Demagoguery vs. Representation - Loyal To Liberty

Does Scalia's ignorance excuse judicial dereliction?

Like all U.S. government officials, U.S. Supreme Court justices are bound by oath to support and defend the Constitution of ...

Read More

The elitist faction’s anti-American 80-20 strategy for the GOP

Despite my efforts to explain how silly it is, I still encounter apologists for the GOP’s quisling leadership who cite ...

Read More

The choice: Impeachment or dictatorship

Some time back, Rush Limbaugh asserted that Barack Obama can’t be impeached because he’s America’s first black President.  I experienced ...

Read More

War in the GOP: real or contrived?

I've been reading  lately about an alleged war going on in the GOP.  Is this for real? The supposed "battle ...

Read More

Does Bush's Plea of love exonerate illegals?

[For readers who may have missed it, here is the column WND published yesterday.] Speaking of illegal immigrants, Jeb Bush says: “Yes, they ...

Read More

Eich's dismissal was an exercise of freedom

I applaud Brendan Eich if his refusal to apologize for his action in defense of the human natural rights of ...

Read More

Faithful Christian citizens seek victory that counts

The yea-nay approach to Christian Citizenship- Concluded Focus on the Family’s Tom Minnery apparently believes that the prospect of victory in ...

Read More

Is breaking faith the Christian citizen's way to victory?

The yea-nay approach to Christian citizenship, Part II FOR THE LORD'S DAY In my last post, we learned that Focus on the ...

Read More

Focus on the Family's yea-nay approach to Christian citizenship

FOR THE LORD’S DAY I saw a headline recently that foreshadows America’s doom as well or better than any other I ...

Read More

Burning murdered babies for fuel-Does it shock you?

I just read this headline: Shocking report shows 15,000 aborted babies incinerated to heat British Hospitals. According to the story: The hospitals, ...

Read More

Paul, Cruz and the GOP's mimicry of principle

On Wednesday I read of a media orchestrated exchange of views between Rand Paul and Ted Cruz that further entrenched ...

Read More

Demagoguery vs. Representation

by Alan Keyes on May 2, 2012

StumbleUponLinkedInFacebookDeliciousRedditDiggEvernoteTwitterTumblrShare
This entry is part 1 of 6 in the series Restoring Representation

“…of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people; commencing demagogues, and ending tyrants.” (Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #1)

In the original Greek the word from which demagogue comes is a compound formed from the word for people and a word derived from the verb meaning “to lead”.  A demagogue was a leader of the people. In the words quoted above Hamilton shares the view, taken for granted by many of the founding generation, that the pure and direct democracies established in ancient times perished because ambitious leaders purposefully fanned the fires of public passion. They encouraged the people to act like tyrants, approving laws and policies that sated their passions at the expense of right and justice. Having turned the government into an instrument of the people’s tyrannical will, they roused the anger of the people against any who, by opposing the government, opposed their will. When such opponents showed signs of resisting or defending themselves, the demagogues exaggerated or fabricated violent incidents to rouse public fear and outrage. Then, using the excuse of public security, they gathered armed forces under their control. These they employed first to attack those they identified as enemies of the people, and then to identify and attack the people themselves as the enemy.

Those familiar with the tactics employed by the left or right wing socialists of the 20th Century (the Communists in Russia before their takeover, the Maoists in China, the Fascists and Nazis in Italy and Germany before WWII, and the Communists again in Eastern Europe in the aftermath of that war) cannot help being impressed by the prescience with which America’s founders read the lessons of ancient history. But beyond being impressed, they will be instructed to look beyond the supposed differences between this and that “-ist” or “-ism” to see in the tactics of demagoguery evidence of a recurrent strategy for dominating the people that is common to every age of human history.

By pandering to the interests and passions some people have in common, the demagogue becomes the focus of their ambition. The key to the demagogue’s success lies in the rhetoric with which he appeals to some overt or sub-rosa standard of righteousness in order to validate the justice of this ambition. This standard is always partially true, which is to say true in some respect or from some point of view. Deploying the power of this partial truth the skillful demagogue pretends wholly to satisfy the requirements of conscience, thereby weakening its constraining influence upon the passions of his followers. Thus more fully unleashed, their flaring passions blind them to the partiality of their view, so that they are easily persuaded to mistake their partial good for the whole or common good. On account of this partiality they mistake the enemies of their good for the enemies of all goodness, who must be subdued or annihilated, else hope itself will be destroyed.

The demagogue draws people into a whirlpool  of political activity fueled by righteous passion but beyond the influence of right reason. In the context of civil society people thus drawn together by the influence of unbridled passion constitute what James Madison called a faction, i.e., “a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.” (Federalist # 10)

It is on account of “the mischiefs of faction” that direct rule by the people themselves seems inevitably inclined to develop into some extreme of tyranny. This caused democracy to be universally despised and rejected by political philosophers who cared for right, for justice and for peace. For tyranny, once established, achieves order by ignoring right, maintains control by subverting justice and enforces the peace of terrified submission by fomenting a perpetual state of war (against the bodies, or the minds, or the spirit of the people subject to it.)

However, Madison suggests in Federalist #10 that the U.S. Constitution, “varies from pure democracy” by implementing a “scheme of representation” which aims to thwart the effects of demagoguery and save government of, by and for the people from falling into the ambit of tyranny. Madison’s discussion in the Federalist describes the mechanisms the U.S. Constitution relies upon to achieve this result, (e.g., elections, separation of powers, federalism). In all these mechanisms representatives deliberately elected by the people replace the demagogues who were previously the focus of public action in democratically governed communities. Madison describes the representatives as “a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their county, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations.”

