Due to Social Desirability Bias, governments habitually impose bad policies that sound good. Identity trumps prosperity. Health trumps fun. Safety trumps convenience. And demagogues rule the world.
One of the most rhetorically powerful antidotes, as I’ve argued, is to appeal to freedom. Don’t say, “Money matters more than patriotism,” “Vacations matter more than pandemics,” or “I can’t be bothered to follow these safety rules.” Instead, when you want prosperity, fun, and convenience, cry “Freedom!”
Another potent antidote against demagoguery, however, is to highlight the demagogues’ hypocrisy. Instead of directly pointing out the absurdity of the principle of infinitely prioritizing health over fun, it is much more effective to mock, tease, scorn, and scoff at any demagogue who personally chooses to enjoy a little less-than-perfectly-health-conscious fun.
Such mockery has two anti-demagogic effects. First, it helps less-demagogic politicians unseat more-demagogic politicians. Second, it encourages all politicians to restrain their demagoguery. A politician who “goes full demagogue” has to live like a saint to avoid charges of hypocrisy.
Consider: How influential have cost-benefit analysis of Covid policies been over the last two years? Quantitative risk analysis? Though I’ve invested a fair amount of my time in such analyses, it’s not clear they’ve made a whit of difference. In contrast, a story about California Government Gavin Newsom relaxing in a fancy restaurant without a mask jump-started a recall campaign. Yes, the campaign ultimately failed. But it was close for a while, and Newsom the Covid demagogue suffered a year of scorn and stress.
Why was the public reaction so negative? Because of his egregious hypocrisy. Newsom orders Californians to stay home and wear masks. He fills the airwaves with hyperbolic self-congratulatory propaganda, like “We’re doing everything in our power as well, not only to message a recognition of the importance of minding your mental and physical health, but also to prepare.” And then he flouts his own rules. Like Daffy Duck, we can all sputter, “Despicable!” Cost-benefit analysis requires rational thinking, which requires mental effort. The loathing of hypocrisy, in contrast, comes readily to almost every human being – and at least one duck.
Much the same goes every time someone tallies Bernie Sanders’ net worth. “If he’s a socialist, why is he so rich?” What a hypocrite, right?
Or to consider a far more horrifying case: Why exactly did Communism crumble? Sure, there were intellectually decisive economic and political objections. But those were around before Lenin, and failed to stop his seizure of power. What probably mattered far more for Communism’s collapse, rather, was the hypocrisy of its leadership. They preached their love of the poor, common worker – while living in dachas, driving around in limousines, and eating caviar. People can forgive the mass murder of landlords and money-lenders, but not if the mass murderers live in luxury.
The danger, of course, is that hunting for hypocrisy will hand power over to sincerely puritanical fanatics. And occasionally, that’s what happens: see the Protestant Reformation. But if you take Social Desirability Bias seriously, you’ll see this as a fairly low risk.
Why? Because literally living as Social Desirability Bias asks is almost inhumanly onerous. In their hearts, virtually everyone wants prosperity, fun, and convenience for themselves. As a result, demagoguery and vulnerability to hypocrisy go hand in hand. During Covid, Florida’s Ron DeSantis almost certainly spent more time enjoying life than Gavin Newsom. But almost no one would accuse DeSantis of Covid hypocrisy. As a politician, he advocated a mild response; and as a person, he offered a mild response. Since Newsom, in contrast, advocated a draconian political response, a modest personal response left him with egg all over his face.
Upshot: While demagogues rule the world, the rhetoric of hypocrisy tempers their reign. If no one cared about hypocrisy, politicians would devolve into a bidding war of wishful thinking. If your rival promises to give every child in America a pony, you promise two ponies. In the real world, though, you could instead respond, “My opponent doesn’t even like ponies! In fact, I have proof that he has repeatedly refused his daughter’s pleas for a birthday pony. Shame! O thou hypocrite!”
While there’s no guarantee, harping on your rival’s hypocrisy is at least a plausible path to power. And by the time the dust settles, perhaps both sides will have totally forgotten the great Pony Purchase Program.
READER COMMENTS
Joseph Hertzlinger
Jan 31 2022 at 12:06pm
One problem with citing convenience as a value is that the statist response is to set up a government Department of Convenience. https://twitter.com/BriannaForCO/status/1487641686193086467
Scott Sumner
Jan 31 2022 at 1:33pm
Are you suggesting that DeSantis is not a demagogic politician?
KevinDC
Jan 31 2022 at 2:59pm
I read this as Caplan making a far more limited claim – when it comes to COVID policy, which is a particularly high-voltage political issue, DeSantis practiced what he preached, and people like Gavin Newsom did not. I don’t see this claim as absolving DeSantis of being a demagogic politician overall.
Ryan M
Feb 1 2022 at 1:35pm
Depends on your definition of Demagogue. If you’re trying to say that DeSantis is “…a leader who makes use of popular prejudices and false claims and promises in order to gain power” (pasted from Webster’s dictionary), then you’re engaging in the same bad logic as those who accuse originalist Justices of being “activists,” or Canadian protestors as being “fascists.”
If all you take from the definition of demagogue is that the politician “appeals to emotion,” I suppose you could say that “freedom” is also, in some ways, an appeal to emotion. But there you’re defining the word to mean pretty much the opposite of what it actually means. Much like: “if you’re white, you’re a racist.” Isn’t that the textbook definition of racism? (well, some might just change the definition of racism, then!)
The important part of the definition of Demagogue is that the leader uses emotion, prejudices, and false claims (i.e. appealing to baser mob instincts) in order to gain power. That’s pretty important. You might argue that an appeal to freedom! is similarly ginning up support through similar base mob instincts … but you’re missing an extremely important difference – your emotion supporting freedom can be used to restrain others from infringing on your freedom; you are equally restrained. A socialist appeals to class animosity or jealousy or a sense of something being unfair – not to bring people up, but to justify confiscating wealth and centralizing power.
DeSantis is not a demagogue because what he seeks to do is increase liberty. In that sense, he is more likely to take measures that restrain the “ruling class” of politicians than he is to “gain power” for himself.
The key example of this is with mask mandates. The left (and covidocrats, including some on the right) cries “fascism” when someone like DeSantis (or Youngkin) bans mask mandates. Apparently, the logic goes, he is removing the rights of – who, exactly? I guess school boards? Mayors? Other politicians – he removes their right to force entire populations to do something? That is some backward reasoning, no?A ban on mask mandates does not limit anyone’s ability to do whatever that person feels is best; it only limits his ability to force me to play along with it. You are still free to wear a mask anytime you want. You are still free to get however many vaccines and boosters you desire.
Taking away your ability to exert arbitrary power over me through threat of force is not “demagogic,” and it is not “fascism,” however much the left wishes to twist these definitions to men their exact opposite. The constitution, which limits these powers (or, rather, which begins from the premise that those powers do not exist unless explicitly granted), is not an example of the ultimate “power grab.” And those who enforce the constitution, protecting liberty, are not demagogues, regardless of how much that liberty may appeal to our emotions.
JJAP
Jan 31 2022 at 2:50pm
It’s kinda like “SDB inherently leads to an easy reductio ad absurdum”, but the proponents themselves demonstrate it.
Bo Zimmerman
Jan 31 2022 at 8:32pm
Didn’t Machiavelli recommend an appearance of virtue coupled with a heart of stone to monarchs?
Phil H
Jan 31 2022 at 9:42pm
This seems right, and helps explain why character is important. In an ideal world, the character of a politician shouldn’t matter much, because their political actions will be judged, and will have consequences, and will ultimately be shaped by those consequences. But in reality, the judging mechanisms are flawed, and the feedback slow, so we are interested in other factors that temper politicians’ actions, i.e. their character. Of course, interest in character often descends into mere gossip, but
(In markets governed by the rule of law, the feedback is faster and more effective. On Taobao, which it’s China’s version of Amazon Marketplace, 10 years ago it was necessary to have a conversation with a vendor before buying anything, to assess their character. Today, no one does that. The efficiency of 1-click buying plus a robust mechanism of complaints for bad product has won out, and we can click and buy with confidence.)
Thomas Lee Hutcheson
Feb 1 2022 at 7:01am
It’s curious exactly what The Governor’s violation of his own rules means.
They were not good rules (costs exceeded benefits) and he knew it, but there was some political reason to have them?
They were good rules (benefits exceeded costs) and he knew it, but violations of the rule below some threshold do not reduce the benefits?
They were messily good rules (benefits exceeded costs in most, “typical” cases) but his violation did not reduce any benefits.
If 1 or 3., he should have used the incident to “realize: his mistake and support changes to make the benefits of the rules exceed costs.
If 2. he should, as happened, suffer some penalty but the rules should remain unchanged.
Alabamian
Feb 2 2022 at 11:07am
IMO, the world needs more object-level argument. This is an invitation to engage in less of that and more ad hominem attacks. It’s bad advice if you care about little-l liberal values.
Comments are closed.