Abstract

In ancient Greece, a was, literally, a leader of the people. The meaning of the term has changed considerably since then, however, and a today is regarded as someone who appeals to greed, fear, and hatred (Safire 163), a politician who achieves or holds power stirring up the feelings of his audience and leading them [sic] to action despite the considerations which weigh against (Scruton 115). If demagogue is a modem day devil term, then its usage will be accompanied by the degree of subjectivity which is a hallmark of such words and phrases in modern society. In short, the label demagogue is often used as a weapon by one group to another (Clark 423). This is especially true in American politics, where the term has been used as an attack word as far back as 1808 (Safire 163). This subjectivity may help to explain the wide variety of persons who have been, at one time or another, labeled as demagogues. Some members of this less-than-elite group are obvious and noncontroversial candidates: Senator Joseph McCarthy (Fisher; Luthin; Baskerville), Huey Long (Gaske; Luthin; Bormann; although exception to this label for Long is taken by Williams), George Wallace (Johannesen), Adolf Hitler (Blackbourn; Fishman), Louis Farrakhan (Rosenblatt), and such well-known Nineteenth Century figures as Kearney (Lomas, Dennis Kearney), Pitchfork Ben Tillman (Clark), and William Jennings Bryant (Tulis). Other public figures who have been nominated for the list are more obscure, including Ma and Pa Ferguson (Luthin; Herman), Gerald K. Smith (Sitton), and Henry Harmon Spalding (Thompson), while others would seem, at first glance, to be unlikely candidates: Jimmy Carter (Will), Jesse Jackson (Drew), Andrew Johnson (Tulis), and Senator Joseph Biden (Barnes). In attempting to understand what is nominally called demagoguery, however, two important distinctions should be made. The first involves demagoguery and rhetoric. Although demagogues use rhetoric (as noted above), and although demagogic rhetoric has certain identifiable characteristics (as will be discussed below), it does not necessarily follow that a speaker who uses demagogic rhetoric on a particular occasion is thus properly to be considered a demagogue. As Luthin notes, there exists a bit of demagoguery in the most lofty of statesmen. . (355). Thus, a would be correctly defined as one who habitually uses the hallmarks of demagoguery to be discussed later in this review of literature. A second important distinction should be made, this one concerning the difference between what is nominally called demagoguery and nominally called agitation. The distinction has often been blurred in practice; for many, all agitators are demagogues, and vice versa (Lomas, The Agitator 18). Put simply, an agitator is someone who seeks to effect social change through rhetoric. The term often has a negative connotation because the status quo is usually resistant to change and thus wary of those who urge it (McEdwards 36). Although the agitator may resort to demagoguery, agitative rhetoric is not, in itself, demagogic (Lomas, The Agitator 19).