Madison assumes that, unlike the demagogues who are the focal points of faction, the elected representatives of the people will care more for the common good than for their own ambition. But this in turn assumes that they are not elected by people caught up in the mischief of faction. Such people are likely to elect the demagogue they follow, who will simply represent their factional partiality in the councils that decide the fate of the whole community. This will simply reproduce, in that context, the mischiefs of faction the scheme of representation is supposed to cure.

For representation to be the remedy Madison says it is, there must be an important difference between representatives and demagogues. At first glance, both appear to be leaders. But in one case the leader promotes himself, serving his own ambition by skillfully manipulating the passions of the people. In the other, the people promote someone to represent them, someone who is expected to reflect what they were before he became their leader, not what they become on account of his leadership.

Representation assumes the prior existence of that which is represented. The representative acts as the agent of the represented, presenting in a second place what they already are in the first place. The representative takes his cue from those he represents. He reflects their character, their intention, their will. Seen from this perspective, the representative is not in the lead. Rather he follows the lead of the people who elected him. The character, intention and will of the people do not reflect his leadership. Rather, in order to represent them with integrity, his actions must reflect their leadership.

This leads to a conclusion that contradicts much of the political blather of our time. Where representative government is concerned, elections are not about choosing those who lead us. They are about choosing those who will, with integrity, do their best to follow our lead, reflecting in their tenure of office the character, will and intention of the people who elected them.

But can people with no character choose another to represent their character? Can people unclear in their intentions choose another to carry them out? Can people who refuse to be responsible for their own will, demand that another respect what they do not? Representation is not just about choice. It is also about deliberation and responsibility. When people let their passions choose for them, demagogues lead them to tyranny. When instead they choose for themselves- conscientiously, deliberately, responsibly- their representatives will be led to preserve the good they choose to cherish. If American liberty is to survive Americans must reject the politics of demagoguery and faction; the politics of elitist leadership without representation. We must reclaim the politics of true representation. And we must begin to do so now, in this election year, or it will be too late.

Series NavigationRestoring Representation-A Strategic Proposal II
StumbleUponLinkedInFacebookDeliciousRedditDiggEvernoteTwitterTumblrShare
  • Karen

    Amen Brother!!!! I am with you and I myself, who have heard you speak at the Ocala Women’s Pregnancy Center, choose you to be our moral conservative Representation. My Spirit came in agreement with yours prior to the election of Obama when you said”Obama is an abomination to this nation” I agreed then and I agree now with the same and with just where you are suggesting ‘we the people’ of this Christian nation founded and fought for by our Founding Fathers needs to take our STAND today in agreement with them. As Christians, our authority is GOD Almighty, our Creator and He has promised us in His Word in Ephesians, that we, united, are all one body, with the same SPIRIT and we have all been called to the same glorious future. There is only ONE Lord, ONE faith, ONE baptism, and there is only ONE GOD and Father who is over us all and in us all and living through us all. We have all been given ‘gifts’ and as I see several of those gifts in you. Your Prophecy has been fulfilled about Obama and God has once again confirmed my Spirit in agreement with yours here. I now see God calling you out to be responsibile to equip God’s people to do the work to build up the body of Christ until we come into UNITY, so that our LORD GOD prevails in this spiritual battle we are in! I for one STAND with you. Let’s do it! We can do all things through Christ!!I believe Daniel McClain below will also STAND with us as well. Who else will?

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Daniel-McClain/5248733 Daniel McClain

    Dr. Keyes, you hit the nail on the head right here.
    “But can people with no character choose another to represent their character?”
    Yes.
    That is exactly what is happening.
    People with no character are electing people with no character.

    The epic fail of the greatest Republic to ever exist is two-fold.
    Not only is the state failing, but the church is failing.
    The myth of so-called “separation of church and state” is overflowing out of government into the pulpit.
    Religious leaders on the right are mute while leftist religious leaders are leading the people to destruction encourage their congregations to elect pro-choice/socialist scoundrels.
    We serve a Mighty God whom I pray will move the hearts of his people to speak up and stand for the most basic of principles.

  • John Stuart

    There are two specific differences between our current system and the original Constitution which were specifically to help mitigate this. 
    1) Our US senators were not representatives of the people but of the states.  Yes, the states chose the senator by people who might be elected directly, but it put an extra step of difference from a representative democracy.
    2) One US representative per 30,000 population.  For simplicity, divide that 30,000 by 3 to get the number of voters per representative  (
    in those days only men could vote, and families back in those days tended to have 5 or 10 members, so back then it might have been more accurate to divide by maybe 5 or 10).  It was conceivable that a representative would be known by 10,000 other men (or as I said earlier, more likely back then by 3000 -- 6000).   People would actually know that representative -- or his relatives, so there would be more control on your representative.  
    One extra item that added to these checks and balances: the people’s representative had to be re-picked by the people every two years.  The state’s representatives (the senators) were in for six years.  So their were two groups of congressmen,  several called representatives of people they knew, up for reelection every two years; and the two congressmen called senators, picked by their state,  every 6 years, should give them different perspectives.  The goal was that they wouldn’t all have the same perspective, hence different likelihoods of being bad (or going bad), and in either case responsible to their electors.
    Of course today we only have a parody of that.
    (And this is without going into the executive branch changes, where the winner of the most electoral votes was president, next most -- no matter the party -- was vp …)
    The original rules should cut down on demagoguery, but we’ve decided we can’t do it that way, going more towards a democracy, with fewer checks to keep the republic in place.  And we wonder why it doesn’t work.  Especially with one more item, from two founders:
    Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.  It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. J Adams
    Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom.  As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters. B. Franklin
    Our nation has certainly become more corrupt and vicious, so maybe we now need tyrants, if not demagogues.

Previous post:

Next post: