Demagoguery describes the political activity in a democracy which exploits prejudice and appeals to emotion of the common people rather than using rational reasoning to achieve certain political goals. A demagogue is the politician who practices demagoguery to achieve personal desires. Patricia Roberts-Miller has studied demagoguery and she defines demagoguery as a “polarizing propaganda that motivates members of an ingroup to hate and scapegoat some outgroup(s), largely by promising certainty, stability, and what Erich Fromm famously called ‘an escape from freedom’” (Characteristics of Demagoguery 1). In her article “Characteristics of Demagoguery” and Denver talk “Rhetoric and Demagoguery”, Roberts-Miller introduces and explains characteristics …show more content…
and potential effects of demagoguery. Her definition and explanation of demagoguery helps readers understand and identify it in today’s politics because some politicians still include demagoguery in their speeches to gain personal desire. For example, President Donald J. Trump’s speech on immigration during his presidential campaign in Phoenix, Arizona 2016 has demonstrated certain characteristics of demagoguery. In this essay, I will first introduce the rhetorical situation in Trump’s speech. Then, I will examine Trump’s speech using Roberts-Millers’ definition of demagoguery and how he illustrates elements of it in his speech. Next, I will evaluate to what extent Trump’s speech conform Roberts-Millers’ definition of demagogic discourse and analyze a fallacy in his speech as well as how the fallacy weakens his argument. Finally, I will conclude the significance of being able to identify demagoguery in an argument. Roberts-Miller is a professor in the Department of Rhetoric and Composition at the University of Texas – Austin. She mainly focuses on history, theory, and pedagogy of public argumentation. Roberts-Miller is also the author of several published books that discuss related issues. She received her Ph.D. in Rhetoric from the University of California – Berkeley and has taught at two other universities previously. Roberts-Miller’s profound study and teaching experiences make her credible and important for us to learn from. In his speech on immigration during his 2016 presidential campaign, Trump introduces many problems caused by illegal immigrants, proposes solutions to those problems, and rallies the Republicans and American citizens by making promises and commitments. Trump targets violence and crimes, the reduction of wages, the decrease in job opportunities for American citizens, and many other problems he believes illegal immigrants have brought to America.
Meanwhile, he makes numerous promises to American citizens saying he will immediately solve all the issues caused by illegal immigrants under the enforcement of his new policies once he wins the presidency. Trump tries to gain possibility of winning the presidency with his speech using demagoguery. However, some of Trump’s solutions and promises toward illegal immigration problems appear to be quite extreme. For example, he repeatedly states that he will deport all illegal immigrants the very first day and hour when he steps into office: “Day one, my first hour in office, those people are gone”(The New York Times Par. 60) Moreover, he points out the flaws of Barack Obama’s presidency and Hilary Clinton’s policies toward illegal immigration and criminal aliens, promising his audience that he would be more decisive and would take immediate action toward these problems. With several demagogic rhetorical strategies, Trump wins many applauses and supports by saying words that American people want to hear during his presidential campaign. Trump’s speech toward immigration does address certain elements of demagoguery such as victimization,
polarization, scapegoating the out-group, and in-group/out-group thinking. In the beginning of his speech, Trump addresses several tragic homicides and murders done by illegal immigrants to American citizens. Trump states: “Grant Ronnebeck … was murdered by an illegal immigrant gang member previously convicted of burglary … Kate Steinle. Gunned down ... by an illegal immigrant, deported five previous times… 90-year-old Earl Olander, who was brutally beaten and left to bleed to death in his home … perpetrators were illegal immigrants with criminal records a mile long … a 64-year-old Air Force veteran … was sexually assaulted and beaten to death with a hammer… killer had been arrested on multiple occasions but was never, ever deported...” (Par.22-24). By recalling several homicide and murder cases that has happened under Obama’s administration, Trump tries to build up a connection between American citizens by victimizing American citizens. That demonstrates Trump’s use of victimization as one of the characteristics of demagoguery as to Robers-Miller’s it as “The ingroup is being victimized by the situation” (5). While Trump victimizes American citizens, he also polarizes the population into two groups – Americans citizens as the in-group and immigrants as the out-group by calling himself and the citizens “we” and the immigrants “they”. According to Roberts-Millers, “to polarize is to divide a diverse range of things into two poles. Thus, a demagogue breaks everything into two camps: the one s/he represents (what people call the in-group), and evil (the out-group). This kind of polarization recurs throughout demagoguery” (2). Trump demonstrates polarization as one of the characteristics of demagoguery by breaking the population into two groups and calls American citizens which he represents the in-group and the illegal immigrants the out-group. Next, Trump introduces his proposals and policies toward illegal immigration. He starts to use the word “criminal alien” to target towards all illegal immigrants. The word “criminal alien” itself contains strong negative meanings. By vaguely calling all illegal immigrants criminal aliens, Trump scapegoats them and therefore makes the public fear them. Trump also builds up and promotes a rhetoric of hate toward illegal immigrants by describing them all as criminals with evil deeds. Roberts-Miller explains that scapegoating helps justify extreme measures and polarize the situation (4). Trump’s use of scapegoating helps him justify his claim of deporting all illegal immigrants and polarize the population. Therefore, Trump successfully promotes hatred toward the illegal immigrants. This action is defined by Roberts-Miller as one of the characteristics of demagoguery: “in-group/out-group thinking, a rhetoric of hate”. She describes this characteristic as when the “demagogue tries to promote and justify hatred of the ‘out-group’” (2). Clearly, Trump has included victimization, polarization, scapegoating the out-group, and in-group/out-group thinking which demonstrate demagoguery in his speech. Some parts of Trump’s speech well conform to Roberts-Miller’s definition of demagogic discourse. However, he has not applied demagogic discourse throughout his speech. Trump’s use of victimization, polarization, scapegoating the out-group, and in-group/out-group thinking have significantly contributed to his persuasiveness in his speech. He stirs the audience’s emotions such as excitement of making their country better and anger for the illegal immigrants destroying their homeland. All the demagoguery Trump has used in his speech have affected the audience in a way that the audience would believe in his proposals and policies and therefore would possibly vote for him during the election. Trump has included “guilt by association” as one of the rhetorical fallacies in his speech. A “guilt by association” fallacy is when calling someone’s character into question by examining the character that person is associated with. Trump repeats himself numerous times during his speech that he will immediately deport all illegal immigrants once he steps into the office because they are all dangerous and will eventually cause problems in the United States. Trump calls the entire illegal immigrant population into question by only examining the countable murder cases done by individuals. In conclusion, it is important for individuals to learn how to identify demagoguery in an argument because it is dangerous for a society to be manipulated by politicians with ambitious personal desires and know how to use demagoguery in their arguments ingeniously. For example, although Trump’s speech mainly targeted illegal immigration, it significantly has affected other legal immigration population such as international students or foreign employees. Meanwhile, Trump has won the election and been working in the White House for more than a year, yet he has not accomplished his commitment of deporting all illegal immigrants as he swore in his speech. Therefore, we need to learn from scholars such as Roberts-Miller and their studies on demagoguery to prevent similar situations that would negatively affect the large picture from happening.
He also explains that the public succumbs to the stereotypes that support the government: news, law enforcement, and politicians. Lippmann then points out that the “visible government” is the aftermath of the assumptions made by the public about democracy. Lippmann argues, “the substance of the argument is that democracy in its original form never seriously faced the problem which arises because the pictures inside people’s heads do not automatically correspond with the world outside” (Lippmann 19). This argument makes sense because the interpretation of symbols and fictions, as well as propaganda and stereotypes, differentiates person to person. As democracy has developed, the pictures inside people’s minds have pushed it from its original form. Concurrently, the people in power have the same distorted picture in their head. He continues this evaluation by saying, “for in each of these innumerable centers of authority there are parties, and these parties are themselves hierarchies with their roots in classes, sections, cliques and clans; and within these are the individual politicians, each the personal center of a web of connection and memory and fear and hope” (Lippmann 13). This places the public at risk because their leaders are acting with a pre-disposition to certain stereotypes and the effect trickles down to plague the
The issues discussed by Thomas Nagel in 'Ruthlessness in Public Life' are that continuities and discontinuities exist between the public and private morality. Public officials need to recognize that there are clear limitations on actions which conflict with morality concerns. Nagel explored how public and private sectors need to adhere to certain ordinary moral standards.
In doing this, the Political Party is in complete control over the citizens’ minds, blasting what they want each individual to think (Orwell, 6). They psychologically stimulate each individuals mind, limiting their ability to think and have a mind of their own. In a similar way, Stalin’s created “The Poster” and The Pravda (the Russian newspaper controlled by the government during Joseph Stalin’s regime) to twist and manipulate the minds of people into believing that what they were saying was absolutely right and true. Using this power, Stalin and his regime would get people to do anything for them. (Basgen, 2010).
‘Illiberal’ policies are not necessarily undemocratic: they can be enacted by legitimate actors, supported by voters, but contravene constitutional limits, freedoms and other liberal ideals. In CEE, there is concern over the rise of populist parties and rhetoric. This essay uses Mudde’s conception of political populism: a ‘thin-centered’ ideology where society is separated into two dichotic groups: ‘pure people’ versus ‘corrupt elite’. Characteristics of populist parties include supporting direct democracy and primacy of national politics. Ideas are often presented through emotions, not alternative policies. A rise in illiberal policies and populism may occur because of weakening EU conditionalities post-accession: previously the EU held leverage over states and conditionalities led to them to enact policies that were not necessarily beneficial. Upon joining the EU, these changes can be reversed and other policies enacted without the penalties.
Psychological manipulation the Party uses on the citizens is one of the first themes Orwell exposes in this dystopian society. The Party maintains this manipulation by constantly overwhelming citizens with useless information and propaganda.
This is only one of the many offensive comments he has made throughout his campaign, which I plan on analyzing for the purpose of understanding systemic racism within America. Trumps campaign has been centered on the very controversial topic of immigration policies and the building of a “Great Wall” that is intended to keep the Mexican people, in particular, out of the United States. The idea that someone like Donald Trump could become the President of the United States of America has put fear into the hearts of the American people. Running with the slogan “Make America Great Again” Trump has emphasized that America has failed because of its “lenient” policies towards other countries, and his plan
Because Donald Trump wanted to become a Presidential Candidate to shake up America and our way of choosing a Commander in Chief he has taken the focus off of other candidates. To me, he has done just that. In turn, he has also showcased a lot of his ignorant behavior and poor attitudes towards others. Eventually, this will affect how America votes; against Donald Trump. Furthermore, Donald Trump lacks a Presidential form of social interaction. This candidate appears to be impatient when others challenge his position on facts versus his opinions. When he dislikes someone politically or personally, Trump uses his popular attack-mode tactics to make his point. Repeatedly Donald Trump fails to be intellectually stimulating as a Presidential Candidate. Often he has a habit of stating his offensive
Donald Trump, a current Republican front-runner, is well known for his presidential campaign and its harsh policies on illegal immigration between Mexico and the United States, which are largely similar to the 1930’s repatriation movement. His policy on Mexican immigration states, “The influx of foreign workers holds down salaries, keeps unemployment high, and makes it difficult for poor and working class Americans… to earn a middle class wage.” This is almost identical to a claim that was made during the Great Depression, and his plans for solving the crisis are also identical to the efforts made during the Repatriation; welfare refusal to immigrant families, job denial, and mass deportation of roughly 11 million Mexican immigrants. Though the thought of these plans going through may seem unachievable, history shows that they can be --and have been --
Examining Trump’s rhetoric and past actions, it becomes clear that Trump’s ability to be the leader of America, especially in today’s already heated world climate, becomes questionable. When even the members of his own party refuse to endorse him and claim that he is not qualified to run a country, the general public needs to sit back and question his integrity. In Trump’s past, he has proven to be an insensitive, racist, greedy business man. Why would he prove to be any different once elected to office?
“"Propaganda is as powerful as heroin, it surreptitiously dissolves all capacity to think” by Gil Courtemanche connects to the sad fact of using propaganda as a deadly weapon to feed people with false information and stop them from thinking. George Orwell’s novel, 1984 describes a totalitarian dystopia society where the Party is constantly brainwashing its citizens with information that is beneficial to its own rights. On the opposite side people are working for the party just like dominated slaves for their masters without knowing of what’s going on. But, in order for the party to achieve this goal they have to use different techniques of propaganda in Oceania to create fear for people so that they can obey the rules. The use of propaganda
Patricia Roberts-Miller, a professor of rhetoric, defines demagoguery as “polarizing propaganda that motivates members of an in-group to hate and scapegoat some out-group, largely by promising certainty, stability, and what Erich Fromm famously called “an escape from freedom” (Roberts-Miller 50). One of the more common forms of demagoguery is polarization, which divides a diverse range of people into two polar opposite groups. The in-group is looked at as the good and correct group while the out-group is demonized and viewed as wrong and evil. The idea of in-group and out-group thinking, “insists that those who are not with us are against us”, creating a stronger hatred against the out-group (Miller 60). Demagoguery occurs most often in times
The underlying assumption: Donald Trump will say that he is going to ‘Make America Great Again’ but he won’t act on his promises to his voters.
History has revealed that there have been many cases of political hysteria where the fear people acquire is much greater than anyone can imagine, and it often repeats itself. Political hysteria manipulates American identity and assumes that outside factors are the reason for detrimental occurrences. In any given case of hysteria, there was always an ulterior motive for political gain. In American Hysteria; The Untold Story of Mass Political Extremism in The United States, by Andrew Burt, he explains political hysteria using different case studies that occurred throughout history. Burt argued that in each instance there is something going on, during that time, that sets the tone for each period of hysteria. Burt argued that these movements are not accidental but are motivated by a precise set of situations in which individuals with social status and political power see it slipping away.
In the upcoming presidential election, one of the most popular topics is that of illegal immigration. Leading Republican candidate Donald J. Trump has run a campaign heavily anti-illegal immigration. He proposes reform in American immigration, specifically from Mexico. Many politicians and political activists argue that undocumented immigrants take job-positions from American workers and cost federal, state, and local governments considerably large amounts of money per year in law enforcement, education, and healthcare services. U.S. citizens are passionate to restore their economy, and many have adopted a very xenophobic attitude towards immigration amidst the new presidential debates. In order to restore our economy, many people believe that
Donald J. Trump has had many statements about the “issue” of immigration. His description toward immigrants, especially of the Mexican Origin were as follows: “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending there best. ... They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists.” I believe Mr. Trump does not know what he is talking about, let me explain why: Firstly, being a rapist or criminal is not specific to whether you are an immigrant or not. Secondly, Mexico is not at all “sending” any people to the United States, it’s the people who want to better themselves and their families that come to the United States, of course there is the small majority of people who are here for the wrong reasons, but you can’t just group a whole race into one category. Lastly, Trump’s statement of “They’re bringing crime” is his personal opinion, because we have already established the statistics and facts to refute this statement.