Episode 37: The Language of Demagoguery--How Words Shape Power

In this episode, April drags herself out of bed while recovering from a wicked case of Influenza A (you might notice her somewhat gravelly vocal quality) to record this episode about an important and timely topic--the language of demagoguery. While we tend to think of it as something politicians and other powerful people use, she discovers to her dismay that we are all capable of being "nascent demagogues" and using this rhetorical technique in our everyday discussions about politics. Hey, let's try not to do that, okay?

Episode 37 Show Notes

https://gordoncstewart.com/2023/12/05/the-language-of-demagoguery-2/
Social commentator and blogger Gordon Stewart discusses how language is used for social manipulation, referencing Senator Newt Gingrich.

https://feps-europe.eu/powerless-arguments-demagogue-and-populist-language/
Robert Feustel is a researcher at Friedrich Schiller University, and this article discusses the difficulty of arguing with someone using demagogic language.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02773945.2019.1610636
Skinnell and Murphy's excellent article on the pervasiveness of the language of demagoguery.

https://www.mediaethicsmagazine.com/index.php/browse-back-issues/209-spring-2017-vol-29-no-2/3999195-media-rhetoric-and-the-demagoguery-of-the-elite
Good article by rhetorician Patricia Roberts-Miller of the University of Texas at Austin, who also wrote the book Demagoguery and Democracy.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00963402.2024.2388461#abstract
I didn't really reference this excellent treatise about the way that demagogues destroy democracy by John Keane, but I highly recommend that you read it anyway.

https://research-information.bris.ac.uk/en/publications/demagoguery-technology-and-cognition-addressing-the-threats-to-de
Stephen Lewandowsky's paper on demagoguery and how it threatens democracy.

https://www.historyhit.com/culture/anti-jewish-propaganda-in-nazi-germany/
Some examples of how the Nazis used anti-Jewish propaganda to influence German citizens.

https://brainapps.io/blog/2025/01/stand-up-against-demagogy-protect/
This article contains some very helpful tips about how to recognize and stand up to demagogic rhetoric.

Transcript

Podcast Script: Think It Through: The Clearer Thinking Podcast

Episode Title: "The Language of Demagoguery: How Words Shape Power"

Host: April Hebert
Intro Music: [Gentle piano fades into an upbeat rhythm with subtle strings.]

April Hebert:
Welcome to Think It Through: The Clearer Thinking Podcast! I’m your host, April Hebert, and as always, we’re here to unpack the complex ideas shaping our world and make them a little clearer—one conversation at a time.

Today, we’re diving into a topic that affects politics, social movements, and even our daily conversations: the language of demagoguery. We’ll look at how charismatic leaders use language to inflame emotions, simplify complex issues, and consolidate power. We’ll also look at how that language spreads into the population, and how it affects how we view others. But more importantly, we’ll look at how we can recognize and resist these tactics.

Alright, let’s think it through.

[Music fades out.]

Segment 1: What is Demagoguery?

April:
Demagoguery. What does it really mean? At its core, demagoguery is a style of rhetoric, persuasive language used to appeal to people’s emotions, in particular fear, anger, and resentment; what it fails to do entirely is appeal to reason or logic. Rhetorician Patricia Roberts-Miller, in her 2017 book, Demagoguery and Democracy, defines it as “discourse that promises stability, certainty, and escape from the responsibilities of rhetoric by framing public policy in terms of the degree to which and the means by which (not whether) the out-group should be scapegoated for the current problems of the in-group.” Ok, let me decipher that a bit--a demagogue rallies people around them by blaming societal problems on other groups of people and promises to fix those problems by “dealing with” those other people (and by dealing with, I mean punishing them or even getting rid of them). This isn’t a new phenomenon. There are many examples throughout history of demagogues who have wielded words as weapons. They position themselves as champions of “the people” while vilifying an out-group—whether it’s their political opponents, certain minority groups, or even the media. Psychology professor Stephen Lewandowsky of the University of Bristol describes demagogues as “political leaders who rely on false claims and promises, and emotional exploitation of people’s prejudices, in order to gain power.”

Here’s the thing: demagoguery doesn’t just exist within the halls of power. It can creep into mainstream discourse and distort how we think about important issues. To better understand this, let’s look at the mechanics of demagoguery. 

The article “Powerless Arguments: Demagogue and Populist Language” by author Robert Feustel from the European online magazine Progressive Post, mentions six linguistic patterns common in demagogic and populist language. These patterns were first described in the 1960’s by German philosopher Max Horkeimer. 

·      The first linguistic pattern is using superlatives, like “the biggest,” “the most beautiful” as in the biggest border wall, the most beautiful policy, the greatest nation. In WWII Germany, it was used in reference to Hitler’s “thousand-year empire.”

