For anyone who has paid attention to U.S. politics over the past couple years, many blatant instances of democratic erosion have been hard to miss. Democratic erosion or backsliding is essentially formal or informal political changes that “significantly reduce the capacity of citizens to make enforceable claims upon the government” and “degrade citizens’ rights and their engagement with the state” (Lust and Waldner 2015). Even for someone who may have never heard of the phrase, events like the January 6th capitol riot and the electoral manipulation in the last cycle rise up as red flags. These instances of backsliding are not signals that the U.S. is in danger of becoming an authoritarian state any time soon; rather, they are part of a concerning trend that needs to be critically watched. There has been a clear uptick in symptoms of democratic erosion obvious to the public, in a country where corruption and other signs of backsliding are often more subtle. One major factor that informs our nation’s culture is the extreme polarization of our politics. But what does this polarization mean in the long run? It could mean a political future dominated by demagogues–both good and bad.
Beyond making it hard for members of one party to trust anyone that belongs to the opposing party, the political polarization of the U.S. has influenced the way Americans engage in politics. A common complaint among citizens is that the two options who end up at the top of the ballot are both not ideal choices, and that they wish that one of the more moderate candidates had been able to have a chance at the presidency. Why, then, do the more moderate runners get eliminated early on? It’s because what catches peoples’ attention is sensationalism. Name recognition. The catchiest sound bites and the most viral videos. The media is instrumental in the production that the United States elections have become, and a battleground for opposing candidates to fan the flames of polarized parties. Moderate candidates cannot rise to the top in these conditions; the politicians that come into power do so because they are considered extreme by a sizable percentage of the country. This is where demagogues enter the political process.
Charles W. Lomas describes demagogues as political leaders who use “the process by which skillful speakers and writers seek to influence public opinion by employing the traditional tools of rhetoric with complete indifference to truth…its primary motivation is personal gain” (Lomas 161). Demagogues do not necessarily have to be “bad” people. Jennifer Mercieca distinguishes between “villainous” demagogues and “heroic” demagogues,” the difference being in whether there is any space for accountability in the rhetoric they use (Mercieca 267). This distinction holds merit, as revolutionary leaders and progressive activists use their platforms to defend the people from corruption and exploitation. Typically, demagoguery is not needed in times of stable democratic periods, yet it looks like the U.S. will be seeing mostly demagogues in its future because of the volatility of its politics.
There are two blatant examples of demagogues in recent U.S. history: Donald Trump as a dangerous demagogue, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez as a heroic demagogue. It was a surprising turn of events—a young female newcomer beating a ten-term incumbent—that made a representative for one of New York’s many congressional districts practically a household name in the U.S. Whether you agree with her platform or not, it is undeniable that she has greatly impacted American politics since her appointment, being the fastest politician in recent memory to turn votes into political and social capital. Trump was a businessman reality TV star with an outrageous campaign style who beat all predictions and found himself in the Oval Office. These two politicians share similarities in their unexpected rises to power and have both sparked massive debates and discussion throughout the country with their words, actions, and stances. Why, then, the distinction between “heroic” and “villainous demagogue?” It comes down to accountability.
Lust and Waldner’s definition of democratic erosion taken with Schmitter and Karl’s assertion that democracy is “a system of governance in which rulers are held accountable for their actions in the public realm by citizens, acting indirectly through the competition and cooperation of their elected representatives,” leads to the conclusion that a lack of accountability among politicians is a sign of democratic erosion (Schmitter and Karl 1991). The willingness to be taken accountable for one’s actions is the key factor in the decision to label AOC as a heroic demagogue and Trump as a villainous one–not either of their platforms or belief systems. Both politicians have had heavy social media presences and were willing to speak on topics they are passionate about. With the increasing reliance on social media to connect with constituents and spread campaigns, this is the future of political discourse in the country.
Trust in the political process is a requirement for a functioning democracy, and citizens need to feel that their vote counts for them to have any faith in their system of government. A politician engaging with the people of the nation through villainous demagoguery can reduce political participation; the lack of accountability from the most powerful politicians in the country closes political dialogue with the average citizen and make them feel voiceless, removing incentive to vote. In coming years, it will be interesting to see how much the U.S. will rely on charismatic, polarizing demagogues to keep its democracy running.
Grace Voll
Tasha, this is really great work and I find your findings compelling. I find it interesting how you declare Trump as the villainous demagogue and AOC as the heroic one as I believe they could be easily interchanged. While I may agree with you, I wonder if you think there is an opportunity for those roles to be switched? Just recently, AOC was demonized by both sides for her “Tax the Rich” dress. In the situation of participants of the insurrection on January 6, I believe many of them would deem Trump a hero.
