Democracy where things actually get done, these positions have to be opened so that discussion can include everyone who is affected and arguments are engaged in so that solutions are reached. This implies that everyone is equally heard and not considered beneath or insignificant. Democracy can only function under equality.
This book enables you to define your arguments to achieve good citizenship in a democracy, rather than following a group blindly without critical thinking. I highly recommend reading it,
Very even handed look at what Demagoguery is, proposing a in group vs out group view of life that proposes the in group knows everything about the out group without actually talking to them or reading their literature. This insulation of a group from reality gives them security, simplicity of choice, group approval, a feeling of superiority and goodness, and permission to enforce their correctness on those others who are misguided. The book addresses leaders who have used this to their advantage along with others who truly believed in their groups positions.
To be able to have a functioning Democracy where things actually get done, these positions have to be opened so that discussion can include everyone who is affected and arguments are engaged in so that solutions are reached. This implies that everyone is equally heard and not considered beneath or insignificant. Democracy can only function under equality.
This book enables you to define your arguments to achieve good citizenship in a democracy, rather than following a group blindly without critical thinking. I highly recommend reading it,
August 10, 2017
"The best way to open the Faraday cage of demagoguery isn't by aspiring to some emotion-free hyper-rationalism; it's by practicing compassion for those whom demagoguery says we should treat as Other. It's by imagining things from their perspective."
"In Phaedrus, Socrates says that writing is like throwing a seed over a wall."
"Demagoguery about them is undone by empathy.... Just bear witness to the glory of diversity and pluralism."
"One of the paradoxes about demagoguery is that it is simultaneously shameless and obsessed with honor."
"Good disagreements are the bedrock of communities.... Our differences make our decisions stronger. Democracy presumes that we can behave as one community, caring together for our common life, and disagreeing productively and honestly with one another."
"Democracy is about disagreement, uncertainty, complexity, and making mistakes.... Democracy is hard; demagoguery is easy."
"In Phaedrus, Socrates says that writing is like throwing a seed over a wall."
"Demagoguery about them is undone by empathy.... Just bear witness to the glory of diversity and pluralism."
"One of the paradoxes about demagoguery is that it is simultaneously shameless and obsessed with honor."
"Good disagreements are the bedrock of communities.... Our differences make our decisions stronger. Democracy presumes that we can behave as one community, caring together for our common life, and disagreeing productively and honestly with one another."
"Democracy is about disagreement, uncertainty, complexity, and making mistakes.... Democracy is hard; demagoguery is easy."
August 1, 2023
When it concerns academic/nonfiction texts, there is likely not a more impactful and insightful book. It is a quick read too. The only reason it took me this long was due to scheduled discussions over various chapters for my Public Writing and Rhetoric class. Patricia Roberts-Miller is aware of the society where we live and how it often operates for the worst. When one expects the ideas Roberts-Miller develops in the initial chapters, she will find ways to expand on those themes to make them seem more organic and authentic. Demagoguery and Democracy is not the type of book one should spoil because it should be required reading due to the relevance and history of demagoguery's developments over time. Roberts-Miller challenges the way we look at the world.
April 19, 2019
Currently reading a batch of books that might help explain and describe our current predicament.
This is one of the best of the bunch.
I've found it helpful in giving me some language to describe much of what passes for political discourse these days, but more importantly, it has helped me recognize some of the demagoguery to which I am susceptible.
If your goal is to avoid being swept along by narratives of "us" and "them," you may find this little book helpful. If your commitment is to democratic deliberation, rather than to demagogic deference, you may find a little provision for the days ahead.
This is one of the best of the bunch.
I've found it helpful in giving me some language to describe much of what passes for political discourse these days, but more importantly, it has helped me recognize some of the demagoguery to which I am susceptible.
If your goal is to avoid being swept along by narratives of "us" and "them," you may find this little book helpful. If your commitment is to democratic deliberation, rather than to demagogic deference, you may find a little provision for the days ahead.
June 24, 2017
An interesting little book on understanding what exactly demogoguery is and what to do about it. Very timely at the moment.
I won a copy of this book from the publisher as part of the Goodreads First Reads program.
I won a copy of this book from the publisher as part of the Goodreads First Reads program.
June 9, 2018
When it arrived I was surprised how tiny it was! It was informative read, help give history and context to issues and patterns in Democracies.
December 9, 2018
Book Riot Read Harder challenge task # 20: A book with a cover you hate.
What is demagoguery?
-about passion, emotionalism, populism, and pandering to crowds
-dismissing claims based on who was making them ("they" are untrustworthy, biased, and have bad motives)
-demogogic media presents consumers with dumbed-down versions of opposition arguments; creates alternative world
-policy issues are a contest between us and them
-focus on identity and loyalty to the in-group (us)
-scapegoats a particular group for the problems of the community as a whole
-sense of self worth of members of in-group attached to that of the leader of that group, so they take personally any criticism of that leader
-relationship between leader and members of in-group strengthened "by the leader behaving erratically, making what might appear to be irrational arguments, judging situations quickly without much information, and making hyperbolic claims"
-dissent treated as treason
-accusing opponents of weakness or disloyalty
-presents the situation of the in-group as so dire that they are justified in their actions; rhetoric of victimization
-talk about how things are always done and for the need to return to how things used to be
-relies on fallacy, projection, appeal to inconsistent premises, and argument from personal conviction
-express their own opinions, without engaging anyone else's argument
Sounds like a terrifying diagnosis of our current society.
Pretty informative, but I feel like I could've just looked up the term demagoguery online.
What is demagoguery?
-about passion, emotionalism, populism, and pandering to crowds
-dismissing claims based on who was making them ("they" are untrustworthy, biased, and have bad motives)
-demogogic media presents consumers with dumbed-down versions of opposition arguments; creates alternative world
-policy issues are a contest between us and them
-focus on identity and loyalty to the in-group (us)
-scapegoats a particular group for the problems of the community as a whole
-sense of self worth of members of in-group attached to that of the leader of that group, so they take personally any criticism of that leader
-relationship between leader and members of in-group strengthened "by the leader behaving erratically, making what might appear to be irrational arguments, judging situations quickly without much information, and making hyperbolic claims"
-dissent treated as treason
-accusing opponents of weakness or disloyalty
-presents the situation of the in-group as so dire that they are justified in their actions; rhetoric of victimization
-talk about how things are always done and for the need to return to how things used to be
-relies on fallacy, projection, appeal to inconsistent premises, and argument from personal conviction
-express their own opinions, without engaging anyone else's argument
Sounds like a terrifying diagnosis of our current society.
Pretty informative, but I feel like I could've just looked up the term demagoguery online.
November 21, 2017
A short little book that contains a lot of important material. While at times a bit on the scholarly side, the author has written this in language that a non-academic who has never taken a rhetoric class or been on a debate team can follow. The author defines the academic terms she uses so when they come up again, a reader (like me on occasion!) can look back and refresh their recollection of a term's meaning, as being used by the author.
We are constantly exposed to rhetoric in politics these days -- it is the norm. The author explains what it is, how to spot it, and how to fight back against its use. She is a proponent of argument, with everyone using the same rules. The world is not as simple as those using demagoguery want us to think. Rarely are there only two sides to any issue and especially those that are addressed in the political arena. Life is not binary. We need to listen to what everyone has to say and think about repercussions of proposed actions.
The author uses examples to illustrate what she means and these examples are very helpful to the understanding of the concepts she is explaining. An important book and one I am sure I will need to read again and again.
We are constantly exposed to rhetoric in politics these days -- it is the norm. The author explains what it is, how to spot it, and how to fight back against its use. She is a proponent of argument, with everyone using the same rules. The world is not as simple as those using demagoguery want us to think. Rarely are there only two sides to any issue and especially those that are addressed in the political arena. Life is not binary. We need to listen to what everyone has to say and think about repercussions of proposed actions.
The author uses examples to illustrate what she means and these examples are very helpful to the understanding of the concepts she is explaining. An important book and one I am sure I will need to read again and again.
December 31, 2017
I picked up this book after hearing the author speak at the Texas Book Festival. It provided a fascinating insight into dysfunction in democracy and offered suggestions in identifying and countering demagogic argument. The book was published in June 2017 so, given the timing of the publishing industry, I have to assume that the manuscript was complete well before the 2016 presidential election results were known. This is not, therefore, a work dedicated to discussion of the current US administration (again, given the dates, this is never mentioned) but a general description of the problem of demagoguery with examples stretching from ancient Greece to the Iraq War.
The book is short - most people should be able to get through it in a couple of hours - and I would strongly recommend it to anyone interested in politics or, even more importantly, anyone involved in or thinking of getting involved in politics.
The book is short - most people should be able to get through it in a couple of hours - and I would strongly recommend it to anyone interested in politics or, even more importantly, anyone involved in or thinking of getting involved in politics.
October 10, 2017
I appreciated the honesty with which it was written - particularly the strategies for addressing demagogues (who are also your peers, neighbours, family and friends).
"Our differences make our decisions stronger. Democracy presumes that we can behave as one community, caring together for our common life, and disagreeing productively and honestly with one another. Demagoguery rejects that pragmatic acceptance and even valuing of disagreement in favor of a world of certainty, purity, and silencing of dissent" (p.127).
"Our differences make our decisions stronger. Democracy presumes that we can behave as one community, caring together for our common life, and disagreeing productively and honestly with one another. Demagoguery rejects that pragmatic acceptance and even valuing of disagreement in favor of a world of certainty, purity, and silencing of dissent" (p.127).
March 6, 2022
I always thought demagoguery was something "they" did, but the author argues I have it all wrong. That position itself is a sort of demagogery. Demagoguery is "the reduction of politics to in-group versus out-group with the assumption and claims that the in-group is always and forever and in every way better than the out-group" (122). I love one of her proposed fixes but it isn't an easy one: "practice compassion for those whom demagoguery says we should treat as Other" (77). I feel like this would be a wise choice for a whole-world book club. One can dream.
November 8, 2021
i thought this book would be insanely boring and not something i’d be able to comprehend but i was wrong. this has been one of the most insightful books i’ve ever read and has taught me so much about how we think about political leaders. pls pls pls read this book
August 31, 2021
This is a fine pocket edition on demagoguery written by a professor of rhetoric, which is about "demagoguery--how it works, how to describe and identify it, how good people can find themselves relying on demagoguery, and what we can do about it." (p. 2) Roberts-Miller sardonically lays out what is at stake in the fight against demagoguery: "[h]istorically, cultures insist on non-demagogic political processes after a devastating war[.] ... It would be nice if we could find a different solution." (pp. 94-95)
After briefly stating the importance of rhetoric for democracy, and the importance of arguments about arguments, Roberts-Miller takes up Plutarch's definition of demagoguery, which is essentially the "common sense" view of it that many hold today: "demagogues are rhetors just looking out for themselves who pretend to be populists and who rouse the ignorant masses through appeal to emotion." (p. 20). She counters that this definition is not only wrong, it is useless because it doesn't provide us with a way to determine whether we are ourselves engaged in demagoguery. Plutarch's definition does not provide us with a test to see whether we are being mislead. (See p. 24). If this definition were adequate, then demagoguery would be quite easy to detect, and would therefore be either ineffective. But this is clearly not the case, as "demagoguery works when (and because) we don't recognize it as such. Therefore, it can't be as easy to identify as Plutarch says." (p. 23). (See chapter 2 for her complete argument.)
Roberts-Miller instead points to demagoguery, not demagogues, as the crucial point of analysis. According to her, demagogues arise because there is a culture of demagoguery, not the other way around. And demagoguery is something we all are susceptible to.
So, the problem for Roberts-Miller is twofold: how do we detect and protect against demagoguery, and what do we do about it when we encounter it?
