web analytics
≡ Menu

Demagoguery vs. 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-IRestoring Representation-A Strategic Proposal II
{ 7 comments… add one }
  • Karen June 11, 2012, 10:32 pm

    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?

  • HarpDiem May 27, 2012, 3:58 pm

    Most people alive in this nation today would not even know about these principles. Many have never hear of the Federalist Papers. Many would have difficulty understanding how far things are out of hand. There is no man or woman in Washington, DC who is representing anyone. The system has broken down and they are in control. 

  • Sb Paul25 May 3, 2012, 2:30 am

    Need another party to vote for. Let the gop go there own way with out the moral conservative’s. They have forgotten us.

  • Daniel McClain May 3, 2012, 1:50 am

    Dr. Keyes, you hit the nail on the head right here.
    “But can people with no character choose another to represent their character?”
    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 May 2, 2012, 9:08 pm

    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.

  • Andrew G. Long May 2, 2012, 8:51 pm

    The Crux Of the Matter: “But can people with no character choose another to represent their character? Can people unclear in their intentions choose another to carry them out?”

    There is little to no moral leadership in our country and those who do possess such qualities are more often than not beaten into submission (which I can personally attest to).

    Tyranny exists in sub-sets around the country already through concentrations of power and representative government itself is inclined to appease these factions at all levels of government.  There are only three ways that I can see to avoid said tyranny on the national level in the immediate future and two of them run contrary to your issued statement above. 

    – One, further our pluralistic society through a common agreement upon pure liberty which ultimately will lead to an even more debased society in which some day an absolute tyrant will arise simply to restrain the decadence of the people.  (The Punt My Problems Away Option).

    – Two, those of us who believe in a moral (or at least somewhat orderly) society must unite to restrengthen our nation’s foundations and ward off attacks from the statists and anarchists alike who would both destroy the dignity of our citizenry in an effort to enslave them.  (The Fusion Of Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul Option:  Not Unlike Yourself).

    – Or Three, allow the so-called elitists to weather us through this era in history until our economic and social circumstances as well as any national security threats can be resolved.  All this with the hope and belief that at a later date they will restore true power to a more readied citizenry who are better qualified to meet our problems head on.  (The Temporary Roman Dictator Option, Though In This Case It’s An American Aristocracy).

    And lastly if these don’t work we will be forced to attempt to refresh the tree of liberty.  Though who’s to say we would actually win this time.

    “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”  – Thomas Jefferson

    – Your Loyal Reader: Andrew G. Long

    P.S. – I would argue that President Obama represents, to some degree, each of the so-called options above…though some more than others.  And that a President Romney would quite possibly be no better than a President Obama.  With that being said, who would you suggest we vote for?

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Copyright Regulations

All original material on Loyal To Liberty is copyrighted and you will need to observe these regulations when you plan to distribute or use content from this blog. Copyright Regulations for Content on Loyal To Liberty You are free to share, distribute or transmit any work on this blog under the following conditions: * Attribution: You must attribute any content you use to Loyal To Liberty by including a link back to the specific content page. You must not suggest that Loyal To Liberty endorses you or your use of the content on this blog. Even with attribution, you do not have permission to republish the entire blog post on a website. Only excerpts of less than 500 words from each blog post may be published on other websites. A link back to the specific blog post must be included. * Noncommercial Usage: You may not use this work for commercial purposes unless authorized to do so by Alan Keyes. * Derivative Works:Within the limits heretofore specified, you may build upon the contents of Loyal To Liberty as long as proper attribution (see above) is made. If you want to syndicate or distribute the full blog post on your website, permission must be obtained before you do so. For permission, please email alan@loyaltoliberty.com.
%d bloggers like this:
z-library zlibrary books download project