When reading Jennifer R. Merceia’s scholar essay regarding demagogues and weaponized communication, I understood that Merceia believes that there are two types of demagogues: heroic and dangerous (Merceia, 266). For example, Merceia believes that dangerous demagogues used weaponized language to refuse accountability “for their words and actions” (Merceia, 266). In this sense, Merceia is arguing that the main objective for weaponized communication and demagoguery is to get away with spreading fake news, claims, propaganda, etc. For example, Merceia provided examples such as Alex Jones and Donald Trump to shed light on her idea of dangerous demagogues. Both of these said demagogues used specific tactics in order to refrain from being held accountable.
When comparing the articles by Merceia and Roberts-Miller, it is clear that there are some similarities and differences. First, both argue in different ways that “demagoguery is polarizing propaganda” (Roberts-Miller, 1). Second, both Merceia and Roberts-Miller argue that this kind of language and discourse arouses hatred and works to eliminate democracy by speaking without intention of consent or discussion. In other words, this can be speaking over someone with opposite ideas and having no intention to listen to the counter. Both writers provide examples of demagoguery that relates to each others ideas and claims on the topic. However, there are a few differences in the claims made by Merceia and Roberts-Miller. The first being that Merceia introduces readers to the “heroic demagogue.” Merceia believes that there are ways to engage in public discourse and healthy demagoguery without using weaponized communication. Further, Merceia argued that having consent is a way to diminish dangerous demagoguery whereas Roberts-Millers provided a lengthy list of ideas that are considered demagoguery such as polarization, scapegoating, and demonizing. Although Merceia and Roberts-Millers have similarities and differences in their claims, putting both their ideas together gives us a better understanding of this topic.
The article I chose to examine was published by Michael Singer in The Washington Post on March 8, 2019. Here is the link:
It was clear that this article related to Merceia’s claim of dangerous demagogues based on the very title of the article, “Yes, Trump is undignified. Demagogues have to be.” The first similarity that stood out to me was the word ‘undignified.’ Merceia argues that dangerous demagogues stay unaccountable for their words or wrong-doings. ‘Unaccountable’ and ‘undignified’ can arguably go hand in hand. When someone refuses to be accountable for their actions, it diminishes dignity and cohesiveness. Just like Merceia and Singer argue on President Donald Trump. Both insist that Trump is classified as a demagogue and back their reasonings with examples of Trump allowing his supporters to act in an undignified way while denying the criticism. Both articles share great similarities on the term ‘demagogue’ and how it has been shown throughout history in democracy.
Caitlyn Bettenhausen 
I love the way Demagoguery was separated through the words heroic and dangerous, it gives a clear stance that demagogues can only be good or bad and I wonder what happens to the neutral demagogues that refuse to take action, but I guess inaction would be considered bad due to the lack of goodness they could provide.
The article you chose is interesting, classifying the president as a demagogue and explaining the ‘unaccountable’ and ‘undignified’ are part of why he is classified. Also the call to action by inaction is interesting since supporters act in an undignified way while denying the criticism. Great job!
LikeLike