What do you think?
Rate this book
The Demagogue's Playbook: The Battle for American Democracy from the Founders to Trump
In The Demagogue's Playbook, acclaimed legal scholar Eric A. Posner offers a blueprint for how America can prevent the rise of a demagogue and protect the features of a democracy that help it thrive--and restore national greatness, for one and all.
What--and who--is a demagogue? How did America's Founders envision the presidency? What should a constitutional democracy look like--and how can it be fixed when it appears to be broken?
Something is definitely wrong with Donald Trump's presidency, but what exactly? The extraordinary negative reaction to Trump's election--by conservative intellectuals, liberals, Democrats, and global leaders alike--goes beyond ordinary partisan and policy disagreements. It reflects genuine fear about the vitality of our constitutional system. The Founders, reaching back to classical precedents, feared that their experiment in mass self-government could produce a demagogue: a charismatic ruler who would gain and hold on to power by manipulating the public rather than by advancing the public good.
President Trump, who has played to the mob and attacked institutions from the judiciary to the press, appears to embody these ideas. How can we move past his rhetoric and maintain faith in our great nation?
"Cuts through the hyperbole and hysteria that often distorts assessments of our republic, particularly at this time." - Alan Taylor, winner of the 2014 Pulitzer Prize for History
What--and who--is a demagogue? How did America's Founders envision the presidency? What should a constitutional democracy look like--and how can it be fixed when it appears to be broken?
Something is definitely wrong with Donald Trump's presidency, but what exactly? The extraordinary negative reaction to Trump's election--by conservative intellectuals, liberals, Democrats, and global leaders alike--goes beyond ordinary partisan and policy disagreements. It reflects genuine fear about the vitality of our constitutional system. The Founders, reaching back to classical precedents, feared that their experiment in mass self-government could produce a demagogue: a charismatic ruler who would gain and hold on to power by manipulating the public rather than by advancing the public good.
President Trump, who has played to the mob and attacked institutions from the judiciary to the press, appears to embody these ideas. How can we move past his rhetoric and maintain faith in our great nation?
"Cuts through the hyperbole and hysteria that often distorts assessments of our republic, particularly at this time." - Alan Taylor, winner of the 2014 Pulitzer Prize for History
320 pages, Hardcover
Published June 30, 2020
56 people are currently reading
340 people want to read
About the author
Eric A. Posner
35 books85 followersEric Posner is the Kirkland & Ellis Professor of Law at The University of Chicago.
His books include Law and Social Norms (Harvard 2000); Chicago Lectures in Law and Economics (Foundation 2000) (editor); Cost-Benefit Analysis: Legal, Economic, and Philosophical Perspectives (University of Chicago 2001) (editor, with Matthew Adler); The Limits of International Law (Oxford 2005) (with Jack Goldsmith); New Foundations of Cost-Benefit Analysis (Harvard 2006) (with Matthew Adler); and Terror in the Balance: Security, Liberty, and the Courts (Oxford 2007) (with Adrian Vermeule). He is also an editor of the Journal of Legal Studies. He has published articles on bankruptcy law, contract law, international law, cost-benefit analysis, constitutional law, and administrative law, and has taught courses on international law, foreign relations law, contracts, employment law, bankruptcy law, secured transactions, and game theory and the law. His current research focuses on international law, immigration law, and foreign relations law. He is a graduate of Yale College and Harvard Law School.
His books include Law and Social Norms (Harvard 2000); Chicago Lectures in Law and Economics (Foundation 2000) (editor); Cost-Benefit Analysis: Legal, Economic, and Philosophical Perspectives (University of Chicago 2001) (editor, with Matthew Adler); The Limits of International Law (Oxford 2005) (with Jack Goldsmith); New Foundations of Cost-Benefit Analysis (Harvard 2006) (with Matthew Adler); and Terror in the Balance: Security, Liberty, and the Courts (Oxford 2007) (with Adrian Vermeule). He is also an editor of the Journal of Legal Studies. He has published articles on bankruptcy law, contract law, international law, cost-benefit analysis, constitutional law, and administrative law, and has taught courses on international law, foreign relations law, contracts, employment law, bankruptcy law, secured transactions, and game theory and the law. His current research focuses on international law, immigration law, and foreign relations law. He is a graduate of Yale College and Harvard Law School.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 25 of 25 reviews
January 31, 2022
I was pleasantly surprised by this book.
