Uh, is this somehow different from what I posted?
only the part where it says "rather than using rational argument." Your post didn't define that.When I read your post I was reminded about our talk about Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage (not that those two were the inspiration for your original post) but I thought of them. And though those two talk show hosts play on the emotions of the common man, I wouldn't say they were actual leaders or were they without rational argument.
Yes, they are super rational.
A lot of times I think they are. And Rush more than Michael (although I don't think Rush was rational when he said that Obama hates the U.S.)Who I think of when I think "demagogue" is Jessie Jackson and I don't know if there is any better example of that than his involvement with the Duke Lacrosse/Stripper case. To me he defined the word.
I find it interesting that you were so quick to try and mount a defense for Limbaugh and Savage. If you are worried that people might think those two are demagogues, then they may well be. The truth is that I had no one in particular in mind when I posted that, I just thought it was an interesting word. Even more so as a verb than a noun, actually.
I agree with MC. Strongly defending Rush and Savage only helps to define their demagoguery. The only way to prove otherwise is no defense at all.
Hmmmm, how inconvenient for me. The original post appeared out of thin air with no explanation and I am not allowed to draw a connection to it and a conversation I found relevant. Just silently look upon it's beauty or risk defining demagoguery.
No, your contributions are only helping to define the post. Contribute away.
Post a Comment