DEMAGOGUERY

PART 1

Jennifer Stone (anti-Trump activist, campaigner, etc), differs with my opinion and suggested that I should read about demagoguery. I think , it will be more appropriate to discuss it, relate it and apply it to Trump himself. There it goes...

The origin of this word was still in the ancient Greek times between the years of 1640 - 50. The simplest meaning and still remains is - "leader of the people", "the popular leader".

When the ancient Greeks used 'demagogo's (from demos, meaning 'people', and agein to 'lead' they meant someone good-a-leader who used outstanding oratory skills to further the interests of the common people. Later in the 17th century, the word took a negative turn, coming to suggest one who uses powers of persuasion to sway and mislead.

Modern times, however, distorted in such a way that as a noun it relates to a person, especially to an orator or political leader who gains power and popularity by arousing the emotions, passions, and prejudices of the people.

As a verb (used with object) treats or manipulates (a political issue) in the manner of a demagogue; obscures or distort with emotionalism, prejudice, etc.

As a verb (used without subject) is used to speak or act like a demagogue.

Today, as social and mass media feast on 'over-the-top' statements, the incentives for demagoguery - and accusing others of being demagogues - are many. And with populist politicians of the left and right gaining voters' favours around the world, very old questions about democracy are being raised.

Philip Freeman once said: "The greatest danger to democracy is a struggling population in search of easy answers".

Little, said: "You can't have democracy without demagogues"

The truth is that democracies breeds demagogues. In fact, the identification of a demagogue turns out, as often as not, to be an act of demagoguery itself, with those occupying each end of the political spectrum levelling the term against leaders springing from, or appealing to, the other side.

I would go even further to say and suggest that there remains one simple test that will allow an individual, and in general the voters to identify a demagogue: If the would-be-leader promises to give, restore, provide, insure, or enhance a country but never asks the citizens to sacrifice, pay, serve, or simply work, then this leader is a potential demagogue.

By this standard, most national American politicians, as most world leaders, of the last thirty years qualify as practicing demagogues.

Let's remember John F. Kennedy's sacrificial challenge in his inaugural address - :"Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country".

In the end, demagoguery works when the electorate lacks the integrity and cultural imperative necessary to reject tangible and immediate gain in favour of principles that require sacrifice, effort, and personal responsibility. Democracy, therefore, provides a fertile environment for the reproduction of demagogues. As Shakespeare's Cassius noted: -"The fault, dear Brunus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves...".

The deteriorating effect or meaning, to the sense of the word demagoguery, originated in part in a certain part of elitism.

"You had your chance, it's our turn now".

That homemade sign, located in the fault line of the American election in the Mahoning Valley between Ohio and Pennsylvania, in all its simplicity found a way to capture the essence of the presidential cycle.

Salema Zita of the "Washington Examiner", goes even further and says," In fact, it offered more insight into the discord between the American electorate and the governing elite than any pundit has been able to explain, let alone comprehend."

She carries on and says, "In short, the biggest takeaway from this election no matter who wins is that we have witnessed the end of elitism. And the power of the elites to persuade us has evaporated.

Salema says, and I quote: "And the governing class has failed us miserably, from wars in the Middle East that never end, to a healthcare bill that erodes our income to the politicization of the once trustworthy institutions of the Pentagon, NASA and the Justice Department.

And the power of elites to persuade us has evaporated.

The public no longer has faith in big banks or big companies or big government. People cannot trust the banks because they create sham accounts to meet sales targets, or trust technology companies because they make shoddy cell phone equipment that blows up in our hands only to be replaced with another shoddy phone that blows up in our hands."

" Sure, some people see in Trump a successful businessman who can easily transfer those skills to government, but there are plenty of other successful executives - Michael Bloomberg, for example, who, despite the delusions of some Manhattan-based commentators, would never had the same broad appeal."

Trump, despite his wealth, connections and pedigree (rich father, Wharton Business School), is something of an outsider, explained Paul Sracie, Political Science professor at Youngtown State University. He said: "I think he actually sees that, which is why he has always been so over-the-top in his bragging".

Salema Zita wrote and I quote the following:" Yes, Bill and Hilary Clinton came to his wedding, but as Trump himself explained, they only came because he gave them money."

END OF PART 1

Consulting material:

1. Wikipedia

2. Article by Salema Zita, columnist at the Washington Examiner

3. Funk and Wagnalls Dictionary