Rhetoric and Demagoguery

261 Pages·2019·1.361 MB·English

by  Patricia Roberts-Miller

D
RHETORIC
DEMAGOGUERY
and
PATRICIA ROBERTS-MILLER
Rhetoric and Demagoguery

Rhetoric
anDd
emagoguery
Patricia Roberts-Miller
Southern Illinois University Press
Carbondale
Southern Illinois University Press
www.siupress.com
Copyright © 2019 by the Board of Trustees,
Southern Illinois University
All rights reserved
Printed in the United States of America
22 21 20 19 4 3 2 1
Cover design by Mary Rohrer
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Names: Roberts-Miller, Patricia, 1959- author.
Title: Rhetoric and demagoguery / Patricia Roberts-Miller.
Description: Carbondale : Southern Illinois University Press, [2019] | Includes bibliographical
references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2018021584 | ISBN 9780809337125 (paperback : alk. paper) |
ISBN 9780809337132 (e-book)
Subjects: LCSH: Rhetoric—Political aspects. | Communication in politics.
Classification: LCC P301.5.P67 R65 2019 | DDC 808/.0427—dc23 LC record available at
https://lccn.loc.gov/2018021584
Printed on recycled paper.
Contents
Acknowledgments vii
Introduction: Demagogues and Demagoguery 1
1. Invasion of Iraq and the Evasion of Policy Deliberation 33
2. Punishment/Reward and Binary Paired Terms 52
3. Scapegoating and Rationality Markers 75
4. When the Choir Claims to Have Been Converted 103
5. Anti-Intellectualism and the Appeal to Expert Opinion 132
Conclusion 172
Notes 193
Works Cited 215
Index 231
v

Acknowledgments
This is the only book project in which I’ve been engaged that was closely
connected to a course I taught on a regular basis, and so, first, I should thank
John Ruszkiewicz for trusting me with the class. I am ineffably indebted to the
many students who made it through that class during the various semesters, a
course that began with Nazis and ended with neo-Nazis, and traveled through
fascism, totalitarianism, authoritarianism, genocide, and various other cheerful
topics. The students were excellent, pushing me and my thinking, and, I hope,
came away more skeptical and thoughtful about public deliberation. Many of
those students afterward became friends, and have continued to argue about
demagoguery with me in social media—sending interesting articles, odd links,
their own writing on the subject—and have generally shown that teaching is an
extraordinarily rewarding profession. I wish I could name them all, but it would
take pages and pages.
I’m also grateful to friends and colleagues who have indulged my fascination
with the dark side of rhetoric, arguing about it with me—in person and virtu-
ally—sometimes reading drafts and sometimes commenting on blathery posts,
suggesting readings, and giving me encouragement through two fairly discourag-
ing research projects in a row. While there are too many to name, there are a few
whom I have to mention: James Atkinson, Janet Atwill, Randy Cauthen, Janet
Claus, Diane Davis, Alex Fischer, Gretchen Goldsmith, Joshua Gunn, Jackie
Henkel, John Jones, Seth Kahn, Bill Keith, Janet Dixon Keller, Bonnie Kyburz,
Donald Lazere, Drew Loewe, Owen Maercks, Dave Mauch, Cody Melcher, John
Murphy, Roxanne Mountford, Kel Munger, David Newheiser, Luke Oett, Ma-
lea Powell, Danielle Terrier Reagan, Jenny Rice, Jim Ridolfo, Donnie Johnson
Sackey, George Schorn, Ryan Skinnell, Martha Stockton, Paul Wallich, and
Susan Wells. Casey Boyle, Rasha Diab, Justin Hodgson, Snehal Shingavi, Clay
Spinuzzi, Jeffrey Walker, and Aaron Zacks have engaged in long and thoughtful
conversations while I lingered in their doorways.
vii
Acknowledgments
Various colleagues have helped me with manuscript preparation along the way,
especially Megan Eatman, who prepared the list of works cited and retrieved two
lost chapters; David Devine, who revised the works cited; Joshua Lee and Kirsten
Holliday, who helped with article versions; and David Daniel who found sources.
Davida Charney’s insightful criticisms of my previous book helped with this
one considerably. I’m also deeply indebted to fellow members of various writing
groups over the last few years, who generously read many versions: Todd Bat-
tistelli, Douglas Coulson, Eric Dieter, Megan Eatman, Marjorie Foley, Kendall
Gerdes, Megan Gianfagna, Rhiannon Goad, Hannah Harrison, Justin Hatch,
Tekla Hawkins, Rodney Herring, Vicky Hill, Nathan Kreuter, Mark Longaker,
Stephanie Odom, Rachel Schneider, Jeremy Smyczek, Connie Steel, Jazmine
Wells. The excellent research librarians and subject specialists at the University
of Texas Perry-Castaneda Library have found sources, answered odd questions,
and have been tireless in tracking down information.
I am grateful to Carolyn Miller and the Rhetoric Society Quarterly for publish-
ing an early version of part of the second chapter under the title “Dissent as ‘Aid
and Comfort to the Enemy’: The Rhetorical Power of Naive Realism and Ingroup
Identity,” and to Martin Medhurst, who published as a forum an early version of
my thinking on this topic (“Democracy, Demagoguery, and Critical Rhetoric”).
J. Michael Hogan and Dave Tell responded with “Demagoguery and Democratic
Deliberation: The Search for Rules of Discursive Engagement” (Rhetoric and
Public Affairs, vol. 9, no. 3, Fall 2006, pp. 479–87), James Darsey with “Patricia
Roberts-Miller, Demagoguery, and the Troublesome Case of Eugene Debs,” and
Steven Goldzwig with “Demagoguery, Democratic Dissent, and ‘Re-Visioning
Democracy’” (Rhetoric and Public Affairs, vol. 9, no. 3, Fall 2006, pp. 471–78).
Their criticisms helped me rethink most aspects of the project, and understand
ways I was being unclear. Tolerant audiences at various talks have encouraged,
criticized, and usefully challenged this work. I’m thankful that Carnegie-Mellon
University, University of Denver, University of Illinois, San Diego State Uni-
versity, Texas A&M, University of Tennessee, Michigan State University, and
Furman University invited me to present parts of it. Rhetoric Society of America
and College Composition and Communication conferences have been invaluable
sites for discussion and criticism.
More difficult to express is the intellectual debt I owe to so many scholars
whose work has helped me tremendously, including some I have never met. Tet-
suden Kashima, Elliot Aronson, Herbert Simons, and Greg Robinson graciously
exchanged email with me. Others, whose work informed this book, but whose
scholarship I never cite, include Shirley Wilson Logan’s work on nineteenth-cen-
tury African American women rhetors, Michael Ignatieff’s work on war and
viii
Acknowledgments
nationalism, Daniel Kahneman’s work (which should be much more influential in
rhetoric than it is), and Alistair Horne’s haunting book The Savage War of Peace.
Wayne Booth, Fred Antzcak (from whom I took a sophomore-level rhetorical
theory course), Martha Nussbaum (whom I have never met, but whose reading of
classical texts changed my thinking), and Robert Ivie (whom I met only briefly)
have also been significant influences.
The faculty of the Department of Rhetoric and Writing has encouraged me,
tolerated me, and listened to me, and the staff, especially Jamie Duke, Tracye
Keen, Holly Schwadron, Stephanie Stickney, and Anna Crain have been sup-
portive, patient, and endlessly helpful. For the last three years, I have also been
supported and tolerated by the staff of the University Writing Center—Alice
Batt, Ben Kitchen, Vicente Lozano, Natalie San Luis, Michele Solberg—and an
extraordinary group of graduate students. I have a supportive dean’s office, not
something everyone can say, for which I am also grateful.
Another version of this argument has been published as Democracy and Dem-
agoguery by The Experiment, and it shares the same proposed definition of dem-
agoguery. The staff and editors there made suggestions that not only made that
version better, but this one.
I and Southern Illinois University Press are deeply appreciative of the Presi-
dent’s Office of the University of Texas at Austin and its tremendously important
subvention grants program for contributing to the publication costs of this book
and so many others.
The dogs have rather enjoyed the project, as it has meant a lot of long walks with
my nattering away at them; the cats found this project just as boring as anything
else I’ve done. My loving husband and indulgent son have found the nattering
less entertaining and harder to ignore politely, and now know more about white
supremacists, homophobes, eugenicists, and the epistemology/ontology distinc-
tion than they ever desired. But their intelligent questions and suggestions have
been more helpful than they could imagine.
ix