I truly agree with your statement “Both politicians have had heavy social media presences and were willing to speak on topics they are passionate about. With the increasing reliance on social media to connect with constituents and spread campaigns, this is the future of political discourse in the country.” Social media has undoubtedly made it easier for us to either praise or to harshly critique politicians like Bernie Sanders, Ted Cruz, AOC, and Donald Trump, because of how open and out there they are. In some cases, misinformation/disinformation is spread by these politicians to support them which is even more harmful. Social media will undoubtedly play a major role in future candidacies and terms, and I think the sensationalist candidates (take Marjorie Taylor Green) will take full advantage of their massive platforms for their own success. The more outgoing and even outrageous a candidate is on their platforms, the more likely they are to win their race.
Tasha Jose
Hi Grace, thank you for your comment! Like I said in my post, I decided to distinguish Trump as a villainous demagogue and AOC as a heroic one because of their willingness to hold themselves accountable. A sign of an authoritative figure who truly wants to lead or at least cause lasting change is one that has an open dialogue with the people they represent; someone who never takes in criticism and just spreads their ideology without considering the desires of all the people they are working to lead is a telltale indicator of a villainous demagogue. This is why I chose to declare Trump as a villainous demagogue, as to my knowledge he has never apologized for the consequences that have come from his racist rhetoric nor taken responsibility for his problematic actions. While either politician could switch up their habits, I do not believe one incident of them acting out of character would necessarily change their distinctions. The example you use of AOC’s dress is an example of a leader being held accountable by the public, yes, but my distinction was based on the leader’s ability to hold themselves accountable. The participants of the insurrection would definitely deem Trump a hero, but that does not really have anything to do with my specific analysis, other than confirming that he is in fact a demagogue.
I am glad you agree with my statement about the role social media will play in politics in the years to come, as we are already seeing how online platforms are affecting people’s careers. You are correct in that Marjorie Taylor Greene is a good example of a sensationalist politician who wields the power of social media to the fullest extent that she can, and I am also sure more and more extreme candidates like her will pop up in the future.
Christen Wilson
Tasha, I think this is a really important topic to discuss! While reading your post, a couple of questions came to mind: Have politicians always been idolized in this way and is it okay to idolize politicians? Is AOC a demagogue? When I think about the first question, I am reminded that JFK and Ronald Reagan were widely marveled at by the public for their charismatic personalities and celebrity acquaintances. There are several other historical figures who not only gathered voter support but also a fan base around their public image. I do think that social media has enabled a culture of idolizing politicians more so than in the past. On social media sites you can judge not only what a politician says about their policy, but also what they wear, who they hang out with, how many followers they have, and what people around the world are saying about them. Having a more personal insight into political figures’ lives can make people feel as though they know them more than they actually do and can distract people from the critical roles these people play. On one hand, social media allows politicians to expand their audience and disperse their plans, but it does require them to be entertaining, which can distract from working on issues. I’m not sure how we would do it now since so many politicians use social media, but I do wish we could monitor content so that it was more factual and served a political purpose rather than entertainment that might lead to idolization. Also, I could definitely be missing some key plans of or speeches by AOC, but from what I understand, her motivation is public rather than personal gain. For instance, there may be some aspects of the Green New Deal that people could argue are to gain media attention, but the root of the plan is to limit the effects of climate change for the benefit of the public as a whole.
Tasha Jose
Hi Christen, I appreciate your comment! I think the questions you bring up are important things to consider when discussing populism, demagogues, and how they play into U.S. politics. When researching for my blog post, I thought about JFK and Ronald Reagan and the way their physical appearance and public perception influenced their terms as well. I was also reminded of the Nixon-Kennedy radio vs. television debate, though now there seems to be several studies debunking some details of that story. It is definitely not a new phenomenon for authoritative figures to gather a fan base on top of voting support, but looking at recent trends I think that it will become a phenomenon we see more and more often. So, instead of having a few historical figures that stand out and are taught practically universally, I theorize that we will come to see celebritized politicians as a norm. Social media has for sure played a part in enabling a whole culture surrounding the idolization of politicians that puts importance on many aspects of them, like their clothing choices or number of followers they have, that in my opinion should not weigh so heavily in determining their capability for public office. Like you said, there needs to be a return to policy and factual information as the main focus of politics, rather than smear campaigns. It is good for politicians to be relatable to the people they serve so that constituents can feel more involved in politics and like their voices are being heard, but I think some kind of monitoring system would be helpful so that politicians can continue to engage with people but without the dangerous sensationalism that leads to villainous demagogues gaining national support. About AOC, it does seem like her motivation is more public than personal gain, as that is the basis of her platform, and in this day and age you need to be able to harness the media if you want your voice heard on mainstream platforms.