I almost never give a book with serious flaws a five star rating. 'Demagogue' qualifies for an exception, first because we seldom see a serious work in political theory written in a style accessible to the general reader. Second, rarely in contemporary literature do we see relatively reasoned arguments on a subject fundamental to democratic principles presented with minimal, though not nonexistent, ideological rant. I will discuss the flaws in a moment but first let's summarize the strengths of 'Demagogue'.
Signer's heroine is Hannah Arendt, a political theorist who fled to America from Nazi Germany and became recognized as one of the great intellects of the 20th century. Her antidote to demagogues and political tyranny was the idea of personal commitment to "constitutionalism," that is, a commitment by ordinary people not to a constitution imposed on them by a government but to *the* Constitution, by which a people constitutes its own government.
The key to the success of the American experiment in democracy, Arendt wrote in 'On Revolution', was the fact that the Constitution came to be 'worshiped'. "The worship of the Constitution set in motion a great historical wheel. America's body politic absorbed the lessons and dicta into the way we thought and felt about political matters. We *became* the Constitution." (Signer, p. 199)
Lest anyone think this is mere academic hyperbole by a university professor, your reviewer has witnessed this almost religion-like reverence for the Constitution by Americans of all political persuasions in discussions in bars and mess halls, coffee shops and cafes around the world. I have watched political debates among expats from dozens of countries, from San Salvador to Sarajevo, from Puerto Limpira to Phnom Penh by way of Banjul, Kigali and Manila. To cite their national document as though it were a kind of Bible is a phenomenon unique to Americans.
I have never heard anything remotely similar from any other people, not even the British or the French. Our Constitution is indeed embedded in our national spirit and character. It stands, in the opinion of Arendt and Signer and your reviewer, as our single greatest safeguard against demagogues. In that very real sense we Americans truly are an exceptional people.
Now to the weaknesses of "Demagogues".
Signer spends six pages defining the term demagogue, making distinctions between a populist and a demagogue and between 'soft' and 'hard' demagogues. There are even 'destructive' and 'beneficial' demagogues. Further, "we shouldn't spend too much energy disputing whether someone 'is' or 'is not' a demagogue" because it "is a 'continuous' rather than a 'binary' variable." (pp. 36-37).
With so many nuances and distinctions pretty soon the term becomes meaningless. So we have Signer describing Pat Buchanan as a failed demagogue (p. 37) even though the author admits Buchanan never met three out of four of his criteria. The only one he did meet was his attempt to fashion himself as a man of the common people. Well, if that is the case why is Buchanan not simply a populist? Why use an admittedly charged word like demagogue?
I am sorry dear reader but this does not strike me as dispassionate intellectual analysis. Rather it is the kind of loose use of pejorative that characterizes the Left's bias against anyone who does not adhere to their orthodoxy. I have little doubt that had the book's publication date fallen a little later in 2009 Sarah Palin would also be tagged as a demagogue.
If Dr. Signer wants to be taken seriously as a political theorist this kind of sloppy thinking cannot be tolerated. I would say the same about any author on the Right.
The second and most serious defect of this book is Signer's identification of the demagogue as the single greatest threat to democracy. Not so. The single greatest threat is corruption and manipulation of the democratic process to the benefit of a small elite. That leads the public to lose faith in the democratic process and it then seeks relief through radical 'extra-constitutional' change. Loss of faith in the system is what brings demagogues to power and that is what political and economic establishments (the beneficiaries of corruption) fear most.
It should be no surprise that severe economic or political crises bring demagogues to the fore. Hitler and Mussolini come immediately to mind. The Great Depression helped make Huey Long dictator of Louisiana and a potential rival of FDR. Joseph McCarthy's influence peaked during the height of the Red Scare in the 1950s. One Amazon reviewer correctly points out that McCarthy was ultimately proved to be correct about communist infiltration of the government. True, but his tactics and wild rhetoric, including calling President Eisenhower a communist, so discredited him that elites had a good excuse to dismiss him as a crackpot and never fully investigate his charges.
Today Signer points to Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, Evo Morales in Bolivia, and Fidel Castro in Cuba, as examples of modern day demagogues. Note that every one replaced a regime run by a corrupt power elite that had lost the support of its people.
That said, we now face two grave threats to our political system, neither of which are dealt with by Signer. On the left are those who, however well intentioned, consider the Constitution a 'living document'. Such a pernicious doctrine means that whoever happens to be in power can interpret the Constitution any way they chose in order to satisfy the popular whim of the moment. The fact is that the Constitution says what it says and the words mean what they mean. For those who don't like what it says, there is a legal way to change it, called the amendment process.
The danger from the right is the unwillingness by self-styled conservatives to admit that legalized corruption is endemic throughout the national political system. How else can you explain those who make excuses in the name of 'free enterprise' for corporate executives to amass vast fortunes while running their companies into bankruptcy and driving millions of responsible Americans into poverty. How else can you explain a slavish belief in so called 'free market forces' which have never existed and never will exist except on the blackboards of college econ classes.
If we are to avoid the appearance of a new and dangerous demagogue in the near future, political elites in this country had better wake up and recognize how extremely corrosive such behavior is to popular support of our political system. The Tea Party movement is just one manifestation of this growing discontent.
Unfortunately I don't see think tanks like Heritage and Cato on the right or Mr. Signer's Center for American Progress on the left being much help. They are funded by rich ideologues who will not stand for their pet predilections to be challenged. The polite salons of Georgetown and the genteel gated communities of West Palm are not the kind of places where you are likely to find the honest, courageous, tough minded realists needed to confront a gathering storm more dangerous than that of the 1930s.
Dictators and tyrants may rise and fall on the power of armies and secret police but civilizations, at least since Greece and Rome, have risen and fallen on the power of ideas.
How quickly we forget that the demise of Soviet tyranny was brought about by the triumph of ideas held by brave men and women within the system, the flame of freedom kept alive by western media like Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty.
In contrast, the shallowness of current political discourse in our country would be amusing if it were not so dangerous. Our civilization risks collapse less through acts of violence than through the opiate of political correctness and appeals to passion over reason.
So we are left with this reality in the early 21st century: those who speak truth to power rarely win. Power almost always prevails, even if it is foolish, short sighted, and self-destructive.
But I am reminded of the words of Winston Churchill:
"The only guide to a man is his conscience; the only shield to his memory is the rectitude and sincerity of his actions. It is very imprudent to walk through life without this shield, for we are so often mocked by the failure of our hopes and the upsetting of our calculations. But with this shield, however the fates may play, we march always in the ranks of honor."
To constantly strive to march in the ranks of honor is all that matters. We can only hope that someday those who have both the intellect and the material resources to promote a truly enlightened democracy will step forward to lead those who have but words.
