<\/a>Now that the Electoral College has failed\u2014not unexpectedly\u2014in its wished-for mission to stop a demagogue from becoming President of the United States, we need to think more practically. Are there any techniques that have worked in other eras or in other democracies threatened by demagogues?<\/p>\n Unfortunately, reading up on the world history of demagogues, I\u2019m finding very little comfort. As we enter this new period in American history, I\u2019m looking for precedents that can give us hope and\/or help guide us to a way\u2014if not to oust him\u2014to at least blunt Donald Trump\u2019s power to permanently damage our country over the next four or eight years.<\/p>\n The answers can only be described as slim pickins. History offers few definitive strategies for derailing a demagogue.<\/a> In fact, historians observe that democracy itself breeds demagogues.<\/p>\n Just to be clear, here are some definitions of demagogue.<\/p>\n \u2026 a leader who makes use of popular prejudices<\/a> and false claims and promises in order to gain power. Dictionary.com<\/em><\/p>\n \u2026 a political leader who seeks support by appealing to popular desires and prejudices rather than by using rational argument. Merriam-Webster<\/em><\/p>\n \u2026a political agitator who appeals with crude oratory to the prejudice and passions of the mob.\u00a0 Collins English Dictionary<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Another way to identity a demagogue by his\/her campaign behavior, says Time<\/a> magazine:<\/p>\n \u00a0If the would-be leader promises to give, restore, provide, insure, or enhance a country but never asks the citizens to sacrifice, pay, serve, or simply work, then this leader is a potential demagogue.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n I think we can all essentially agree that Donald Trump fits all of these definitions and descriptions.<\/p>\n History is not much help. On the depressing side, Michael Signer, of the University of Virginia says:<\/p>\n \u2026The lesson of history with demagogues is they are as slippery as eels and they\u2019re quicksilver and they\u2019re chameleons\u2026Different rules apply.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Another observer has coined the term the \u201cDemagogue Doom Loop.\u201d <\/a>\u00a0He describes it this way:<\/p>\n \u2026The demagogue [creates] a vicious circle. More and more people have to be excluded, demonized, scape-goated, for the dwindling social product to be rationed out in stable increments to whomever is still included. This is the end.<\/p>\n The end. <\/em>It is the doom loop of a civilized society. Once a society enters this phase, it cannot get out, short of war, revolution, or catastrophe\u200a\u2014\u200aall of which bring sure ruin. There is no example in history of a society entering the Demagogue\u2019s Doom Loop and stopping it before <\/em>it is ruined.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n You don\u2019t have to dig very deep or be a serious historian to be able to point to 20th<\/sup> Century examples of demagogues who ruined their countries and\/or hurt their own people. Argentina had Juan and Eva Peron [sometimes described as demagogues who were very entertaining while being dangerously undemocratic]. Zimbabwe is still ruled by Robert Mugabe. We are all aware that it took a world war to rid Italy, Germany and the rest of the world of Mussolini and Hitler.<\/p>\n And to war, revolution and economic catastrophe, we must unfortunately add assassination. Obviously, we don\u2019t want those to be the solutions. None of those are acceptable paths to ending the rule of a demagogue. So, is that all there is?<\/p>\n Demagogues\u2019 rise to power offers clues to possible end games, We have learned\u2014and are learning once again in 2016\u2014that demagogues thrive when we are cynical about truth, writes Michael Signer:<\/p>\n [Demagogues] \u2026start to deflate when we put faith back again in public reason. The American people, in the end, always choose that demagogues are beneath them.\u00a0 [Editor\u2019s note: Except this time, apparently.]<\/em><\/p>\n \u2026The original demagogue in Athens was named Cleon. Everybody thought he smelled bad. He was the son of a tanner, I think, and he was a general and he was sort of bombastic and vulgar. Vulgarity comes up a lot with demagogues. Their critics, who miss them, always think that they’re just beneath, but they win by being beneath because there is a level that they\u2019re operating at that those critics – not only that they don\u2019t like, they just don\u2019t \u00a0understand, and that’s their glide path.<\/p>\n \u2026the medium really is the message. When you give him the space to be an emotional entertainer, then he is winning that day, by definition.<\/p>\n \u2026So I think that people need to shake him out of that mode with tough, demanding questions and by confronting vacuums of fact or policy where they are and highlighting threats to our constitutional principles. The media, when they say, well, I\u2019m just being objective and I\u2019m gonna just let him bluster on in my interview with him and not truly confront him because I\u2019m being objective, it\u2019s not being objective. It\u2019s being a conspirator\u2026.<\/p><\/blockquote>\nWhat\u2019s a demagogue?<\/h2>\n
History lessons<\/h2>\n
A hopeful example from the McCarthy era<\/h2>\n