Rhetoric Society of America
Demagoguery and Political Rhetoric: A Review of the Literature
Author(s): J. Justin Gustainis
Source: Rhetoric Society Quarterly, Vol. 20, No. 2 (Spring, 1990), pp. 155-161
Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3885904 .
Accessed: 20/01/2014 17:20
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
.
Taylor & Francis, Ltd. and Rhetoric Society of America are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to Rhetoric Society Quarterly.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 146.244.117.218 on Mon, 20 Jan 2014 17:20:37 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
155
Demagogueryand Political Rhetoric: A Review of
the Literature,
J. JustinGustainis
In ancientGreece,a demagoguewas, literally,a "leaderof the people." The
meaning of the term has changed considerably since then, however, and a
demagoguetoday is regardedas someone who "appealsto greed, fear, and hatred"
(Safire163),a politicianwho achievesor holdspower "bystirringup the feelings of
his audienceandleadingthem [sic] to actiondespitethe considerationswhich weigh
againstit" (Scruton115).
If "demagogue"is a modem day "devil term," then its usage will be
accompaniedby the degree of subjectivitywhich is a hallmarkof such words and
phrases in modern society. In short, the label "demagogue"is often used as a
weapon by one group to attack another (Clark 423). This is especially true in
Americanpolitics, where the termhas been used as an "attackword"as far back as
1808(Safire163). This subjectivitymay help to explain the wide varietyof persons
who have been, at one time or another,labeled as demagogues. Some membersof
this less-than-elite group are obvious and noncontroversialcandidates: Senator
Joseph McCarthy (Fisher; Luthin; Baskerville), Huey Long (Gaske; Luthin;
Bormann;althoughexception to this label for Long is takenby Williams), George
Wallace (Johannesen), Adolf Hitler (Blackbourn; Fishman), Louis Farrakhan
(Rosenblatt),and such well-knownNineteenthCenturyfigures as Dennis Kearney
(Lomas, "Dennis Kearney"), "Pitchfork"Ben Tillman (Clark), and William
JenningsBryant(Tulis). Otherpublicfigureswho have been nominatedfor the list
are more obscure,including"Ma"and "Pa"Ferguson(Luthin;Herman),GeraldK.
Smith (Sitton), and Henry Harmon Spalding (Thompson), while others would
seem, at first glance, to be unlikelycandidates:JimmyCarter(Will), Jesse Jackson
(Drew), AndrewJohnson(Tulis), and SenatorJosephBiden (Barnes).
In attempting to understand what is nominally called demagoguery,
however, two important distinctions should be made. The first involves
demagogueryand rhetoric. Although demagogues use rhetoric (as noted above),
and althoughdemagogicrhetorichas certainidentifiablecharacteristics(as will be
discussedbelow), it does not necessarilyfollow thata speakerwho uses demagogic
rhetoricon a particularoccasion is thusproperlyto be considereda demagogue. As
Luthinnotes, "thereexists a bit of demagogueryin the most lofty of statesmen.. ."
(355). Thus, a demagoguewould be correctlydefined as one who habituallyuses
the hallmarksof demagogueryto be discussedlaterin this review of literature.
A second importantdistinction should be made, this one concerning the
difference between what is nominally called demagogueryand nominally called
agitation. The distinctionhas often been blurredin practice;for many, all agitators
are demagogues,and vice versa (Lomas,TheAgitator18). Put simply, an agitator
is someone who seeks to effect social change throughrhetoric. The termoften has
a negativeconnotationbecausethe statusquo is usuallyresistantto change andthus
wary of those who urge it (McEdwards36). Although the agitatormay resort to
demagoguery,agitativerhetoricis not, in itself, demagogic (Lomas, The Agitator
19).
1 Presented at the annual meeting of the Speech CommunicationAssociation. San Francisco, California, November
18, 1989.
This content downloaded from 146.244.117.218 on Mon, 20 Jan 2014 17:20:37 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
J. JustinGustainis
156
The remainderof this review discusses the literatureof demagogueryin
termsof five areas: situationspromptingdemagoguery,personalcharacteristicsof
the demagogue, the focus on enemies, the demagogue'sself-proclaimedrole as
savior,andthe rhetoricalappealstypicalof demagoguery.