I had expected another somewhat grim dissection of "the Trump years" but, instead, I had an adventure through US history.
Posner thoughtfully addresses two issues throughout his survey of our past:
First, the varying responses of presidents to the dilemma of "the people's voice," and,
Second, the degree to which their use of executive power was to principally teach, lead, cajole, or impose policy directions on the American people.
I assure you, this book makes for far more entertaining and informative reading than this may suggest!
What Posner does is ably show us how both of these questions involve a continuum of possible responses.
For instance, as those of us who have studied American history in any depth know, the Founders were of a decidedly mixed mind about "the people" and their role in government. Like the classical historians and philosophers they knew so well, they believed that "rule by the people" --which is what "democracy" means -- was essentially "mob rule" and, therefore, inevitably meant chaos with people torn between competing factions led by rival demagogues.
On the other hand, they had come to profoundly distrust top-down government as experienced under Britain's king. Like all Englishmen of their time, they no longer believed in the "divine right of kings" to rule, a principle once held dear throughout the Middle Ages. Rather, they were convinced of the superiority of a "mixed" form of government in which the "better sort" -- the cultured, educated, and broadly experienced men of quality -- would/should lead governments while also allowing "the people" (free white property owning males) some say in deciding which of these worthies should represent them.
Thus, the Constitution they eventually bequeathed us allowed for the direct vote of "the people" (limited as noted above) for only the House of Representatives. The members of the Senate were, by contrast, to be chosen by the respective state legislatures and the president by electors chosen by the state legislatures. In these latter two cases it is clear that they wanted the "popular will" filtered through the wisdom of the "better sort."
Although they made no provision for political parties in the Constitution -- a major mistake, I think -- such effectively began to coalesce even during the term of our first president. Although Washington was effectively free to think of himself as "governing for the welfare of the entire nation, regardless of faction," he was the last president who could afford to think so.
And so, from that time on, presidents' behavior while in office were a mixture of their personal predilections towards elitism or, for want of a better term, more populist sentiments, as well as in their often delicate negotiations with the representatives of competing political parties as represented in the halls of Congress.
For the most part, would-be demagogues occasionally were elected to the Congress, but not to the presidency. Posner does call Andrew Jackson the "first demagogic president," but that was largely in comparison to his more aristocratic immediate predecessors. Unlike the two presidents Adams, Jackson abhorred elites and openly courted the favor of the masses.
In this fascinating book, Posner asks that we keep one major distinction in mind when looking at the nature of presidents: whether or not their policies were intended to primarily serve the nation's interests or their own! Acknowledging that ANY politician essentially combines the two ("after all, how can I do any good for the country if I'm not elected?"), there is still a great gap between even an Andrew Jackson and Donald Trump, the only true would-be demagogue that we have yet elected.
Posner also has us focus on the changing nature of American society and the America polity as a crucial factor in the behavior of those who seek the presidency. He notes, for example, that while the country was as seriously divided as it has even been during Lincoln's term in office, Lincoln nonetheless repeatedly appealed to ALL Americans, including Southerners, in trying to first avoid war, and then to achieve true reconciliation after it.
Although Trump was certainly not the first to play one segment of the American polity against another -- remember Nixon? -- he was the first to do so in such a naked, racist, and intensively divisive manner. His self-interest in his own family and in his financial empire were also clearly never far from his mind. And his closing act -- "closing act," so far at least -- showed how he clearly tried to subvert the Constitution through a coup that would have negated the electoral choice of a majority of Americans.
Posner helps us see how our country is always -- much like we ourselves in our lives -- involved in walking a somewhat narrow path: between righteousness, if you will, and naked self-interest, between idealism and selfishness, between hating exclusiveness and a more welcoming inclusiveness.
There is much to think about in this book, whether you be more inclined to the conservative or liberal side of the political spectrum, for it reminds us that despite all of the loud blathering of today there ARE some paramount issues of importance to all of us, and to the future of this country.
I had expected another somewhat grim dissection of "the Trump years" but, instead, I had an adventure through US history.
Posner thoughtfully addresses two issues throughout his survey of our past:
First, the varying responses of presidents to the dilemma of "the people's voice," and,
Second, the degree to which their use of executive power was to principally teach, lead, cajole, or impose policy directions on the American people.
I assure you, this book makes for far more entertaining and informative reading than this may suggest!
What Posner does is ably show us how both of these questions involve a continuum of possible responses.
For instance, as those of us who have studied American history in any depth know, the Founders were of a decidedly mixed mind about "the people" and their role in government. Like the classical historians and philosophers they knew so well, they believed that "rule by the people" --which is what "democracy" means -- was essentially "mob rule" and, therefore, inevitably meant chaos with people torn between competing factions led by rival demagogues.
On the other hand, they had come to profoundly distrust top-down government as experienced under Britain's king. Like all Englishmen of their time, they no longer believed in the "divine right of kings" to rule, a principle once held dear throughout the Middle Ages. Rather, they were convinced of the superiority of a "mixed" form of government in which the "better sort" -- the cultured, educated, and broadly experienced men of quality -- would/should lead governments while also allowing "the people" (free white property owning males) some say in deciding which of these worthies should represent them.
Thus, the Constitution they eventually bequeathed us allowed for the direct vote of "the people" (limited as noted above) for only the House of Representatives. The members of the Senate were, by contrast, to be chosen by the respective state legislatures and the president by electors chosen by the state legislatures. In these latter two cases it is clear that they wanted the "popular will" filtered through the wisdom of the "better sort."
Although they made no provision for political parties in the Constitution -- a major mistake, I think -- such effectively began to coalesce even during the term of our first president. Although Washington was effectively free to think of himself as "governing for the welfare of the entire nation, regardless of faction," he was the last president who could afford to think so.
And so, from that time on, presidents' behavior while in office were a mixture of their personal predilections towards elitism or, for want of a better term, more populist sentiments, as well as in their often delicate negotiations with the representatives of competing political parties as represented in the halls of Congress.
For the most part, would-be demagogues occasionally were elected to the Congress, but not to the presidency. Posner does call Andrew Jackson the "first demagogic president," but that was largely in comparison to his more aristocratic immediate predecessors. Unlike the two presidents Adams, Jackson abhorred elites and openly courted the favor of the masses.
In this fascinating book, Posner asks that we keep one major distinction in mind when looking at the nature of presidents: whether or not their policies were intended to primarily serve the nation's interests or their own! Acknowledging that ANY politician essentially combines the two ("after all, how can I do any good for the country if I'm not elected?"), there is still a great gap between even an Andrew Jackson and Donald Trump, the only true would-be demagogue that we have yet elected.
Posner also has us focus on the changing nature of American society and the America polity as a crucial factor in the behavior of those who seek the presidency. He notes, for example, that while the country was as seriously divided as it has even been during Lincoln's term in office, Lincoln nonetheless repeatedly appealed to ALL Americans, including Southerners, in trying to first avoid war, and then to achieve true reconciliation after it.
Although Trump was certainly not the first to play one segment of the American polity against another -- remember Nixon? -- he was the first to do so in such a naked, racist, and intensively divisive manner. His self-interest in his own family and in his financial empire were also clearly never far from his mind. And his closing act -- "closing act," so far at least -- showed how he clearly tried to subvert the Constitution through a coup that would have negated the electoral choice of a majority of Americans.
Posner helps us see how our country is always -- much like we ourselves in our lives -- involved in walking a somewhat narrow path: between righteousness, if you will, and naked self-interest, between idealism and selfishness, between hating exclusiveness and a more welcoming inclusiveness.
There is much to think about in this book, whether you be more inclined to the conservative or liberal side of the political spectrum, for it reminds us that despite all of the loud blathering of today there ARE some paramount issues of importance to all of us, and to the future of this country.
October 30, 2024
I enjoyed the historical accounts from the founding to the present. It was worth reading and considering. I think it got tedious afterwile... and it did seem to target one player. It would have been more useful if it hadn't aimed at one, but used that one as an example, while developing the concepts for the sake of aiding a reading public to become more discerning.
August 18, 2020
Eric Posner provides a historical review of populism and demagogues in the U.S. and how they lead to our current political situation. He starts with one of the key conundrums facing the Founding Fathers: how to reconcile the need for elites to fill the offices in the new government with the requirement that the common folk be empowered to choose their representatives in that government. While the common folk of the day were generally uneducated farmers and tradesmen, they still had to have a say in who ran the country. The solution , of course, was the checks and balances built into the three branches of government and indirect participation in public decision-making through intermediaries such as state legislatures and the Electoral College . But that implicit conflict between the rulers and those they ruled was never fully resolved, and one of the consequences was the rise of populism at various stages in the country's history.
In the late nineteenth century, populist movements were mostly initiated by farmers who felt that they were ignored by Washington, and taken advantage of by the railroads, bankers, and commercial middlemen who set crop prices, often to the farmer's disadvantage. This, in turn, increased the influence of the demagogue, who exploited the farmer's legitimate concerns by blaming society's elites and proposing simplistic solutions for their troubles.
The author describes the identifying characteristics of a demagogue:
- Divisive rhetoric that sets one group of people against another
- Criticism of minorities such as immigrants, and racial or sexual groups
- Attacking the institutions of government as illegitimate , and attempting to get control over them
- Disparagement of the press as inaccurate and biased towards his political foes
He provides thumbnail histories of several demagogues in U.S. history, and the issues that brought them to prominence, including:
- Joseph McCarthy, who ruined the careers of dozens of government employees and private citizens during his crusade against communism.
- George Wallace , who was the most well-known of many Southern demagogues, and his defense of segregation and defiance of federal orders to deal with it.
- Andrew Jackson, who was not a demagogue on all political issues, but was responsible for the demise of the Second Bank of the U.S. and the subsequent financial crisis, as well as the Trail of Tears that resulted from his removal of Indian tribes to the western U.S.
- Richard Nixon, who was not a public demagogue, but expressed his antagonism towards his many political foes in private, and was forced to resign because of illegal actions taken to deal with them that resulted in the Watergate scandal.
He concludes with an analysis of how Trump fits the definition of a demagogue, citing his antagonism towards immigrants , legal and otherwise, his criticism of government institutions, such as the courts , the FBI, the 'deep state' that is conspiring against him, his childish name-calling of opposition politicians, the designation of the press as 'enemies of the people', and his propensity to lie and take positions that reflect the reaction of crowds at his rallies.
Posner offers a few brief generalizations about some steps we could take to ensure that another demagogue isn't elected to the Presidency in the future, but doesn't offer much detail about how they would be implemented. I think that the most effective means is a well-educated public that understands history and the principles behind the Constitution.
In the late nineteenth century, populist movements were mostly initiated by farmers who felt that they were ignored by Washington, and taken advantage of by the railroads, bankers, and commercial middlemen who set crop prices, often to the farmer's disadvantage. This, in turn, increased the influence of the demagogue, who exploited the farmer's legitimate concerns by blaming society's elites and proposing simplistic solutions for their troubles.
The author describes the identifying characteristics of a demagogue:
- Divisive rhetoric that sets one group of people against another
- Criticism of minorities such as immigrants, and racial or sexual groups
- Attacking the institutions of government as illegitimate , and attempting to get control over them
- Disparagement of the press as inaccurate and biased towards his political foes
He provides thumbnail histories of several demagogues in U.S. history, and the issues that brought them to prominence, including:
- Joseph McCarthy, who ruined the careers of dozens of government employees and private citizens during his crusade against communism.
- George Wallace , who was the most well-known of many Southern demagogues, and his defense of segregation and defiance of federal orders to deal with it.
- Andrew Jackson, who was not a demagogue on all political issues, but was responsible for the demise of the Second Bank of the U.S. and the subsequent financial crisis, as well as the Trail of Tears that resulted from his removal of Indian tribes to the western U.S.
- Richard Nixon, who was not a public demagogue, but expressed his antagonism towards his many political foes in private, and was forced to resign because of illegal actions taken to deal with them that resulted in the Watergate scandal.
He concludes with an analysis of how Trump fits the definition of a demagogue, citing his antagonism towards immigrants , legal and otherwise, his criticism of government institutions, such as the courts , the FBI, the 'deep state' that is conspiring against him, his childish name-calling of opposition politicians, the designation of the press as 'enemies of the people', and his propensity to lie and take positions that reflect the reaction of crowds at his rallies.
Posner offers a few brief generalizations about some steps we could take to ensure that another demagogue isn't elected to the Presidency in the future, but doesn't offer much detail about how they would be implemented. I think that the most effective means is a well-educated public that understands history and the principles behind the Constitution.
January 26, 2023
Demagogue’s Playbook: The Battle for American Democracy from the Founders to Trump by Eric A. Posner
Demagoguery is a double-edged rhetorical tool maliciously used by populist politicians (or political aspirants) to galvanize mostly the vulnerable segments of a population. The politician who resorts to and can use this tool is a demagogue. And s/he is a populist demagogue if s/he stirs up the masses by exploiting their negative feelings about those they conceive as the indifferent, unresponsive, and condescending elite, and skepticism in institutions they view as culpable for their misgivings and marginalization.
The book treats demagoguery as set against the realm of national politics. It attempts to define it but instead beats about the bush rather than coming forward with clear-cut statements about what demagoguery is or is not and how it is, and what makes it populist. Hence, the definition above happens not to be a quotation from nor a synopsis of the book. It is what I have tried to formulate for the prospective reader.
The best part of the book is its abundance of examples from Greek and Roman democracy (Alcibiades, the Trump-like merchant Cleon, Antonius, Cicero), as well as from recent European history and even more so from American history starting all the way from demagoguery as practiced by the Founding Fathers, later voraciously employed by Andrew Jackson, then stealthily used by Spiro Agnew, Richard Nixon, outrageously trumpeted by Joseph McCarthy and obnoxiously wielded by Donald Trump.
It is thanks to Trump that the author is inspired finally to come up with a list of behavioral traits that make a real-life populist demagogue: defying the norms of social and political propriety; throwing punches at anyone who criticizes him and flinging schoolboy nicknames at antagonists (Low Energy Jeb, Crooked Hillary, Lyin’ Ted, Little Marco, Crazy Bernie, Mr. Magoo, etc.); contempt for the truth (averaging 13.5 lies per day according to the WP); condemning the “arrogant” elites and calling “corrupt” the media, the Department of Justice, the judiciary, the Puerto Rican Government, the Clinton Foundation, the Democrats, the NYT, the “deep state”, the Mexican Government, and the “system”; reckless determination of policy spurred by go-go applause of the MAGA crowds; pursuit of unbridled power; delight and pride in the ability to stir the masses; and last but not the least, divisiveness by stoking emotions (anger, fear, hatred, resentment, disgust) and mob rule.
The author --as some playwrights do-- has masterfully set an impressive stage with a solid background of historical facts and anecdotes, and has put together a shining list of dramatis personae, but the script falls short of coherence and focus.
Demagoguery is a double-edged rhetorical tool maliciously used by populist politicians (or political aspirants) to galvanize mostly the vulnerable segments of a population. The politician who resorts to and can use this tool is a demagogue. And s/he is a populist demagogue if s/he stirs up the masses by exploiting their negative feelings about those they conceive as the indifferent, unresponsive, and condescending elite, and skepticism in institutions they view as culpable for their misgivings and marginalization.
The book treats demagoguery as set against the realm of national politics. It attempts to define it but instead beats about the bush rather than coming forward with clear-cut statements about what demagoguery is or is not and how it is, and what makes it populist. Hence, the definition above happens not to be a quotation from nor a synopsis of the book. It is what I have tried to formulate for the prospective reader.
The best part of the book is its abundance of examples from Greek and Roman democracy (Alcibiades, the Trump-like merchant Cleon, Antonius, Cicero), as well as from recent European history and even more so from American history starting all the way from demagoguery as practiced by the Founding Fathers, later voraciously employed by Andrew Jackson, then stealthily used by Spiro Agnew, Richard Nixon, outrageously trumpeted by Joseph McCarthy and obnoxiously wielded by Donald Trump.
It is thanks to Trump that the author is inspired finally to come up with a list of behavioral traits that make a real-life populist demagogue: defying the norms of social and political propriety; throwing punches at anyone who criticizes him and flinging schoolboy nicknames at antagonists (Low Energy Jeb, Crooked Hillary, Lyin’ Ted, Little Marco, Crazy Bernie, Mr. Magoo, etc.); contempt for the truth (averaging 13.5 lies per day according to the WP); condemning the “arrogant” elites and calling “corrupt” the media, the Department of Justice, the judiciary, the Puerto Rican Government, the Clinton Foundation, the Democrats, the NYT, the “deep state”, the Mexican Government, and the “system”; reckless determination of policy spurred by go-go applause of the MAGA crowds; pursuit of unbridled power; delight and pride in the ability to stir the masses; and last but not the least, divisiveness by stoking emotions (anger, fear, hatred, resentment, disgust) and mob rule.
The author --as some playwrights do-- has masterfully set an impressive stage with a solid background of historical facts and anecdotes, and has put together a shining list of dramatis personae, but the script falls short of coherence and focus.
June 15, 2023
An analysis of demagogues and political populism through the entire history of the U.S. Presidency. It's helpful in explaining that many of the terms we throw around today in our discussion of polictics especially the term "elites." The Founders worried that only "the elites" (educated, monied, connected) were capable of ruling but needed to give "the masses" the appearance of democracy.
Yes, Trump is the focus of this book...it's good to see how he's not particularly unique, but just the current expression of demagogic power.
Yes, Trump is the focus of this book...it's good to see how he's not particularly unique, but just the current expression of demagogic power.
December 21, 2021
A demagogue play book.
Either a demagoguees'
Or
A demagogueized.
It's only the demagogue if it makes hate, poisons culture and abuse happens.
If what, only moral enemies of moral enemies find solace in same friends. That Trump was actually more worst for his voters in actually helping his rivals in his one sentence gaslighting competitors.
That spoken no vulgar or derogatory or swearing of his competitors is how he angered his populous either to find change his mind on voting or into more angered voter.
He wasn't racists but in a vague statement would close the government hurting his own constituents is.
Reckless disregard of people.
As Hamilton once said is there's given voice of the people as God and all knowing voice. But yet is more seen of the masses voice as to elitism and tax breaks for the wealth Evangelical white voter.
That a growing majority will be a minority or a minority a majority. There are more or less white voters as they are being out birth by immigration from these countries that can't feed themselves.
It's a shift that's going to happen in future.
Either a demagoguees'
Or
A demagogueized.
It's only the demagogue if it makes hate, poisons culture and abuse happens.
If what, only moral enemies of moral enemies find solace in same friends. That Trump was actually more worst for his voters in actually helping his rivals in his one sentence gaslighting competitors.
That spoken no vulgar or derogatory or swearing of his competitors is how he angered his populous either to find change his mind on voting or into more angered voter.
He wasn't racists but in a vague statement would close the government hurting his own constituents is.
Reckless disregard of people.
As Hamilton once said is there's given voice of the people as God and all knowing voice. But yet is more seen of the masses voice as to elitism and tax breaks for the wealth Evangelical white voter.
That a growing majority will be a minority or a minority a majority. There are more or less white voters as they are being out birth by immigration from these countries that can't feed themselves.
It's a shift that's going to happen in future.
August 29, 2020
Interesting history of the US Presidents and other highly influential politicians, leading up to the election of Donald Trump. How the founding fathers and major political parties set up mechanisms to prevent a demagogue like Trump from being elected and how those mechanisms failed in 2016. It all comes down to the argument of whether or not the general public should be able to choose their leadership, or whether this should be left up to an elite group of representatives or delegates who can do so more rationally rather than the uneducated mob that flocks to the demagogue who arouses their anger, fear and emotions. Also an interesting discussion about how all politicians get caught up in lies because the truth can be sometimes so difficult, but how some lies are accepted because they are for the general good of the country while other lies are unacceptable because they only benefit the person who is telling them.
October 7, 2020
I was prepared to like this work right up to the closing couple sentences where Posner finally lays out his dislike for the particular demagogue, Trump, after a fairly measured narrative about demagogues generally. He seems to have missed the memo about the electorate generally getting what they vote for.
Read
December 8, 2020"A fascinating review of the demagogues in our nation’s history and an incisive dissection of the traits and contexts which enabled their ascension. Posner shows that the risk of demagogues has been with us since the Founding and offers novel recommendations for reducing this risk in the future."
—Thomas J. Miles, Dean, Clifton R. Musser Professor of Law and Economics
—Thomas J. Miles, Dean, Clifton R. Musser Professor of Law and Economics
August 29, 2020
A thorough survey of America’s vulnerabilities to demagogic populists. Posner argues there have been exactly two true demagogues in American history, Jackson and Trump, though Long, Wallace and McCarthy gave it the college try.
August 30, 2020
I thought the book was a fair and researched portrayal of populism and demagoguery. It was written well but I couldn’t really get into it and it just didn’t give me something to be invested in, or something to captivate me into wanting to know more
February 6, 2021
Shee-yeesh this book was a slog for me. Meaning, it was hard work to read. I went in with only an embarrassingly basic knowledge of American political history - context for some, but not all, of Posner’s characters and explanations. I was lost in what felt like (but probably weren’t) circular arguments for the first half - just out of my depth, really - but I wanted to stick it out and learn something. It started to pick up for me in Chapter 4 The Populist Revolt (1865-1897), and I got a little less lost with each chapter.
I never even knew the word demagogue before 2020. Now it’s so relevant I read a book about it.
“[T]he difference between the demagogue and the statesman is not entirely that the first lies and the second tells the truth. The demagogue has a tendency toward deception, and a politician toward the truth, but the larger difference involves the path to power. The demagogue uses lies to divide the public and is indifferent to the damage he might do to the public good, civic institutions, and public confidence in government. The demagogue violates the conventions that keep political lying in check or broadly consistent with the public good. The demagogue’s major technique is to blame a group of people for the nation’s problems, and he uses lies to inflame public opinion against that group.” p.226
“The distinguishing feature of the demagogue is that his drive for power has no (or few) limits. He is hostile to institutional constraints but, even more, contemptuous of those political norms that enable people to compromise and live together. When the drive to power leads to the most obvious forms of emotional manipulation, the stirring up of fear and hatred to bring to the surface the social and political hobgoblins that had been suppressed for the sake of public unity, a demagogue is at work. What type of person seeks power without regard to the social costs? A person of low moral character.” p.249
From ancient Greece and Rome to the Founders, Andrew Jackson, the farmers, the Roosevelts, the Jim Crow south, McCarthyism, Johnson, Nixon, Reagan, Clinton, and quite a few other local and regional players, the political tides in this country have been - are - messy and multi-faceted. I’ve mostly just always ignored them. But not after the last four years. Hopefully never again.
I never even knew the word demagogue before 2020. Now it’s so relevant I read a book about it.
“[T]he difference between the demagogue and the statesman is not entirely that the first lies and the second tells the truth. The demagogue has a tendency toward deception, and a politician toward the truth, but the larger difference involves the path to power. The demagogue uses lies to divide the public and is indifferent to the damage he might do to the public good, civic institutions, and public confidence in government. The demagogue violates the conventions that keep political lying in check or broadly consistent with the public good. The demagogue’s major technique is to blame a group of people for the nation’s problems, and he uses lies to inflame public opinion against that group.” p.226
“The distinguishing feature of the demagogue is that his drive for power has no (or few) limits. He is hostile to institutional constraints but, even more, contemptuous of those political norms that enable people to compromise and live together. When the drive to power leads to the most obvious forms of emotional manipulation, the stirring up of fear and hatred to bring to the surface the social and political hobgoblins that had been suppressed for the sake of public unity, a demagogue is at work. What type of person seeks power without regard to the social costs? A person of low moral character.” p.249
From ancient Greece and Rome to the Founders, Andrew Jackson, the farmers, the Roosevelts, the Jim Crow south, McCarthyism, Johnson, Nixon, Reagan, Clinton, and quite a few other local and regional players, the political tides in this country have been - are - messy and multi-faceted. I’ve mostly just always ignored them. But not after the last four years. Hopefully never again.
September 9, 2024
Less than the sum of its parts
There is nothing new or compelling in Posner's survey of American "demagogues." Andrew Jackson (or was it Johnson?) was a demagogue not because of the Trail of Tears but something about a national bank? Um, OK. Lincoln and FDR were demagogues, but it's OK because they were demagogues in the service of righteousness? And rehashing Trump's many horrible traits to make the case that he's unique in his demagoguery? I've seen that movie before, and told much better. This book is a high school essay-level effort at best. Even as a high school essay I'd give it a C.
There is nothing new or compelling in Posner's survey of American "demagogues." Andrew Jackson (or was it Johnson?) was a demagogue not because of the Trail of Tears but something about a national bank? Um, OK. Lincoln and FDR were demagogues, but it's OK because they were demagogues in the service of righteousness? And rehashing Trump's many horrible traits to make the case that he's unique in his demagoguery? I've seen that movie before, and told much better. This book is a high school essay-level effort at best. Even as a high school essay I'd give it a C.
February 19, 2021
Mention the idea of demagoguery and the walls come up and the battle lines are drawn. This is a helpful book that looks at the history of demagoguery and calmly discusses how easily democracy becomes fertile soil for it. It is not an "anti-Trump" book or an anti-anyone book for that matter. It simply describes what actually exists. Trump lovers may not love this book, but that will be because of content and argument, not tone.
January 17, 2023
Of course Trump was a demagogue. That should be no surprise and really does not require this book to prove. I had hoped for something insightful about demagoguery in this book, but alas, it is mere reportage, with inadequate critical perspective on some unsavory moments (Japanese internment, Wilson’s curtailment of freedom during WWI,etc), and nothing very interesting to say about human nature, American culture, democracy, or history writ large.
July 22, 2020
Great history of elections both new and old. Where we are as a nation and the "two party system" and how it helps/hurts the Demagogue's chances of being elected.
Ultimately, I am reminded of how much power the president has and how scary that can be!
Ultimately, I am reminded of how much power the president has and how scary that can be!
August 15, 2020
Highlights the basic tension in democracy between popular rule and elite governance, and shows that this tension makes democracy vulnerable to demagogues. The conclusion, clearly written in 2019, may seem overly optimistic about the strength of American institutions. But we will see.
September 6, 2020
Posner looks at the history of the US and attempts to find out if any President was a demagogue.....he gives a short but succinct overview of our nations presidents...finishing with Trump....quick read and interesting....
January 21, 2023
Read this shortly after reading American Midnight. Highly recommend both. Between them, I have a whole new understanding of our national history, and how much was glossed over in high school history back in the day ...
Both books should be required reading in every high school.
Both books should be required reading in every high school.
May 15, 2024
This was a fascinating book UNTIL the author got to Donald Trump. He spoke with such venum it ruined the whole book. He didn't speak like that about the plethora of other demagogue politicians. I wonder what he would say about Biden.
November 12, 2020
Good read. Very informative. Sadly, we are entering a new and improved age of the demagogues.
December 14, 2020
Well worth reading if you are concerned about America staying free. Some good historical perspectives on all the Presidents. Some of the things discussed I was not aware had happened.
June 20, 2021
An important read given the present political climate.
April 1, 2023
very well organized and takes you through the history before bringing to the modern-day meaning of demagogues in politics
Displaying 1 - 25 of 25 reviews