·      The second pattern is an obvious distinction between “us” and “them.” And when demagogues refer to “us”, they define themselves as the good guys, and the “them” is, of course, the bad guys. Demagogues often rely on dividing people into in-groups and out-groups. They’ll frame themselves as the voice of the “common people” while painting others—whether it’s someone they see as an elite, an expert, or part of marginalized communities—as enemies. For example, instead of addressing the many nuanced causes of unemployment, a demagogue might scapegoat a particular group, saying, “Those people are taking our jobs.” This not only ignores the real issues but also sows division. Demagogues are only too happy to reduce these complexities to simplistic narratives: “Us vs. Them,” “Good vs. Evil,” or “Winners vs. Losers.”

·      The third one is having a clear and absolute goal, as in--if the people follow the demagogue, society will be clean and perfect, and everything will “return” to the way it should be. This is, again, simplistic, but also an effective pattern that ignores the complexity of many issues—like climate change, immigration, or economic inequality— issues that rarely have easy answers. 

·      Fourth is the suggestion that this leader is one of “us,” even if it’s obviously not the case. The demagogue’s voice is assumed to be equal to the voice of the people. There’s almost a kind of religious identity that demagogues take on in the minds of the people who follow them. Their leader is believed to care deeply for the common people, and they believe he speaks for them, even if someone on the outside looking in can’t really see evidence of that other than what the demagogue professes.

·      The fifth pattern is saying that anyone in opposition to the demagogue is part of a conspiracy that is trying to destroy not just the demagogue but the common people who follow them, the righteous “us.” This technique is very handy for delegitimizing any critique of the demagogue; anyone who speaks out against their leader is wrong, evil, and is demonized accordingly.

·      The sixth and final pattern is saying that there is only one truth and that is what is spoken by the demagogue. No doubt as to who, and who alone, tells it like it is; the demagogue stands against those who are conspiring against the common people. In his followers’ opinion, he tells the real truth; the opposition is a bastion of lies.

All these linguistic patterns add up to some very powerful emotional manipulation. They cause fear, anger, and resentment and are incredibly potent motivators. By tapping into these emotions, demagogues can bypass critical thinking and rally people around their cause.

Let’s pause for a moment to reflect. Have you ever found yourself swayed by an argument that felt emotionally charged but, in hindsight, lacked substance? It’s okay—we’ve all been there. Recognizing these tactics is the first step to resisting them.

Segment 3: Case Studies and Examples

April:
Now, let’s bring this to life with a couple of examples. Throughout history, demagogues have routinely risen and held on to power with violence and hatred, turning one group against another in order to dominate and control populations. In the 20th century, we saw some of the most infamous demagogues rise to power. Leaders like Adolf Hitler and his minister of propaganda, Joseph Goebbels, exploited fear of economic instability, of communism, of “the other” to advance the Nazi agenda. Goebbels was in charge of all news media, art, and public information, and used things like posters, artwork, film, articles, essays, and fiery speeches to convince even Germans who were not initially antisemitic to attack Jews, or at the very least to believe that the Jewish people among them were problematic outsiders, and many of these otherwise good people ended up turning a blind eye to the Jewish genocide.

But demagoguery isn’t confined to dictatorships or authoritarian regimes. Even in democratic societies, politicians and media figures sometimes use demagogic rhetoric to rally support. Senator Joseph McCarthy, for instance, had a strong base of support in the 1950’s, and he used that to crusade against communism by claiming that several hundred State Department workers were secretly communist spies. This claim that was later found to be false (in fact, he totally made that number up), but unfortunately many people’s lives had already been ruined. I’ll link to a couple of articles that go into detail about McCarthy’s troubling legacy.

There’s another senator who utilized the language of demagoguery to accomplish his agenda, which still resonates today. Senator Newt Gingrich, in a successful 1994 bid to take over the House of Representatives, circulated a memo among his fellow Republicans called “Language: A Key Mechanism of Control.” In it he encouraged them to consistently use specific negative words whenever they described Democrats, words like “sick, pathetic, liars, and failures,” Gingrich understood the power of these kinds of words and used them to his advantage.

And of course, there are several authoritarian, populist leaders who are currently utilizing the language of demagoguery to control their populations. Turkey’s Erdogan, Hungary’s Victor Orban, and Russia’s Putin, have all used demagogic rhetoric to gain and maintain political power. And that leads me to the person who has been described by many commentators, social and political experts and academicians as a demagogue—Donald Trump. His rise to power has jump-started a lot of academic research about demagoguery in the past decade. I’m not going to go into specific examples of his use of the language of demagoguery, because all you have to do is look on social media or any news media and you’ll see example after example of it. He uses it constantly, as do many of the people with whom he surrounds himself. It’s his brand.

But Ryan Skinnell and Jillian Murphy, authors of the article “Rhetoric’s Demagogue” in the June 2019 Issue of Rhetoric Society Quarterly, posit that while Trump is certainly engaged in the use of demagogic language, he is not alone. His voice may be amplified by virtue of his position, and that makes him potentially more dangerous, but, and I quote, “his use of demagogic rhetoric is in many ways very similar to other people’s at this historical moment, including by people who do not share his politics. In other words, one reason there are so many identifiable demagogues in positions of power right now is because demagogic rhetoric is ubiquitous in public deliberation, irrespective of rhetors’ political allegiance. To put it more bluntly still, we are all nascent demagogues.”

That’s right—many of us, whether we are in the public sphere or not, have been guilty of using this kind of language when we talk about anyone or any group we consider our political “opponents.” They are evil, they have no redeeming qualities, they’re ruining everything, and they must be stopped by any means necessary; and we might even go so far as to say the world would be a better place without them in it. yeah…I hear and read similar sentiments on a regular basis by people with whom I would otherwise agree on matters of policy. So, it’s true that no country, no political party, no social class, no race or ethnicity, has solitary claim to demagoguery. Skinnell and Murphy say that “under the right conditions we all choose to step into the role of demagogue willingly, happily, and without even needing to be convinced.” Whenever we use negative labels and stereotypes about other groups to justify our side of an argument, we are making those arguments based on identity, when what we should be doing is making deliberative arguments about policy. 

Now, let me be clear—using demagogic language doesn’t necessarily make you a demagogue, especially if you don’t have the kind of power that politicians and other people of influence do. And demagoguery doesn’t always lead to authoritarianism, and I certainly hope that’s true when it comes to the United States, but it can erode trust in our democratic institutions and deepen social divisions. And in the age of social media, these tactics can spread faster than ever, and because they very effectively play on our emotions, it’s too easy for us to get pulled into that mindset; we may even use these tactics to influence others, and in that way the rift between individuals and groups continues to deepen. 

Segment 4: How to Think Critically and Resist

April:
Well…that’s a little depressing, and I’m generally a fairly positive person. I don’t think we are necessarily destined to fall into this rhetorical trap and let it drag us down. But how do we counter the language of demagoguery? How do we think critically and resist its pull? Here are a few strategies to keep in mind:

1. Learn to recognize the language of demagoguery when you hear it: You can tell when you realize that the point of what someone in power is saying is deliberately designed to make you feel strongly negative emotions like fear, anger, or resentment, and that emotion is directed at some individual or group of people who are supposedly responsible for some problem that affects you. It’s critical that you start to recognize when those negative words are clouding your judgment and pause before reacting emotionally to divisive rhetoric.
2. Identify Generalizations: Be wary of sweeping statements like “They always…” or “We never…” or “All (fill in the blank with a group you don’t like)  are (fill in the blank with some negative quality or characteristic). Reality is rarely so black-and-white. Remember that the vast majority of our social issues are complex and multi-layered, and don’t have easy or quick answers. 
3. Recognize when you use this kind of rhetorical pattern: It’s a little humbling to realize that you might be the one making sweeping generalizations about “those people,” whoever they are. Skinnell and Murphy say that “even in the act of opposing demagoguery, we can easily fall into the rhetorical and epistemological patterns that support it,” into that “us vs them” thinking. It’s far easier to recognize when someone else is engaging in it, and much more difficult to see when we are the guilty party. Step away from the insults and negative stereotypes, and focus instead on real problems and potential solutions to those problems, instead of hating the very people who we are going to need if we have any chance of solving those problems. 
4. Seek Nuance: Remember, the truth is often complex. Engage with sources that prioritize depth and context over soundbites, simplicity and sensationalism. While much of demagogic language resonates emotionally, it’s devoid of specific, actionable meaning. 
5. Trish Roberts-Miller, author of the article “Media, Rhetoric, and the Demagoguery of the Elite” from the online magazine Media Ethics, says, and I quote, “The premise of democracy is that the people should argue about policy…policy argumentation isn’t effectively replaced by argument about in- and out-groups. Democratic deliberation requires remaining in a place of disagreement, being willing to reconsider one’s own in-group commitments, admitting error, and holding all parties to the same rules. Anytime the complicated array of possible policy responses to a communal problem are reduced to two sides, demagoguery has restricted the imaginative possibilities. Demagoguery isn’t something a cunning individual does to the ignorant masses; it’s a way people think about their options.”

Getting rid of all the groups of people that don’t fit into your idea of who is acceptable and should be allowed to live here, or even just allowed to live at all, will NOT, I repeat NOT, fix your problems; in fact, it will make them exponentially worse. Making public discourse about policy and NOT about identity and motive is by far the best way to keep our democracy safe. 

Closing Segment

April:
And that’s it for this episode; I hope this exploration of demagoguery has given you some tools to navigate the complexities of modern discourse. Be sure to check out the show notes if you want to read more about this important topic. If you enjoyed this episode, please subscribe and leave a review. And don’t forget to share it with someone who might find it valuable. After all, clearer thinking is a journey we’re all on together. Until next time, stay thoughtful, stay curious, and keep thinking it through.

[Outro Music: Upbeat rhythm fades into soft piano.]

End of Episode