The Demagogue in the Rhetorical Situation
It has been contendedthat some audiencesand contexts are more likely to
encouragethe developmentof demagoguerythanareothers. In the southernUnited
States, for example, demagogues have tended to flourish in the rural areas.
Following the Civil War, the gradual breakdown of the South's agricultural
economy led many farmersto feel victimized, both by the Northand by theirown
leaders. This situationhelpedgive rise to the phenomenonknownas the "Southern
demagogue"(Dykeman 562). The ruralnatureof the South, combined with the
effects of Reconstruction,producedlarge numbersof Southernerswho felt no real
connection with their own state's political leaders (Larson 342-343). This
alienationwas exacerbatedby the South'seconomicproblems. As Gaskenotes, "at
the root, perhaps,of audienceresponseto the demagogueis economic dislocation"
(60). The demagogues of the South were able to capitalize on this, and were
providedadditionalammunitionby the ever-presentracialtensionsin the region. In
Dykeman's words, "it was on the subject of the Negro that the Southern
demagoguereachedhis crescendos"(561).
Demagoguery was not, of course, limited to the American South. In this
country, for example, it flourished in the Great Plains during the Depression
(Herman57), and the whole nationseemedto be fertilegroundfor McCarthyin the
early Fifties. It should be no surprisethatdemagogueryhas been seen, from time
to time, in the United States,becausedemocraticgovernmentseems to be one of the
prerequisitieswithoutwhich demagoguerycannotoperate. A demagoguecan only
succeed in an atmosphereof free speech and free expression, since, as noted
earlier,demagogueryis intimatelyboundup with rhetoric. Even Germanywas a
democraticstateduringthe rise of Hitler;it was only afterthis Nazi demagoguehad
achieved power that the countrysuccumbedto totalitarianism(Gaske 59). In the
TwentiethCentury,especially, the demagoguehas only been successful when he
had a foundationof democracyupon which to build, and a democraticplatform
fromwhich to speak(Neumann236).
The Demagogue As a Person
The workof those who have studiedwhatis nominallycalled demagoguery
leads to the conclusion that a demagogue is a person who possess at least three
characteristics: he is motivatedby self-interest,he evinces little concern for the
truth,and he is an opportunist.Each of these will be discussedbelow.
A number of scholars have concluded that the demagogue's primary
concern is the development of his own power, influence, and popular acclaim.
Gilbert defines the demagogue as one "who seeks notoriety and power by
exploitingthe fears and desiresof the people. . ." (51),while Johannesenconcludes
thatthe demagogue's"primarymotive is selfish interestandpersonalgain"(76). In
their study of America's Southerndemagogues, Logue and Dorgan found that
many of the promises made by such men were meaningless or unkeepable,
designed primarily to increase the demagogue's personal standing among their
followers (10).
This content downloaded from 146.244.117.218 on Mon, 20 Jan 2014 17:20:37 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Demagogueryand PoliticalRhetoric: A Review of the Literature
157
Many studiesconcludethatthe demagogueis a liar,or, at least, thathe finds
questions of truth to be irrelevant. Although Thompson maintains that "most
demagoguesareprobablysincerein the sense thatthey are not consciously lying,"
(228-229), his viewpoint is in the minority. Graberfound that, in demagogic
rhetoric, "thereis little concern for fairness or truth"(183), and this opinion is
sharedby Gilbert (51). Baskerville arguedthatdemagogues are characterizedby
"theuse of untruthsand distortions,"(9), althoughhe was focusing specifically on
the rhetoric of Joseph McCarthy. Lomas suggested several reasons why the
demagogueand truthare noddingacquaintances,at best, if not total strangers:the
demagoguemay be so ignorantas to be unableto distinguishtruthfrom falsehood;
his own prejudicesmay prevent him from seeking the truth;or he may employ
deliberate deception because it allows him to achieve his goals ("Rhetoric of
Demagoguery"161).
Demagogues have also been called opportunistic. That is, rather than
possessing fixed convictions, they may choose to stand for whatever issue is
burninghottest in the heartsof the people. Logue and Dorgan say that Southern
demagogues "often acted opportunistically" (10), while Graber characterizes
demagogicrhetoricby claimingthat"appealsareentirelyopportunistic"(183). The
demagogue'swillingness to latch on to the popularissue of the day has also been
attestedto by Johannesen(76).
The Demagogue and His Enemies
The nominal demagogue cannot function in an atmosphere of social
harmonyand tolerance. Historically, demagogues have only been successful in
periodsof turmoil,division, and anxiety. This is well put by Ceaser,who says that
"demagoguery... is characterizedby the uniting of a constituency by means of
opposing it to something else, be it an object within the community or another
communityaltogether"(57). It is conceivable thatthe "enemy"denouncedby the
demagoguecould be solely his own invention,but historyshows thatdemagogues
usually exploit existing hatredsand fears. As was noted above, demagogues tend
to be opportunists. Such opportunities are not, unfortunately, rare. In the
American South, for example, "hatredand resentment [were] concentrated on
certainpersonswho [were]denouncedas conspiratorsor rejectedas unwholesome
influences for the society" (Larson345), which allowed Southerndemagogues to
flourish. In Germanyduringthe 1920s,Hitlerand otherNazi oratorsfixated on the
popularbelief in a high-levelconspiracywhichhad been responsiblefor Germany's
defeat,and this gave thema footholdon the publicmind (Blackbourn152). Senator
JosephMcCarthywas, of course,able to capitalizeon the widespreadanxietyabout
a domesticCommunistconspiracywhich grippedAmericain the 1950s(Baskerville
8). The demagoguemay well feel the emotions he exploits in his audience,but the
feelings are also a tool: "Hate is aroused so that it will obscure thought and
facilitateuncriticalaction"(Minnick6).
One area of public concern especially vulnerable to exploitation by the
demagogue is racial and class hatred. Since those near the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder are among the most susceptible to demagogic oratory, the
demagogue will attack the rich, the powerful, and the "interests"who take
advantageof the poor and downtrodden(Luthin 307). Hitler railed against the
bankersand industrialistsof Weimar Germany,and as is tragically well known,
took advantageof widespreadanti-Semitismto focus hatredon the Jews. In the
AmericanSouth,the poor whites of the ruralareaswere resentfulboth of the North
and of many mainstreamSouthernpoliticians (Larson345-346). Further,the race
This content downloaded from 146.244.117.218 on Mon, 20 Jan 2014 17:20:37 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
158
J. JustinGustainis
issue was always availablefor exploitation,and the Southerndemagoguesused it
relentlessly(Dykeman566).
While denouncingthose who were dissimilarto his audience(by virtue of
social status, wealth, race, or religion), the demagogue could also increase the
identificationhis audience felt with him by portrayinghimself as a "manof the
people." Many demagogues"retainedpopularsupportby appearingto be ordinary,
down-to-earthcitizens like those whose votes they courted"(Luthin306). In his
oratory, the demagogue will continually remind the audience of his humble
beginnings,so similarto theirown, andwill speakin such a way as to show thathe
has not lost touch with his origins (Neumann 237). In the American South,
demagoguesoften adopted"folksy"nicknameslike "PitchforkBen," "CottonEd,"
"Pappy-Pass-the-Biscuits,""TheWild Man from Sugar Creek,"and, of course,
"TheKingfish"(Dykeman561).
The demagoguealso attemptsto increasehis audience'sidentificationwith
him by embracing(publicly, at least) all the virtues which the audience members
hold dear. He will espouse conventionalreligious beliefs; he will proclaim his
partriotism;and he will employ whatever"godterms"he thinkswill appeal. Huey
Long, for example, used to tell Louisianansthathis economic programshad been
endorsedby WilliamShakespeare,DanielWebster,the Pope, andAbrahamLincoln
(Fisher110). Elsewhere in the South, demagoguesstood foursquarein defense of
God, country,and,especially, Southernwomanhood(Dykeman560).