Throughout, Roberts-Miller opposes deliberation to demagoguery: "we need to persuade people to engage in more deliberation and less demagoguery." (p. 121) Her solution to both problems is that we must uphold the responsibilities of honest deliberation. Accordingly, much of the work is dedicated to explicating these responsibilities, as well as demagogic rhetorical patterns, logical fallacies, and self-reflective critical thinking skills. While it is not appropriate to rehash this here, two pieces of advice stand out from among the rest. "[B]eing able to name the fallacy has significant rhetorical power in arguments with people persuaded by demagoguery" (p. 121), and "if you can keep an eye on the stasis of an argument, you can 'win' an argument with someone engaged in demagoguery[.]" (pp. 102-103) Again, though, the purpose is to get your interlocutor to realize that they are engaging in demagoguery, not to "win" the argument:
As a final note, the psychological profile of demagoguery sounded quite familiar. Roberts-Miller essentially credits naïve realism and lack of deliberation skills with providing a crucial breeding ground for a demagogic culture. And the two go hand-in-hand: "because naïve realists deny that they are looking at the world from a particular perspective (let alone mediated), they see no need to learn how to look at things from the perspective of other people (in fact, they often believe they can see perspectives from their position). Their experience is normal and universal; other perspectives are special and particular and prejudiced." (p. 40) It follows from this that "[t]he truth is obvious to good people like us, and you don't need to listen to anyone who disagrees. ... Demagoguery says we don't have to debate policies, since what we should do is empower good people (or a good person) to do what every good person recognizes to be the obviously right course of action; we need to stop thinking and debating and just act." (pp. 24-26). Compare this to the profile of a large portion of voters from Hibbing and Theiss-Morse's Stealth Democracy:
The implications of the above passages are well beyond the scope of a book review of separate book, but we can see here a congruence between demagoguery's audience and the average voter around the issue of democratic deliberation. Is it that, as some have suggested, citizens are not equipped to handle the intellectual demands that deliberation places upon them, and therefore find democracy alienating? For instance, in seeing deliberation as a messy and unsatisfying (because compromising) process, and turning toward simpler solutions such as a strong leader.
Finally, given the timing of this book (initially 2017, but published as a paperback with an afterword in 2020), this book suffers from not examining the overlap of this audience most susceptible to demagoguery with the significant portion of Americans who hold strong authoritarian, nativist, chauvinist, xenophobic, etc. sentiment (as I have written about in another review). Moreover, given that the initial part of the book is focused on explicating identitarianism's role in demagoguery, I feel that this is a major omission. Though there are other books which fill this descriptive gap, I am not yet aware of one which fills the analytic gap between the radical right's U.S. base and a rhetorical analysis of demagoguery.
This was a very enjoyable read which I also believe is quite successful in making fundamental critical thinking, reasoning, and rhetorical analysis skills available to a popular audience.
After briefly stating the importance of rhetoric for democracy, and the importance of arguments about arguments, Roberts-Miller takes up Plutarch's definition of demagoguery, which is essentially the "common sense" view of it that many hold today: "demagogues are rhetors just looking out for themselves who pretend to be populists and who rouse the ignorant masses through appeal to emotion." (p. 20). She counters that this definition is not only wrong, it is useless because it doesn't provide us with a way to determine whether we are ourselves engaged in demagoguery. Plutarch's definition does not provide us with a test to see whether we are being mislead. (See p. 24). If this definition were adequate, then demagoguery would be quite easy to detect, and would therefore be either ineffective. But this is clearly not the case, as "demagoguery works when (and because) we don't recognize it as such. Therefore, it can't be as easy to identify as Plutarch says." (p. 23). (See chapter 2 for her complete argument.)
Roberts-Miller instead points to demagoguery, not demagogues, as the crucial point of analysis. According to her, demagogues arise because there is a culture of demagoguery, not the other way around. And demagoguery is something we all are susceptible to.
So, the problem for Roberts-Miller is twofold: how do we detect and protect against demagoguery, and what do we do about it when we encounter it?
Throughout, Roberts-Miller opposes deliberation to demagoguery: "we need to persuade people to engage in more deliberation and less demagoguery." (p. 121) Her solution to both problems is that we must uphold the responsibilities of honest deliberation. Accordingly, much of the work is dedicated to explicating these responsibilities, as well as demagogic rhetorical patterns, logical fallacies, and self-reflective critical thinking skills. While it is not appropriate to rehash this here, two pieces of advice stand out from among the rest. "[B]eing able to name the fallacy has significant rhetorical power in arguments with people persuaded by demagoguery" (p. 121), and "if you can keep an eye on the stasis of an argument, you can 'win' an argument with someone engaged in demagoguery[.]" (pp. 102-103) Again, though, the purpose is to get your interlocutor to realize that they are engaging in demagoguery, not to "win" the argument:
"[I]n the more complicated, but, really, more important, stasis in which you point out problems with how they're arguing. Ultimately, your goal is simply to get people to see that the argument is demagoguery. Demagoguery pretends to be about principle ... but it's about in-group versus out-group[.] ... So, pointing out that there aren't any principles involved ... is useful for the argument about argument." (p. 107)
As a final note, the psychological profile of demagoguery sounded quite familiar. Roberts-Miller essentially credits naïve realism and lack of deliberation skills with providing a crucial breeding ground for a demagogic culture. And the two go hand-in-hand: "because naïve realists deny that they are looking at the world from a particular perspective (let alone mediated), they see no need to learn how to look at things from the perspective of other people (in fact, they often believe they can see perspectives from their position). Their experience is normal and universal; other perspectives are special and particular and prejudiced." (p. 40) It follows from this that "[t]he truth is obvious to good people like us, and you don't need to listen to anyone who disagrees. ... Demagoguery says we don't have to debate policies, since what we should do is empower good people (or a good person) to do what every good person recognizes to be the obviously right course of action; we need to stop thinking and debating and just act." (pp. 24-26). Compare this to the profile of a large portion of voters from Hibbing and Theiss-Morse's Stealth Democracy:
"[T]he kind of government people want is one in which ordinary people do not have to get involved ... [M]any people are simply averse to political conflict and many others believe political conflict is unnecessary and an indication that something is wrong with governmental procedures. People believe that Americans all have the same basic goals, and they are consequently turned off by political debate and deal making that presuppose an absence of consensus." (p. 7)
"People ... see democratic procedures as unnecessary and maybe even counterproductive because conflict is unnecessary and counterproductive, It turns out that this is exactly people's take on political debate and compromise. ... [T]hey just do not enjoy confrontation and disagreement, regardless of its legitimacy or relevance." (pp. 134-135)
"After all [they think], the people do not have strong feelings on policy minutiae, so any conflict must have been fabricated by self-serving elected officials and their ilk. In fact, people believe the very existence of conflict is a sign that elected officials are out of touch with ordinary Americans." (p. 142)
The implications of the above passages are well beyond the scope of a book review of separate book, but we can see here a congruence between demagoguery's audience and the average voter around the issue of democratic deliberation. Is it that, as some have suggested, citizens are not equipped to handle the intellectual demands that deliberation places upon them, and therefore find democracy alienating? For instance, in seeing deliberation as a messy and unsatisfying (because compromising) process, and turning toward simpler solutions such as a strong leader.
Finally, given the timing of this book (initially 2017, but published as a paperback with an afterword in 2020), this book suffers from not examining the overlap of this audience most susceptible to demagoguery with the significant portion of Americans who hold strong authoritarian, nativist, chauvinist, xenophobic, etc. sentiment (as I have written about in another review). Moreover, given that the initial part of the book is focused on explicating identitarianism's role in demagoguery, I feel that this is a major omission. Though there are other books which fill this descriptive gap, I am not yet aware of one which fills the analytic gap between the radical right's U.S. base and a rhetorical analysis of demagoguery.
This was a very enjoyable read which I also believe is quite successful in making fundamental critical thinking, reasoning, and rhetorical analysis skills available to a popular audience.
March 14, 2024
4 stars, but everyone needs to read this book.
June 21, 2017
Great book! The premises are well-explained without being oversimplified, the arguments are compelling and well-founded. Most importantly, the historical examples ring true today. I found them a relief to read, actually, because it helps to remember that this isn't the first time we've been here and we've survived before.
I took issue with a claim Dr. Roberts-Miller made on p. 116. She claimed that her dogs are the most adorable, which is objectively untrue. My dogs are the most adorable.
I took issue with a claim Dr. Roberts-Miller made on p. 116. She claimed that her dogs are the most adorable, which is objectively untrue. My dogs are the most adorable.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
August 1, 2017
Quick, fun, bipartisan read that does a great job of explaining the scholarly discussion of demagoguery in a way that us average people can grasp it. It's enlightening and perfectly timed!
December 19, 2017
4.5 stars. Roberts-Miller’s book is a timely examination of how democracies are fundamentally at odds with demagoguery, but how, at times, they become fertile grounds for demagogic rhetoric, and how we might refocus arguments to reject demagoguery. She doesn’t detail any one person or movement in current American politics, but instead tries to show how demagoguery operates on in-group/out-group dynamics and the ways in which “good” and “bad” become false dichotomies that often lead us away from more democratic rhetoric (i.e. rhetoric that is inclusive, includes multiple perspectives, embraces empathy, features honest disagreement, etc.). To her credit, she doesn’t claim that demagoguery is always bad all the time (which would be a demagogic move!), suggesting that at times it may be cathartic to have moments of in-group ego-boosting. Demagoguery only becomes a problem when it grows like algae (to use her simile) to choke out all other discussions and arguments.
After gradually winning me over to her understanding of the topic, I felt the final portion of the book (a list of logical fallacies to help engage in discussions with demagogues) to be slightly depressing. I imagined rounds and rounds of Internet flame wars or tense family discussions where, ultimately, one feels that no progress has been made, like slamming your head against a concrete wall. I’m not sure I share Roberts-Miller’s optimism that demagoguery can be overcome with such small victories. I rather think that certain people are predisposed to take the easy track of demagoguery and that no amount of pointing out fallacies or trying to reframe the conversation to address policy and points of stasis will have much of an impact on these people. (But is that very attitude of mine a sort of demagogic "us vs. them" way of thinking? Perhaps! And that's what I love about this book: it asks us to question our own modes of thinking and conclusions.)
In short, this book was informative and offered a fresh perspective on an essential topic in American political discourse in 2017. I'd recommend it.
After gradually winning me over to her understanding of the topic, I felt the final portion of the book (a list of logical fallacies to help engage in discussions with demagogues) to be slightly depressing. I imagined rounds and rounds of Internet flame wars or tense family discussions where, ultimately, one feels that no progress has been made, like slamming your head against a concrete wall. I’m not sure I share Roberts-Miller’s optimism that demagoguery can be overcome with such small victories. I rather think that certain people are predisposed to take the easy track of demagoguery and that no amount of pointing out fallacies or trying to reframe the conversation to address policy and points of stasis will have much of an impact on these people. (But is that very attitude of mine a sort of demagogic "us vs. them" way of thinking? Perhaps! And that's what I love about this book: it asks us to question our own modes of thinking and conclusions.)
In short, this book was informative and offered a fresh perspective on an essential topic in American political discourse in 2017. I'd recommend it.
August 27, 2018
This book doesn't mention Trump, or indeed any politics newer than 2011. Instead it focuses on previous decisions the American people have made with demagoguery, ones we all agree were bad. This allows it to discuss demagogury without getting bogged down by current emotions and presents a much stronger argument.
And it's a powerful argument. She argues that the American people - you and I - are responsible for the rise of demagoguery, that when demagoguery becomes the primary method of discourse it's only a matter of time before a demagogue comes to power, and that we are responsible for reducing our nation's reliance on demagoguery.
Most of the book is dedicated to a working definition of demagoguery, one that is useful even if you like what is being said. Most common definitions are little more than favoritism, but if all sides use demagoguery, then all sides need to know how to spot it. In short, demagoguery is reducing all problems to a question of "us versus them," and arguing that "we" are intrinsically good while "they" are intrinsically bad.
She discusses common logical fallacies, and ends by explaining how democratic discourse works, one that's centered around fairness and inclusion and understanding the other side. It's a path that's harder to walk, but worth it. I've not stopped thinking about this book since I read it, and am now working on seeing demagoguery wherever I go - in myself as well as in others. Little by little, you and I can make this change.
And it's a powerful argument. She argues that the American people - you and I - are responsible for the rise of demagoguery, that when demagoguery becomes the primary method of discourse it's only a matter of time before a demagogue comes to power, and that we are responsible for reducing our nation's reliance on demagoguery.
Most of the book is dedicated to a working definition of demagoguery, one that is useful even if you like what is being said. Most common definitions are little more than favoritism, but if all sides use demagoguery, then all sides need to know how to spot it. In short, demagoguery is reducing all problems to a question of "us versus them," and arguing that "we" are intrinsically good while "they" are intrinsically bad.
She discusses common logical fallacies, and ends by explaining how democratic discourse works, one that's centered around fairness and inclusion and understanding the other side. It's a path that's harder to walk, but worth it. I've not stopped thinking about this book since I read it, and am now working on seeing demagoguery wherever I go - in myself as well as in others. Little by little, you and I can make this change.
August 24, 2020
The best book I've read relevant to our current political dialogue, or rather lack of it. A superbly insightful book. I learned a lot from it and highly recommend it.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 113 reviews