The Republican Convention: Athenian Demagogues

While I was camping in the White Mountains of New Hampshire, the Republican party hosted its quadrennial convention. I don't care for these orgies of self-congratulatory rhetoric or the mob psychosis that accompanies it: Republican or Democrat. Sometimes someone speaks in a manner capable of transforming the political landscape, but more often not. If anything, conventions are useful to highlight the tone of the campaign to follow, and the RNC displayed a dark, brooding, and wrathful scene. What a contrast to the Republican hero the sixteen Republican candidates idolized endlessly during the primary. Can anyone imagine Donald Trump using this ad? Or has a convention ever seen anything like Chris Christie egging on a blood thirty mob?

There are a number of highlight events from the whirlwind; Melania Trump plagiarizing Michelle Obama's 2008 speech, NeverTrump trying to use legal maneuvers and being brutally put down, Ted Cruz's speech where the audience gradually realized he wouldn't endorse Trump, and Chris Christie's mock trial, containing bits of truth, but was couched in such one sided characterizations and egregious baiting of the audience's anger it degenerated into farce. In an odd way it was reminiscent of Clint Eastwood's 2012 attack on a poor empty chair, but his act elicited laughs and cheers instead of jeers. His speech is obviously partisan, but as upbeat and positive as such an act can be. How different the last election seems in comparison.

The penultimate speech by Ivanka Trump described a man generous, empathetic, and compassionate person … so Fred Rodgers, I think? It was nearly convincing, except it demonstrates the problem with trying to keep two ideas of a person separate but equal at the same time. How many times can surrogates make claims that clash with reality before two different members of the public see two entirely different candidates, but only one of which is real?

The keynote speech was the acceptance speech. Donald Trump described a pinnacle of dazzling darkness, depicting a shimmering sinister cloud over the skies of the true America, descending in doom. A flurry of statistics, able to cause the most steadfast citizen to quail, fell from his down turned lips.

But then Trump offered a solution to dissipate the threatening thundercloud. One man, strong enough, brave enough, fierce enough, himself and only himself would struggle and defeat the menace. And in ringing tones he proclaimed the transformed Republicans as the party of Law and Order and Trump, its candidate.

Parties throughout history have realized the value of a name whether true or false to convince, highlight, or deceive about their plans and proposals. Modern parties include the Justice and Development party of Turkey, and the Law and Justice party of Poland. Both of these organizations were mentioned in a previous article on the rise of authoritarianism. Since then Turkey underwent a coup attempt by officers of the military concerned with Erdogan's attempts to tear down the secular state Mustafa Atatürk founded in 1982. Though the coup was orchestrated by a tiny minority of the military Erdogan has used the event as a means to consolidate his power. According to Wikileaks over 60,000 citizens have been fired or arrested. See the image below:



One of the features of these modern authoritarian states is their democratic underpinnings. The prime minister of Turkey and of Poland, along with Hungary triumphed in fair elections. There was no indication of voter fraud, as there isn't in the United States, and they govern with majorities. But democracies need to remember their credibility requires more than elections. Modern democracies are also founded on the belief of inalienable rights, a desire to raise the condition of the poorest, the decency of democratic procedure, and the protection of minorities from the tyranny of the majority. The ancient Athenians knew elections provide only a part of the foundation of democracy. As they learned from their experiences during the Peloponnesian War, men with strong voices are able to divert the ship of state into failure with false promises.

Since a democracy elects a person to lead them they can choose to hand their fate over to a tyrant, a demagogue, a Caesar. Plato, born during the Peloponnesian war, and was twenty-four at its conclusion, experienced the deceitfulness demagogues of Alcabides and Cleon. After the Athenian's loss to Sparta his mentor, Socrates, was executed for treason. These events undoubtedly played a part when Plato ranked Democracy as less desirable than Aristocracy, Timocracy, and Oligarchy in The Republic. In his opinion Democracy always degenerates into Tyranny. While this notion may seem antiquated by the modern West, it is worth considering the kernel of truth within. Democracy, while it does not necessary fall to Tyranny, is always threatened by it.

The demagogues of Ancient Greece and of the modern era illustrate the type of person to be wary of. They appeal to passions, prejudice, and ignorance. Donald Trump speaks to the fears of “the other”, those who are not quintessentially American. Democracies must try to maintain civil procedures and the rule of law (not just the title). Chris Christie's goading, leading, one sided trial was the very opposite of civil behavior. As a former U.S. Attorney Christie knows his act is not a trial, but a show, and any judge would hold him in contempt of court. He isn't conducting anything, but a witch hunt. Consider, when he says, “In Iran she launched the negotiations that brought back the worst nuclear deal. Let me be clear, America is measurably less safe and less respected. So, Hillary Clinton, negotiator of the worst nuclear arms deal in history, guilty or not guilty?” which is answered by screams of guilty, followed by chants to lock her up.

This method of pandering to peoples' most base passions and prejudices can only do harm to the entire country. Look at the quote. Chris claims he is a prosecutor conducting trial (which in the United States are fair and just), but all he says is she made the worst deal possible (implying she intended to harm the United States) and then asks the audience to render a verdict if she made the worst nuclear deal in the history of the United States. There's no facts, though he claims there is, its a few words by him condemning her and then asking the crowd if they will condemn her as well. It is possible she made the worst deal ever, but we'll definitely need a discussion which includes a debate between both parties (and we'll probably need to see the outcome over the next ten to twenty years. After all, a debate about whether it is a terrible deal, but whoever wins doesn't matter in the long run: only the result does). Chris Christie judges her and then asks them to judge her. The nation needs reason, but instead Christie has decided all political arguments should be decided by mob trial instead of a fair one. There are valid criticisms to be made of Hillary Clinton's decisions (I'll be doing that next Friday after the Democratic Convention, but the matter in which he does it is destructive to the political systems of the United States.

In this way a demagogue not only appeals to the crudest emotions of the majority, but undermines democratic procedures and the rule of law.

Yet Christie is not as great a demagogue as Trump. In his speech Trump appealed to the lowest common denominator, the fear and anger of people who are ignorant of what causes it.

Demagogues commonly contain within themselves a number of personal traits. They are either charismatic or have surpassing oratorical skill. The people must want to follow them, and because of this they must have prior success. Success raises them to a position where they are recognized by the public, and demonstrates a candidate's ability to enact change. It would be possible to have a limited amount of success, just enough to be noticed by the public, but suffer severe setbacks of outside forces. This would encourage the potential demagogue to rail against those forces and earn sympathy from the people he or she wishes to seduce to adoration.

Trump has already threatened numerous rights embedded in the constitution, especially the freedom of the press, and in every manner appeals to the darkest emotions of the United States public. They have real grievances but he will not serve them.

Instead of offering them a diet of peace and prosperity he fed them a feast as vile as that which Tantalus served the gods.

Comments