The Demagogue as Savior
In orderto gain broadpopularsupport,the nominaldemagoguewill attempt
to createa crisis mentalityin his audience. This is not quite the same thing as the
demagogue's taking advantageof people's hatreds and fears (as was discussed
earlier). The differenceis one of degree;people may experiencehatredand fear on
a daily basis and learnto live with it, but a crisis requiresaction. As Fisherput it,
"Dissonancecreates discomfort;crisis can create panic, behavior not ordinarily
consideredrational"(108). It is this irrationalbehaviorthatthe demagoguewill try
to encourage and channel. Hitler did this in WeimarGermany. He had learned
how to "paintvividly the horrors"of impendingdoom andto persuadehis audience
thatonly the most drasticactioncould fend off destruction(Fishman250).
The "drasticaction"which the demagoguetalks aboutusually involves the
audience giving him political power. Once he has that power, he promises, the
enemy will be destroyedand the audiencewill be redeemed. The demagoguethus
proposes himself as the audience'ssavior. Once the audienceis convinced of the
existence of crisis, the demagoguepromisesto restoreorder(Neumann233-234).
Gaske argues that demagogic rhetoric conforms to the guilt-victimizationredemption-salvationpattern developed by Kenneth Burke. The salvation is
provided(at least rhetorically)by the demagoguehimself (Gaske61-68).
Rhetorical Techniques of Demagoguery
The literatureon demagogueryshows thatthe nominaldemagoguetypically
employs any of seven rhetorical techniques: reliance on personalized appeal,
oversimplification,emphasison emotionalappeals,use of specious argument,"ad
hominen" attacks, anti-intellectualism, and political pagentry. Each will be
discussed below.
Personalized appeal. Aristotle divided the artistic (i.e., rhetorcontrolled) forms of proof into ethos, pathos, and logos: personal appeal,
This content downloaded from 146.244.117.218 on Mon, 20 Jan 2014 17:20:37 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Demagogueryand PoliticalRhetoric: A Review of the Literature
159
emotionalappeal,and logical appeal. The demagogueputs considerableemphasis
on the first of these. As Larson wrote in his study of American Southern
demagogues,"Theauthorityof the men was personalratherthantraditional... the
demagogueswere able to cultivatepoliticalloyalty throughpersonalidentification"
(340-341). Gaske points out that one of the distinctionsbetween the mainstream
political figure and the demagogue is that, while the mainstreampolitician may
representor lead a movement,the demagogueis the movement(58). Demagogues
come to embody the causes for which they fight, and much of their appeal to
audiencesis basedon personalfactors.
Oversimplification. Simplicity is a hallmarkof much political rhetoric.
This is an understandableapproach,since most membersof the mass audienceare
neithersophisticatednor well-educated. But the demagoguetakes this prudentidea
one step further- he oversimplifies the solutions to complex problems (Fisher
109-110).This has the double advantageof makingthe demagogue'soversimplified
solution understandableto the mass audience, and making that solution seem
preferable to the more complex, realistic solutions offered by mainstream
politicians. Joseph McCarthymaintainedthat all of America's problems, both at
home and abroad,could be blamedon "Communistsubversion"(Baskerville10).
In the 1870's,Dennis Kearneyblamedall the difficultiesexperiencedby California
laborerson the importationof largenumbersof Chinese(Lomas,"DennisKearney"
163). Huey Long claimed thatall the nation's economic problemscould be solved
by the simpleplanof "sharethe wealth"(Fisher109-110).
Emotional appeals. Just as most politicians regardsimplicity in rhetoric
as a virtue, so too would most of them admit to appealing to their constituents'
emotions, at least occasionally. The differencebetween the mainstreampolitician
andthe demagogueis thatthe latteremphasizesemotionalappealto the exclusionof
rational thought (Lomas "Rhetoricof Demagoguery"165). This is what many
people thinkof when they hear the word "demagogue": a rhetoricalfire-breather
who can turn an audience of supposedly rational people into a mob of howling
madmen. This conception is slightly hyperbolic, but it essentially characterizes
what demagogues try to do (Larson346). The demagogue thus focuses much of
his rhetoricat the "non-thinkingside of humannature"(Minnick6), because if the
audiencepausedto think,it mightthinktwice aboutthe demagogue.
Specious argumentation. The demagogue does not ignore the cognitive
aspect of rhetoricentirely. But when he does employ what classical rhetoriccalls
logos, his argumentis often deliberatelydistorted. This can be truewith respectto
either reasoning, or evidence, or both. As Minnick notes, "although the
demagogue does not like to reason at all, he will at times offer a kind of pseudoreasoning which often deceives the intelligence instead of enlightening it" (6).
"Pseudo-reasoning"refers to arguments which, while sounding good to the
untutoredlistener,arein fact logicallyfallacious.
The demagogue is also careless with evidence, citing "proof' which is in
fact proof of nothing at all. The textbook example of this approachis Senator
Joseph McCarthy, who was much given to the waving of "lists" which were
purported to contain the names of Communists in the State Department, or
elsewhere. The lists were never producedfor inspection;the evidence was never
provided. As Lomas points out, "The citation of 'facts' is no guaranteeof either
("TheRhetoricof Demagoguery"164).
theiraccuracyor theirinterpretation"
Ad hominem attacks. The argumentum ad hominem is a recognized
logical fallacy. As such, it could have been discussed above under "specious
argumentation,"but it is so characteristicof demagoguerythatit deserves separate
mention here. Argumentumad hominem(literally "argumentagainst the man")
involves ignoringthe argumentsmadeby an opponentand attackingthe opponent's
characterinstead. This was frequentlyemployedby America's demagoguesof the
This content downloaded from 146.244.117.218 on Mon, 20 Jan 2014 17:20:37 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
160
J. JustinGustainis
South. For them, "thefunctionof name-callingwas mainly to createa climate of
emotionalexcitementand personalinvolvementon the partof the voters"(Larson
347). Indeed, the rhetoricof such men often demonstrated"publiccontempt of
social, economic, andpolitical conventions"(Logue andDorgan9). In California,
Dennis Kearneyinsultedhis opponentswith such venom andimaginationthat,had
duellingbeen still in practice,he would have been challengeda dozen times (Clark
427).
Anti-intellectualism. Gilbert (51) believes that anti-intellectualism is
basic to demagoguery. It is not difficult to see why this might be so. Since, as
noted above, demagogues attempt to set the lower classes against the upper,
intellectuals are a naturaltarget, since they are usually identified with the upper
classes (in educationif not in wealth). Further,the intellectualis the demagogue's
foremostenemy, since the formeris often adeptat pointingout the fallaciouslogic
and oversimplificationsof the latter. This is one reason why demagogues have
frequentlyattackednewspapers;they were respondingto the newspapers'exposes
of the demagogues' specious rhetoric(Luthin309-310). Intellectualsoften present
an easy target for the demagogue. Recognizing that complex problems require
complex solutions (or may even have no solution),the intellectualrarelycan offer
simple, easily-grasped ideas to the public. The demagogue, with his flair for
flippantanswers and simple solutions, can sometimes make the intellectual look
pompousor silly (Baskerville10-11).
Political pagentry. As has been mentioned throughout this review,
demagoguestend not to be interestedin seriousdiscussionof issues. Instead,they
are inclined to offer personal appeals and emotion. These are often provided at
mass meetings, which are an attemptto take an advantageof crowd psychology
(Neumann 239). Such meetings often contain other elements associated with
pagentry: songs, marches, torchlight, repetitive slogans, bands, and banners
(Fisher 111). The rallies at which demagogues spoke were often reminiscent of
"carnivals"(Larson), "Barnumism,"and "showmanship"(Luthin 303). They
providedentertainmentto attractlistenersand simultaneouslyto preventthem from
thinkingtoo much.
The phenomenoncalledDemagogueryhas not passedfrom the scene, either
in Americaor aroundthe world. It can only be combattedif it is understood. It is
hoped that this review of literature will make some contribution to that
understandingand will serve as a startingpoint to scholars who wish furtherto
explorethe rhetoricof demagoguery.
J. JustinGustainis
Departmentof Communication
StateUniversityof New York,Plattsburgh
This content downloaded from 146.244.117.218 on Mon, 20 Jan 2014 17:20:37 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Demagoguery and Political Rhetoric: A Review of the Literature
161
Works Cited
Barnes,Fred. "RonaldBiden." TheNew Republic 1June1987: 18-19.
Baskerville,Barnet. "JoeMcCarthy,Brief-CaseDemagogue." Today'sSpeech 1(1954): 8-15.
Blackbourn,David. "ThePolitics of Demagogy in ImperialGermany."Past and Present 113
(1986): 152-184.
Bormann,ErnestG. "HueyLong: Analysis of a Demagogue." Today's Speech 1(1954): 1&19.
Ceaser,James W. PresidentialSelection: Theoryand Development. Princeton,NJ: Princeton
University Press, 1979.
Clark,E. Culpepper. "PitchforkBen Tillmanand the Emergenceof SouthernDemagoguery."
QuarterlyJournal of Speech69 (1983): 423-433.
Dykeman,Wilma. "The SouthernDemagogue." VirginiaQuarterlyReview 33 (1957): 558-568.
Drew, Elizabeth. "Letterfrom Washington." TheNew Yorker15 Aug. 1988: 65-78.
Fisher,RandallM. Rhetoricand AmericanDemocracy. Lanham,MD: UniversityPress of
America,1985.
Fishman,Sterling. "TheRise of Hitleras a Beer Hall Orator."Review of Politics 26 (1964):
244-256.
Gaske, Paul C. "TheAnalysis of Demagogic Discourse: Huey Long's 'Every Man a King'
Address." AmericanRhetoricfrom Roosevelt to Reagan. Ed. HalfordRoss Ryan.
ProspectHeights, IL: WavelandPress, 1987. 50-68.
Gilbert,G. M. "Dictatorsand Demagogues." Journal of Social Issues 11(1955): 51-53.
Graber,Doris. VerbalBehavior and Politics. Urbana,IL: University of Illinois Press, 1976.
Herman,Alan. "Dust, Depression,and Demagogues: Political Radicalsof the GreatPlains 193036." Journal of the West16 (1977): 57-61.
Johannesen,RichardL. Ethics in Human Communication.ProspectHeights, IL: Waveland
Press, 1978.
Larson,Allan Louis. SouthernDemagogues: A Studyin CharismaticLeadership. Diss.
NorthwesternUniv. 1964.
Logue, Cal M. and HowardDorgan. "TheDemagogue." The Oratoryof SouthernDemagogues.
Ed. Cal M. Logue and HowardDorgan. BatonRouge, LA: LouisianaState University
Press, 1981. 1-11.
Lomas, CharlesW. TheAgitator in AmericanSociety. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall,
1968.
Lomas, CharlesW. "DennisKearney: Case Study in Demagoguery."QuarterlyJournalof
Speech 41 (1955): 234-242.
Lomas, CharlesW. "TheRhetoricof Demagoguery." WesternJournal of Speech Communication
25 (1961): 160-168.
Luthin,ReinhardH. AmericanDemagogues. Boston: Beacon Press, 1954.
McEdwards,MaryG. "AgitativeRhetoric: Its Natureand Effect." WesternJournal of Speech
Communication32 (1968): 36-43.
Minnick, Wayne C. The Art of Persuasion. Second edition. Boston: HoughtonMifflin Co.,
1968.
Neumann,Sigmund. "TheRule of the Demagogue." Readings in Speech. Ed.Haig A.
Bosmajian. New York: Harper& Row, 1971. 231-247.
Rosenblatt,Roger. "The Demagogue in the Crowd." Time 21 Oct. 1985: 102.
Safire, William. Safire's Political Dictionary. New York: RandomHouse, 1978.
Scruton,Roger. A Dictionary of Political Thought. New York: Hill and Wang, 1982.
Sitton, Tom. "DirectDemocracy vs. Free Speech: GeraldK. Smith and the Recall Election of
1946 in Los Angeles." Pacific Historical Review 57 (1988):285-304.
Thompson,ErnestC., Jr. "A Case Study in Demagoguery: Henry HarmonSpalding." Western
Journal of Speech Communication30 (1966): 225-232.
Tulis, Jeffrey K. The RhetoricalPresidency. Princeton,NJ: PrincetonUniversity Press, 1987.
Will, George F. ". . And Who's the Demagogue?" The WashingtonPost 15June 1980: D7.
Williams, T. Harry. "TheGentlemanfrom Louisiana: Demagogue or Democrat." Journal of
SouthernHistory 26 (1960): 3-21.
This content downloaded from 146.244.117.218 on Mon, 20 Jan 2014 17:20:37 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions