Demagoguery
Demagoguery is an appeal to people that plays on their emotions and prejudices rather than on their rational side. It is a polarizing propaganda that motivates members of an in-group to hate and scapegoat some out-groups. The issue of demagoguery is really important in today’s society because unfortunately it is used by many politicians running for important positions in our government. It is important for Americans citizens to be able to recognize and deflect demagoguery. Patricia Roberts Miller, an Associate Professor of Rhetoric at the University of Texas, Austin wrote two articles where she introduces a set of criteria for evaluating arguments. Her main goal within these articles is to explain and point out the different types of demagoguery and address the different ways that they can often times be affective towards an audience. She attempts to contrast this with forms of persuasion that are manipulative and appeal to popular prejudice. I will be using Miller’s two texts as a “lens” to analyze George Wallace’s inaugural speech in 1963 as Governor of Alabama.
George Wallace was an American politician and the 45th Governor of Alabama, having served two nonconsecutive terms and two consecutive terms as a Democrat in 1963–1967, 1971–1979 and 1983–1987. Wallace gave his inauguration speech in 1963 where he openly declares his support for segregation and his disagreement with the United States federal government. With the help of Miller’s project my paper will analyze and evaluate a couple important elements of demagogic discourse and one fallacy I identify in Wallace’s speech, I will include examples and evidence to help explain how Wallace’s use of demagoguery affects the audience.
The recognizable element of demagoguery used in Wallace’s speech is polarization. Roberts-Miller explains polarization such as, “Demagogues polarize a complicated [and often frightening) situation by presenting only two options: their policy, and some obviously stupid, impractical, or shameful one” (Roberts-Miller 60). She uses the analogy “those who are not with us are against us” to describe how demagogues use polarization. Wallace is a perfect example of a demagogue who uses Roberts-Miller’s description of polarization. He presents two groups in his speech, one being the in-group and on being the out-group. He defines the in-group as the people who are true southerners, people who share his views on segregation. He uses words or phrases like, “sons and daughters” or “the greatest people that have ever trod this earth” (Wallace 1) to describe them. He also includes an excerpt that says, “And you native sons and daughters of old New England’s rock-ribbed patriotism and you sturdy natives of the great Mid-West, and you descendents of the far West flaming spirit of pioneer freedom, we invite you to come and be with us, for you are the Southern spirit, and the Southern philosophy. You are Southerners too and brothers with us in our fight” (Wallace 73). Wallace adds this to his speech to show his audience that even if you do not live in the South that if they believe in segregation and the same values as Wallace they are included in the in-group. Wallace’s out-group consists of the US Federal Government and African-Americans. He uses words like “Nazi,” “tyrant,” “communists” and “ungodly” to describe them. By using negative words to place the US Federal Government in the out-group he makes it almost impossible for his followers and audience to side with the government. Roberts-Miller claims that “our views of people like us [the in-group) are nuanced and complicated, whereas we define the out-group by one or two salient and generally negative features that we insist epitomize the entire group” (Roberts-Miller 61). This relates to Wallace’s strategy, he uses words and phrases to positively describe his in-group and negatively describe his out-group so his audience, wanting to be part of the in-group with support his claims and share his same values.
Another example of polarization that Wallace uses in his speech is when he associates the founding fathers of our nation with the in-group. He says, “We remind all within hearing of this Southland that a southerner, Peyton Randolph, presided over the Continental Congress in our nation’s beginning, that a southerner, Thomas Jefferson, wrote the Declaration of Independence, that a Southerner, George Washington, is the Father of our country, that a Southerner, James Madison, authored our Constitution, that a Southerner, George Mason, authored the Bill of Rights and it was a Southerner who said, Give me liberty or give me death,” Patrick Henry” (Wallace 77). He calls the men “Southerners” to make his audience think that important men in American history are a part of the “true-southerner” in-group. Just like he associates important men that helped develop American history with the in-group, he associates the out-group with the Nazis and Hitler. “As the national racism of Hitler’s Germany persecuted a national minority to the whim of a national majority, so the international racism of the liberals seek to persecute the international white minority to the whim of the international colored majority, so that we are foot-balled about according to the favor of the Afro-Asian Bloc” (Wallace 74). Wallace’s polarization strategy and word choice portrays the white southerners as the minority fighting for segregation while the out-group which consists of the African-Americans and government are the majority trying to take away segregation, take something from the South. Wallace makes his audience feel sympathy for the white southerners by making them the minority. This whole strategy goes back to Roberts-Miller’s definition of polarization where she says that a demagogue will create two groups, making one obviously better than the other in the eyes of the audience. In this example Wallace uses the status of the founding fathers of our country to show which group is his in-group and to clearly show what group his audience should be a part of.
Another aspect of demagoguery that Wallace uses in his speech is dehumanization and demonization. According to Roberts-Miller it is a type of demagoguery that helps polarize a situation which goes hand in hand to polarization and creating an in and out group. The main purpose behind dehumanization is to use it as a scare tactic towards the audience. Wallace uses this type of demagoguery in his speech by demonizing the out-group, the government. Wallace says, “We are faced with the an idea that if a centralized government assume enough authority, enough power over its people, that it can provide a utopian life; that if given the power to dictate, to forbid, to require, to demand, to distribute, to edict and to judge what is the best and enforce that will produce only “good”, and it shall be our father and our God. It is an idea of government that encourages our fears and destroys our faith, or where there is faith, there is no fear, and where there is fear, there is no faith” (Wallace 74). The purpose for including this quote in his speech is to portray the government as horrible, devil-like dictators, to demonize his out-group. Roberts-Miller says that the purpose of demonizing is to either metaphorically or directly describe the out-group as Satan and devils. By saying things like “it is an idea of government that encourages our dears and destroys our faith” (Wallace 74), Wallace is describing the government in such a way that they seem like demons or inhumane in the eyes of his audience. This tactic of demonization and dehumanizing is to scare the audience. Wallace uses this scare tactic to make his audience think that if they agree with the out-group then they too are inhumane and devils themselves.
The last type of demagoguery that I am going to talk about is a fallacy or a false analogy. Roberts-Miller describes fallacies as an argumentative that frustrates the ability of the interlocutors to settle the conflict discursively because they violate basic rules and/or logic; they are, in that sense, unreasonable. Whether it is on purpose or on mistake a fallacy is meant to inform the audience with false information that usually leads to questions and unsettlement. Wallace uses a fallacy, specifically false analogies throughout his speech. He says, “I was safer in a B-29 bomber over Japan during the war in an air raid, than the people of Washington are walking to the White House neighborhood” (Wallace 72). In this quote Wallace compares the streets of Washington to a war zone during World War 11. This is clearly a false analogy because in no way did the streets of Washington containing African American minorities closely compare to a war zone in World War 11. Wallace uses this analogy to make his audience think that if desegregation were to happen and all races were combined then Washington would continue to get worse and further resemble a war zone. Although his analogy may not be true it evokes fear and disorganization towards the idea of desegregation in his audience’s eyes because no one wants to feel as though they are living in a war zone. By using this analogy Wallace has falsely led his audience to believe that segregation is the only thing that can keep them safe from dangerous and harmful living conditions. Roberts-Miller says in her article that often times the purpose of a fallacy is to “frustrate efforts to arrive at the resolution of a dispute” (Roberts-Miller 64) and closely describes what Wallace did. He used the analogy of Washington and the war zone to change his audience’s moral views on desegregation and instead instill them with fear for their safety. He made his audience second-guess or possibly change their mind to fear for their own safety over the need for desegregation. Although unethical this use of demagoguery is often times very effective because it makes the audience rethink and maybe even change their mind, making it hard for them to reach a resolution.
Demagogues are willing to twist the truth, demonize, victimize, they are willing to do anything to gain the support of their audience. Unfortunately this method can be very successful so it is important that as an educated audience we are able to recognize and ignore demagoguery. With the help of Miller and her many definitions of different types of demagoguery we should be aware of the politicians or other powerful people we look up to and make sure their intentions and arguments are valid and pure.
Work Cited
Roberts-Miller, Patricia. “Democracy, Demagoguery, and Critical Rhetoric.” Rhetoric & Public
Affairs 8.3 (2005): 459-76. Print.
Wallace, George C. “The 1963 Inaugural Address of Governor George C. Wallace.” The 1963
inaugural Address. Burmingham. 6 Mar. 2014. Speech.
mlavellecom 