When we think of demagoguery, we usually contemplate individuals such as George Wallace. We picture him standing in the doorway of the University of Alabama trying to prevent black students from registering. He was the epitome of a racist politician appealing to the prejudices of his constituents in order to obtain power.
Most of the time, we also imagine demagogues to be right-wing rabble-rousers. In fact, they are well represented on the left. The career of Huey Long demonstrates this point. During the Great Depression this tub-thumper rivaled Franklin Roosevelt in popularity by promising that his brand of socialism would make every man a king.
Nowadays demagoguery is widely dispersed and more prevalent on the left. The Democratic Party is currently steeped in a culture of virulent intolerance. Its leaders and supporters routinely agitate against their opponents in vile and small-minded terms.
Moreover, this political bigotry is on autopilot. Whenever an opportunity arises, they attack their foes in a predictably nasty manner. They don’t have to think about the nature of these assaults. Their content and targets are so stereotyped that they stream forth by rote.
The chief recipient of this abuse is, of course, Donald Trump. He is so hated that whatever he does provides an excuse for a torrent of foul insults. Even before he was elected, he was regarded as an incarnation of the devil and thus deserving of contempt.
We must not forget, however, that Trump’s supporters have been tarred with the same brush. If he is accused of being a racist, so are they. These uninformed ignoramuses are obviously as “deplorable” as he and therefore as worthy of social ostracism.
The most recent examples of this tendency to slur conservatives stem from acts of public violence. After pipe bombs were mailed to a dozen liberal icons and mass murder was committed in a Jewish synagogue, the president and his followers were accused of instigating this mayhem.
Liberal agitators did not even wait for the dust to settle. Their slanderous allegations made it into the public arena even before it was known who committed these heinous acts. Although no one knew what motivated the terror, it was assumed that the president’s conduct was at fault.
To Illustrate, Steny Hoyer, the Democratic Whip in the House of Representatives, within hours of the synagogue attack was condemning Trump for dividing the nation. The president’s rhetoric supposedly encouraged unhinged fanatics to engage in homicidal behavior.
The irony is that in censuring Trump for being divisive, Hoyer was doing the exactly the same thing. In placing the blame on those on the right for actions most Americans abhorred, he was dividing the nation into two camps; the liberal good guys and the conservative bad guys.
Moreover, this was a stealth attack. Hoyer, like many on his side, prefaced his criticism by indicating that all Americans were offended by senseless violence. He was not going to exacerbate tensions by accusing his political enemies of responsibility for the actions of a deranged few—but then he did.
This technique followed in the time-honored footsteps of Barack Obama. He too would begin a partisan assault by promising that he was not going to say what he subsequently did. He, for instance, was not going to identify anyone as uncivil, but then he declared that Republicans needed to stop denouncing Democrats.
Moreover, the character of these allegations was foreseeable. Whatever tragedy befell the nation, right-wing racismhad something to do with it. Evidence of this bias did not need to be provided. Its existence was so often asserted that it required no further proof.
Likewise, if women were involved in a scandal, conservative sexismmust be to blame. Everyone knew right-wingers were male chauvinists. Their gender prejudice was so deeply ingrained that they must be closet rapists. Liberals, on the other hand, were innocents. They protected women even as the groped them.
This reflexive prejudice against conservatives is intended to rile up the liberal base. In the present context, it is meant to get people so angry that they go to the polls to support Democratic candidates. Voters are not supposed to think about the issues or aspirants, but to vote their hatreds.
Will this tactic work? Accusing Republicans of being racists and sexists has had the anticipated effect for decades. Will our current hyper-partisanship once again allow inflamed passions to override facts? We will soon see.
Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.
Professor Emeritus
Kennesaw State University
No comments:
Post a Comment