When operating on a democratic politician, even the keenest analytic surgeon cannot separate demagogic from solid tissue without killing his patient. Demagogy is of the essence of mass democracy. No politician is going to win a mandate from a mass electorate unless, at least to some degree, he “appeals to the passions and prejudices of the mob in order to attain power or further his own interests” (I cite from OED’s definition of “demagogue”). It is therefore impossible to assign a univocal interpretation to the words of a politician’s “program” or “policies.” In one semantic dimension they, or some of them, may express what he sincerely wants to do; in another, what he rationally believes it will be possible to do; in a third, what he judges, or intuits, will appeal most persuasively to the passions and prejudices of the mob.
In the case of George McGovern, I have no idea how much of what he says he really believes. Since he is an intelligent man, I give him credit for realizing the absurdity of some of the things he tells us—though history suggests that there are no limits to the range of self-delusion. Nevertheless, what he, having become a prime contender for the highest office in the land, says and advocates is an important political fact, whether its origin is his conscience, his reason, or the passions and prejudices of the mob. I want to consider, then, as political fact some of the things candidate McGovern has been saying about military affairs and foreign policy.
Comments