Tuesday, September 26, 2017

How to Be a Demagogue

If you're hoping to become a demagogue --- that is, one who "seeks support by appealing to popular desires and prejudices rather than by using rational argument", this article should be essential reading.

Here we have Allen C. Guelzo, a famous historian who really should know better, claiming that "it is not clear what daring thing the owners, coaches, and players of the National Football League thought they were doing Sunday when they collectively took a knee or raised clenched fists while the `The Star Spangled Banner' was played."

Let's ignore for the moment the implied sneer in his choice of "daring"; we'll come back to it later.

"Not clear" what they were doing? Only if you haven't been paying any attention at all.

The recent origin of these protests is, as everybody knows, Colin Kaepernick's 2016 refusal to stand for the national anthem. His motivations are clear, because he has discussed them on several occasions: it is to protest wrongdoing and very real police misconduct against blacks and other minorities.

How does Prof. Guelzo not know this?

Other players have since joined in the protests. Kaepernick "took a knee" in a game in September 2016, and was joined in his protest by teammate Eric Reid. Kaepernick was quoted as saying, "I can't see another Sandra Bland, Tamir Rice, Walter Scott, Eric Garner. At what point do we take a stand and, as a people, say this isn't right? You [the police] have a badge and you're supposed to be protecting us, not murdering us."

These were completely peaceful protests. Yet the reaction from the far Right has been insane. For example, Pastor Allen Joyner apparently advocated murder of the protesters: "If you don’t want to stand for the national anthem you can line up over there by the fence and let our military personnel take a few shots at you."

In September of this year, a full year after Kaepernick began his protests, President Trump decided to weigh in, advocating that those who protested should be fired. After Trump's remarks, many more players joined the protests. Their reasons have been discussed at length: many players felt that they had to stand up for their 1st amendment rights in the face of a government official --- Trump --- trying to prevent them from exercising them. In doing so, Trump was possibly in violation of 18 U.S. Code § 227 (a).

For example, Baltimore Ravens player Benjamin Watson was quoted as saying, "A lot of guys were upset about the things President Trump said, were upset that he would imply that we can’t exercise our First Amendment rights as players. We were upset that he would imply that we should be fired for exercising those rights. It was very emotional for all of us. We all had decisions to make."

How does Prof. Guelzo not know this? It's been discussed in dozens of articles and interviews.

In my opinion, Prof. Guelzo, who is no fool, probably knows quite well why the players are protesting. But to explore these reasons seriously would detract from his demagogic goal.

You might think a US history professor would applaud players who engage in peaceful protests. You might think a man posting on a site about "American Greatness" could use this to tell us about our 1st amendment rights and why they are vital to American democracy. You might think a professor who wrote a biography of Lincoln would express some concern about a President who uses his bully pulpit to attack protesters and try to get them fired from their jobs.

You would, sadly, be wrong.

Intead, Prof. Guelzo attacks the protesters. He claims they "generat[ed] the comprehensive fury of the American public". But my examination of coverage of the protests shows that the "fury" was far from "comprehensive"; it was decidedly mixed. This is backed up by examining polls that came out last year, after Kaepernick started his protests. For example, in one poll, "70 percent of whites disagreed with Kaepernick's stance, while only 40 percent of racial minorities disagreed with the 49ers quarterback." This is hardly "comprehensive".

Back to Prof. Guelzo's sneer about "daring". Yes, it was daring. It was daring because some players stand to lose their very profitable jobs, especially if owners take President Trump's advice. Colin Kaepernick himself still does not have a position, despite his evident talent. It was daring because far-right demagogues are whipping up anger against the protesters, and who knows where that could lead? We know what happened when they similarly whipped up anger during Pizzagate.

The players certainly are risking a lot more than Prof. Guelzo did by writing his column.

Prof. Guelzo claims that the protesters don't have the moral high ground because so many NFL players are criminals. This is the ad hominem fallacy. I could reply, I suppose, by citing Wyndham Lathem and Amy Bishop as evidence that we shouldn't give much moral high ground to professors, either, but wouldn't that be just adopting Prof. Guelzo's slimy tactics? Hey, I'm not going to defend the misbehavior of professional football players, but does it really have much of a bearing on the protests and their motivations? Whether you're an upstanding citizen or a criminal, you can recognize racism and injustice. Whether you're an upstanding citizen or a criminal, you can support the Constitution. Edward Lawson was a black man who was repeatedly and unfairly treated by the police, even convicted once for nothing. He went to the Supreme Court to argue his case. He won.

You'd think Prof. Guelzo would recognize this.

Prof. Guelzo sneers at the "millionaires of the NFL" who "think they're better or wiser" than a Civil War hero. He offers no evidence at all that these "millionaires" have ever said any such thing, nor that their protests imply such a thing. He does not mention that Kaepernick has a charitable foundation that has given hundreds of thousands of dollars to groups that help the poor and downtrodden.

You'd think this would rate a mention in Prof. Guelzo's screed.

You'd be wrong. Because that's not the way a demagogue works.


JimV said...

Thanks for this post.

Trump might argue that he was not, to quote the law, "Wrongfully influencing a private entity’s employment decisions ... solely on the basis of partisan political affiliation ..." - that is he might claim he did it on the basis of some sort of personal moral outrage rather than political affiliation - but it's worth a try. One might be able to show a pattern from past actions to support the application of the law.

My own, less specific, reaction is that disrespect to the USA flag (e.g., flag burning) is constitutional; Trump took an oath to uphold the USA constitution; therefore he has committed an impeachable offense. (Not that I expect the USA Congress to act on this.)

dean said...

Yes, you would think he would be able to see the problem -- but you know as well as I that some people don't consider some things problems, they consider them "the way things should be".

There are a good number of messages going around here that complain about "those people in the NFL getting away with" their protests (and not respecting the flag, the country, soldiers, etc.) and then comparing the lack of punishment for them with what happened with the court clerk in TN who refused to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples because of her "faith" -- she lost her job, eventually.

Pointing out that she broke the law while players haven't doesn't matter. She deserved to be able to protest, they don't: that's the message much (not all, we have some very vocal Republicans who are outraged at the President's comments and the hatred aimed at the athletes) local Republicans party and associated further right-leaning people are spreading.

JimV said...

Lee Witt, further to your point, Colin Kaepernik has also lost his job, for a protest which was neither illegal nor against NFL rules. (All the American-football analysts I have heard agree that he is better than most of the backup QB's in the NFL and some of the starters, and several backup QB's who have worse records and worse statistics have been hired by various teams while CK has been available.)

His sin of course was against the religion that worships the American flag, anthem, and military. Like most if not all, it is not a religion based on reason and evidence. (Tonight Green Bay packers fans chanted "USA, USA" with angry faces while the Packers stood with arms interlocked, just before the singing of the anthem.)

dean said...

Yes, he did lose a job and is still out. Even with the "support" of the owners for these protests there is no way any of them will risk hiring him in this climate.

I have a friend who was at last night's Packers game. He said there were some very nasty comments tossed out.

MNb said...

"If you don’t want to stand for the national anthem you can line up over there by the fence and let our military personnel take a few shots at you."
Once again we can see christian love in full action.

William Spearshake said...

The flag and anthem are supposed to represent the homeless, the drug addicts and the immigrants every bit as much as it does the soldiers. It offends me that the arguments used against this protest is that it is disrespectful of the soldiers. Nonsense. If blacks feel that they are not being treated fairly by government authorities, and I think they have a valid point, then there is nothing wrong with peaceful protest. It sure beats violent protest.

I read this somewhere and I apologize for not remembering the author.

If you make peaceful revolution impossible, you make violent revolution inevitable

William Spearshake said...

Found it:

"Those make peaceful revolution impossible, will make violent revolution inevitable"

CDP said...

Here's the real issue: