I think there’s a more compelling and ambitious alternative, which is to radically change the whole cultural narrative on which the bad sounds good (and vice versa). E.g., I bet that statements like “cotton is king,” “slaves are better off than Northern factory workers,” and “separate but equal” once sounded socially desirable and good to much of the US populace. The abolitionists and civil rights leaders who changed this narrative didn’t merely flip the slogans, but pushed a radically different conception of the good—crystallized by newly popularized slogans like “Am I not a man and a brother?” and “all men are created equal,” etc.
But I definitely agree that any such countercultural campaign takes far greater courage, epistemic integrity, and sheer intellectual/social/moral horsepower than simply riding the current zeitgeist to victory, as we can expect the vast majority of our politicians to be doing.
The trouble with that is that it merely creates demagoguery in the other direction. Unless one manages to make extreme prudence and serious consideration of tradeoffs the socially desirable behavior you are still likely to produce excesses in favor of what sounds good. That is possible, surely; there was a time when being for liberty was the SDB default, but as a general case. Specific cases ("spend more on health insurance for the poor") always tend to be prone to all one way or the other excess.
Yeah, I think I agree with this; the only real solution is to inculcate true principles (which are inherently quite general) as the “socially desirable” default. And even then they won’t remain the default unless a critical mass of people understand and actively champion them; “eternal vigilance is the price of liberty”, etc.
- Appealing to people's worst instincts (where I think your addition of Social Desirability Bias is excellent)
- Appealing to the masses over the heads of political intermediaries
As with many entwined notions, it's liable to come apart. For instance, we have plenty of modern politicians who appeal to the Social Desirability Bias of elite classes.
Good politics makes bad policy is something many people understand. The question is: how do we have good policy while still having accountable politicians?
Calling a politician a “demagogue” because he does what all politicians must do to succeed is too harsh. We should not condemn politicians (a) who advocate Socially Desirable Biased policies that, as a group, do *relatively little* harm, and (b) who, when in office, do *relatively little* of the SDB policies they advocated.
Depends a bit on your definition of "populist". If it is structured as to be opposed to "elitist" then it is not synonymous with demagogue.
On the other hand, nearly all successful politicians are demagogues so there is a lot of overlap between any type or categorization of politicians and demagogues.
I think there’s a more compelling and ambitious alternative, which is to radically change the whole cultural narrative on which the bad sounds good (and vice versa). E.g., I bet that statements like “cotton is king,” “slaves are better off than Northern factory workers,” and “separate but equal” once sounded socially desirable and good to much of the US populace. The abolitionists and civil rights leaders who changed this narrative didn’t merely flip the slogans, but pushed a radically different conception of the good—crystallized by newly popularized slogans like “Am I not a man and a brother?” and “all men are created equal,” etc.
But I definitely agree that any such countercultural campaign takes far greater courage, epistemic integrity, and sheer intellectual/social/moral horsepower than simply riding the current zeitgeist to victory, as we can expect the vast majority of our politicians to be doing.
The trouble with that is that it merely creates demagoguery in the other direction. Unless one manages to make extreme prudence and serious consideration of tradeoffs the socially desirable behavior you are still likely to produce excesses in favor of what sounds good. That is possible, surely; there was a time when being for liberty was the SDB default, but as a general case. Specific cases ("spend more on health insurance for the poor") always tend to be prone to all one way or the other excess.
Yeah, I think I agree with this; the only real solution is to inculcate true principles (which are inherently quite general) as the “socially desirable” default. And even then they won’t remain the default unless a critical mass of people understand and actively champion them; “eternal vigilance is the price of liberty”, etc.
Demagoguery contains two entwined notions:
- Appealing to people's worst instincts (where I think your addition of Social Desirability Bias is excellent)
- Appealing to the masses over the heads of political intermediaries
As with many entwined notions, it's liable to come apart. For instance, we have plenty of modern politicians who appeal to the Social Desirability Bias of elite classes.
Good politics makes bad policy is something many people understand. The question is: how do we have good policy while still having accountable politicians?
Calling a politician a “demagogue” because he does what all politicians must do to succeed is too harsh. We should not condemn politicians (a) who advocate Socially Desirable Biased policies that, as a group, do *relatively little* harm, and (b) who, when in office, do *relatively little* of the SDB policies they advocated.
Words: I feel the need for clarification. WHAT would be the difference (if any) between a demagogue and a populist? Maybe they're really synonyms?
Depends a bit on your definition of "populist". If it is structured as to be opposed to "elitist" then it is not synonymous with demagogue.
On the other hand, nearly all successful politicians are demagogues so there is a lot of overlap between any type or categorization of politicians and demagogues.