Dangerous demagoguery

Thomas Sowell's picture

Most of the horrors of the 20th century — of which there were many — would not have been possible without demagoguery or misleading propaganda.

Most people have too much of a sense of decency and too much common sense to have gone along with those horrors unless someone found a way to turn off their thinking and turn on their emotions.

That is how Jim Jones led hundreds of people to their deaths at Jonestown. On a much larger scale, that is how Lenin created a regime of mass murder in Russia, how Hitler did the same thing in Germany and Mao in China.

Yet we seem to be no more aware of a need to be on guard against demagoguery today, in the 21st century, than those people who looked up with open-mouthed adulation at Adolf Hitler in the 1930s and at numerous other demagogues, large and small, around the world throughout the turbulent 20th century.

Many people find it thrilling that the mantra of “change” is ringing out across the land during this election year. But let’s do what the politicians hope that we will never do — stop and think.

It is doubtful whether there is a single human being in this entire country who is 100 percent satisfied with everything that is going on. In other words, everybody is for change.

The real difference between liberals and conservatives is in which specific things they want to change, and in what way.

Milton Friedman was the leading conservative thinker of his time but he wanted to radically change the Federal Reserve, the school system, and the tax system, among other things.

Everybody is for change. They differ on the specifics. Uniting people behind the thoughtless mantra of “change” means asking for a blank check in exchange for rhetoric. That deal has been made many times in many places — and millions of people have lived to regret it.

It is not too much to ask politicians to talk specifics, instead of trying to sweep us along, turning off our minds and turning on our emotions, with soaring rhetoric.

Optimists might even hope for some logical consistency and hard facts.

Barack Obama says that he wants to “heal America and repair the world.” One wonders what he will do for an encore and whether he will rest on the seventh day.

That we have so many people who are ready to be swept along by such rhetoric is a huge danger, for it means that the fate of this great nation is at risk from any skilled demagogue who comes along.

Barack Obama says that he wants to “heal” the country while at the same time promoting the idea that all sorts of people are victims for whom he will fight.

Being divisive while proclaiming unity is something you can do only in the world of rhetoric.

Senator Obama has no monopoly on demagoguery, however. Former Senator John Edwards has been playing this game longer, even if not as effectively in the political arena.

John Edwards built his own fortune in the courtroom, depicting babies with birth defects as victims of the doctors who delivered them. The cost of such demagoguery has gone far beyond the tens of millions of dollars that Edwards pocketed for himself from gullible juries.

Such lawsuits based on junk science have driven up the cost of medical care, not only directly but even more so indirectly, by leading to an increase in Caesarean births and other costly “defensive medicine” to protect doctors rather than patients.

The world of John Edwards, like the world of Barack Obama, is a world of victims, whose savior he claims to be.

What is scary is how little interest the public and the media have in the actual track record of political saviors and the cry of generic “change.”

America is not czarist Russia or Iran under the shah, so that people might think that any change was bound to be for the better. Yet even in those despotic countries the changes — to communism and to the ayatollahs — made them far worse.

The time is long overdue for voters to demand specifics instead of rhetoric that turns their emotions on and their minds off.

COPYRIGHT 2008 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.

login to post comments | Thomas Sowell's blog

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Submitted by mandala0302 on Tue, 01/29/2008 - 12:46pm.

Abraham Lincoln once said -- "You cannot fool all the people all the time."

Anybody out there truly tired of Pandering Politicians promising anything to get elected and serving their own (or their special interest donor's) interests?

Before you let all the hot air and the main stream media make up your mind on who to vote for visit www.KnowBeforeYouVote.com. This site gives a truthful side-by-side comparison of all the candidates, their histories and their positions.

Power to the People AGAIN!

pentapenguin's picture
Submitted by pentapenguin on Tue, 01/29/2008 - 1:33pm.

Unfortunately since the Whois info (i.e. registration and contact info) is private, I can't say for certain, but I would guess that this site is by a Ron Paul supporter. That's fine, but the site is dishonest. One quick example I noticed: on the "Eliminate Need for Income Tax" row Huckabee is listed as "No" which is clearly wrong because he is the only major candidate to support the FairTax which would repeal the 16th Amendment and do away with the Income Tax.


JeffC's picture
Submitted by JeffC on Tue, 01/29/2008 - 2:44pm.

The FairTax bill does NOT repeal the 16th Amendment and do away with the Income tax. I know the supporters says it does but HR 25 absolutely does NOT. Look and see. I know after all the hype you don't believe it but call up the legislation and look at what the proposed FairTax bill actually says. The short version is that you have the income tax AND the FairTax for 5 years and IF by then the 16th has not been repealed, then the FairTax is repealed.


Submitted by mandala0302 on Tue, 01/29/2008 - 2:02pm.

It isn't perfect but it does give a voter a good starting point. If you click on the link at Huckabee's position it outlines his support for the FairTax. I have to admit Huck is pretty good but, yes, I'm a frustrated Ron Paul supporter. He is the only one who truly understands our economic issues (IMHO).

Submitted by Davids mom on Tue, 01/29/2008 - 1:14pm.

Since it doesn't look like we're going to have a chance to vote for Ron Paul for President, according to "Know Before You Vote" - Obama is the next best choice!! Thanks!

Submitted by mandala0302 on Tue, 01/29/2008 - 1:19pm.

You have to wonder why we won't get the chance to vote for Ron Paul. The main stream media have "blackballed" him. They (special interest) do not want us to know about him. He is the only candidate that people can vote for (IMHO). We can help in Georgia next week. Vote Ron Paul!

JeffC's picture
Submitted by JeffC on Tue, 01/29/2008 - 1:12pm.

For all the issues domestic and international, the only difference between Romney and Hillary is that Romney is against taxing the internet? No differences at all between Mitt and Rudy? None? The only difference between McCain and Edwards is that Edwards wants to bring the troops home? Really? Every candidate in both parties is in total agreement with every other candidate except Ron Paul on every aspect of foreign policy and immigration?

I did not know that.

That chart certainly clears things up.


Submitted by mandala0302 on Tue, 01/29/2008 - 1:25pm.

I'm glad you saw it. Please tell all your friends and family. The main stream media don't want us to know the truth. Ron Paul came in second in Nevada and Louisiana (where the Republican Party pulled a dirty trick to prevent him from coming in first). He raised $20M in the 4th quarter and has more grassroots supporter than all the other candidates combined. Nothing mentioned.... RP supporters are desperate to get the truth out. Visit RonPaul2008.com for more info. Thanks!

Michael Boylan's picture
Submitted by Michael Boylan on Tue, 01/29/2008 - 1:30pm.

I've seen a lot of signs around Fayetteville supporting Ron Paul - I was just wondering what his supporters thought about the Ron Paul Newsletters - the story came out a few weeks ago and it certainly doesn't paint him in a very good light - whether he knew about the nasty editorials or not.


JeffC's picture
Submitted by JeffC on Sat, 01/26/2008 - 10:35am.

At least partly.

“Most of the horrors of the 20th century — of which there were many — would not have been possible without demagoguery or misleading propaganda. Most people have too much of a sense of decency and too much common sense to have gone along with those horrors unless someone found a way to turn off their thinking and turn on their emotions.”

But why go back to the 20th century when we have such a clear example as recently as the Bush administration doing exactly the same kind of thing by using 9/11 as a pretext to invade Iraq.

Of course, being Thomas Sowell, he soon veers into fantasy: “John Edwards built his own fortune in the courtroom, depicting babies with birth defects as victims of the doctors who delivered them.” Ho-Hum. Anybody got any case law on that one that will back Sowell up?

Didn’t think so.


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.