@60minutes

"I think they haven't gone far enough," says President Trump, defending ICE raids. In one case, ICE tackled a young mother and in another ... See more

Source: TikTok

The New Praetorians: A Framework for Countering Demagoguery and Preventing Domestic Conflict in the Digital Age

by Gemini 2.5 Pro, Deep Research. Warning, LLMs may hallucinate!

Executive Summary

This report evaluates the hypothesis that preventing domestic conflict requires shifting focus from historical patterns to identifying contemporary demagogues, their influence, and the validity of their claims. The analysis finds this hypothesis is partially correct but dangerously incomplete. While the uncritical use of shallow historical analogies is indeed a source of error ¹, a rigorous analysis of historical case studies is indispensable for understanding the causal mechanisms of conflict.²

The central threat is the modern demagogue, who functions as a mechanism for conflict escalation. However, this mechanism is only effective when fueled by the grievance of a population—specifically, a “crisis of legitimacy” where a constituency sees the political system as flawed or illegitimate.³ The demagogue’s “authentic appeal” stems not from being fact-based, but from weaponizing valid underlying grievances (e.g., economic fragility, status inequality) and channeling them into scapegoating and division.⁴

This process is amplified by a new vector: the digital media ecosystem. This environment enables “participatory propaganda,” a symbiotic relationship where followers actively create and disseminate demagogic content, blurring the lines between witting and unwitting agents.⁶ This rhetorical strategy has a predictable, data-backed escalation pathway. It normalizes dehumanization ⁸ and leads to real-world violence ⁹ through “stochastic terrorism”—the incitement of a broad audience that increases the statistical probability of “lone wolf” attacks, while providing the demagogue with plausible deniability.¹⁰

Traditional counter-messaging, such as fact-checking or invoking historical arguments, often fails or backfires, hardening the positions of the demagogue’s supporters.¹²Prevention, therefore, requires a new, multi-level toolkit. This report concludes with a “public health” framework for democratic resilience, focusing on three concurrent interventions:

1. The Message: Using psychological inoculation (”pre-bunking”) to build cognitive resistance to manipulative techniques.¹⁴

2. The Vector: Implementing regulatory and design-based solutions to mitigate algorithmic amplification and increase platform transparency.¹⁶

3. The Grievance: Enacting structural policies that address the valid economic and political grievances that demagogues exploit, thereby rebuilding public trust in democratic institutions.¹⁸

I. Assessing the Hypothesis: The False Dichotomy of Past Patterns vs. Present Dangers

The premise that conflict prevention should abandon “recurring patterns” in favor of analyzing “today’s demagogues” presents a false dichotomy. While the critique of lazy historical analogy is valid, the dismissal of historical data is counterproductive. A nuanced understanding of contemporary threats requires integrating the study of historical causal mechanisms with an analysis of new actors and technologies.

A. The Limits of Analogical Reasoning: Why “Repeating History” Fails

The user’s skepticism toward “examples from the past” is well-founded. Political discourse is replete with shallow historical analogies—such as comparisons to “the 1930s,” the “Munich Agreement,” or the “Thucydides Trap”—that are often used as uncritical commentary.¹ Such analogies can be a source of “mistakes, misperception and false predictions”.²⁰

The fundamental flaw in simple analogical reasoning is that the contemporary context is profoundly different. Factors like nuclear weapons, global climate change ¹, and the evolution of technology ²⁰ mean that direct parallels are often misleading. Political leaders frequently employ these analogies not for accurate diagnosis, but as “instrumental” tools for “political and ideological competition”.²⁰ For example, analysis of Ukrainian President Zelensky’s rhetorical use of historical analogies showed it was effective in evoking empathy in foreign publics but had limited success in changing specific policy preferences.²¹

Furthermore, experimental research demonstrates that exposure to historical “lessons” can actively bias how citizens predict the outcome of new political events. One study found that participants’ expectations about a modern US-Iran treaty negotiation were skewed based on whether they had just read about the “harsh” Versailles Treaty or the “conciliatory” Munich Agreement.²²

B. The Indispensable Value of Historical Case Studies: Identifying Causal Mechanisms

The failure of shallow analogy must not be confused with the indispensable value of rigorous case study analysis. The interdisciplinary study of conflict resolution has come to see historical case studies as a genuine methodology, on par with statistical methods, for identifying complex chains of causation.²³

Historical case studies make several unique contributions that quantitative models alone cannot:

1. Identifying Causal Mechanisms: They help identify the how—the “causal mechanisms through which independent variables... influence the dependent variable” (i.e., the risk of civil war).²

2. Challenging Assumptions: They “question assumptions and premises” of statistical studies and identify “measurement problems”.²

3. Revealing Dynamic Interactions: They show the “dynamic interactions over time between explanatory variables,” such as the precise effects of state repression or external intervention in the escalation of conflict.²

Civil wars are a “constant in human history”.²⁴ While the actors and technologies change, the core issues that people fight over—ideas of “power, resources, and emotions”—are “plaguing humanity since time immemorial”.²⁴ Examining conflicts from the English Civil War to Chechnya provides the “broad and vast” dataset necessary to understand these phenomena.²⁴ History is, therefore, the “invaluable and inescapable foundation” upon which security policy must be built.²⁵ The challenge is not to discard it, but to use it with methodological self-consciousness.²³

C. The Synthesis: Integrating Historical Process with Contemporary Actor Analysis

The supposed conflict between historical patterns and contemporary demagogues is resolved when we understand that many predictive models are flawed precisely becausetheir historical data is incomplete.

For instance, prominent conflict prediction models (such as Hegre et al.) failed to predict the “Arab Spring”.²⁶ The reason was not that their historical data was irrelevant, but that they “were therefore unable to include democracy, changes to democratic institutions, or other regime characteristics in their model”.²⁶ The models primarily tracked socio-economic development and conflict history, missing the political dynamics of democratization and institutional failure that are the primary operating environment for demagogues.²⁶

This reveals the necessity of a unified model for conflict prevention. The analysis must operate on three distinct layers:

1. The Grievance: The underlying, often historically-rooted, socio-economic or political discontent that provides the fuel for conflict.¹⁹

2. The Mechanism: The political actor or process that weaponizes that grievance. This is the contemporary demagogue.⁵

3. The Vector: The technological and media environment that amplifies the demagogue’s message and enables mass mobilization.⁶

The user’s hypothesis correctly identifies the urgency of the mechanism (the demagogue) but dangerously suggests ignoring the grievance (history) and only partially touches on the vector (digital media). A successful prevention strategy must analyze and address all three.

II. The Modern Demagogue: A Symbiosis of Grievance, Media, and Participatory Propaganda

The central “mechanism” for 21st-century domestic conflict is the demagogue. While the figure is ancient, their power has been fundamentally transformed by a new media ecosystem, enabling a novel and far more potent form of propaganda.

A. The Timeless Nature of the Demagogue

Demagoguery has been a “primary concern for political thinkers since classical Greece”.²⁷ Classical theorists like Plato and Aristotle identified the demagogue as a leader who, using rhetoric as their main tool ²⁹, drives a corrupted form of democracy.²⁷They defined this corruption as a leader “exacerbating divisions between popular and oligarchic factions” ²⁷, “pander[ing] to passion, prejudice, bigotry, and ignorance, rather than reason” ⁵, and ultimately eroding civic virtue to pursue personal power over the “common good”.²⁹ The contemporary term “populist” is often used as a synonym ³¹, but demagoguery is the more precise term for the rhetorical strategy of appealing to these divisions.²⁷

B. The 21st-Century Evolution: From Broadcast Propaganda to Participatory Propaganda

The 20th-century understanding of propaganda was shaped by totalitarian regimes (e.g., Hitler, Stalin) and was defined by a top-down, broadcast model using mass media like posters and radio.³² This propaganda was categorized as either “rational” (fact-based, but misleading arguments) or, more familiarly, “non-rational” (appeals to passion, repetition of catchwords, and scapegoating).³⁴

The 21st-century model is fundamentally different. Modern propaganda is networked and decentralized; it is “created and spread by vast numbers of individuals simultaneously online”.²⁸ It exists in memes, partisan news blogs, and social media threads.²⁸

The most critical evolution is the shift to “participatory propaganda”.⁷ The audience is no longer a passive consumer.⁷ Instead, the demagogue and the digital environment have a “symbiotic relationship”.⁶ This process follows a distinct “one-to-many-to-many more” model ⁷:

1. The demagogue (the “one”) initiates a message.

2. This message “triggers, reinforces, or exacerbates pre-existing sentiments” in the target audience (the “many”).⁷

3. This audience then becomes an active producer and distributor of modified or amplified versions of this content, “snowballing the effect” to “many more”.⁷

A clear example of this is the 2017 dispute over U.S. presidential inauguration crowd sizes. Despite clear visual evidence, the president insisted his crowd was larger. For his supporters, repeating this assertion was not an act of factual belief but a “show of political support”.⁶ It was an act of “participatory propaganda” demonstrating loyalty to their champion.⁶ This tactic blurs the line between “witting agents and unwitting crowds” ³⁶ and allows the demagogue to “dominate the information space through volume”.⁷

C. The Digital Accelerator: Algorithmic Amplification and Echo Chambers

The “vector” of social media is the demagogue’s most powerful tool. The business model of these platforms, which relies on “clicks, retweets and page views,” is explicitly designed to “encourage extremist or provocative rhetoric” because that content drives engagement.³⁷ This makes citizens “more susceptible to manipulation and demagoguery”.³⁷

This system fosters the “emergence of echo chambers where extremist ideas are amplified”.³⁸ While algorithmic selection (”filter bubbles”) may reduce information diversity ³⁹, research suggests self-selection (”echo chambers”) is the more significant factor.

Crucially, this is not a symmetrical phenomenon. While research indicates echo chambers are “much less widespread than is commonly assumed” ⁴⁰, other studies find they are potent where they do exist. One analysis of information flow on social media found that information “rarely traveled in or out of the right-leaning echo chamber, forming a small yet intense political bubble.” In contrast, the same study found that “far-left and nonpartisan users were much more receptive to information from each other”.⁴¹

This ecosystem creates a secondary, and more dangerous, problem. Counter-intuitively, research shows that “exposure to divergent viewpoints may fail to have a moderating effect and can even catalyze a polarizing backlash that hardens existing ideological positions”.¹² This “backfire effect” explains why simply “fact-checking” a demagogue is often ineffective. It is not perceived as helpful information but as an attack from an “out-group,” which reinforces the “in-group” loyalty that the demagogue commands.⁴²

III. The “Authentic Appeal” of the Lying Demagogue: Valid Grievance vs. Pure Demagoguery

The user’s query correctly seeks to distinguish whether a demagogue’s influence is based on “anything that is valid” or is “only demagoguery.” The research indicates this is not an either/or proposition. The most effective demagoguery is a parasitic process: it latches onto valid grievances and reframes them as a justification for scapegoating and the acquisition of personal power.

A. The “Crisis of Legitimacy”: The Soil for Demagoguery

The demagogue does not create division from nothing. The primary enabling condition is a pre-existing “crisis of legitimacy,” a scenario in which “one side of a social divide regards the political system as flawed or illegitimate”.³ This is not a matter of low “information access” but a deep-set political and sociological problem.³ “Grievance politics” identifies this “political apathy or frustration” with traditional politics as a potent resource to be exploited.⁴³

B. The “Authentic Appeal of the Lying Demagogue”: Weaponizing the Grievance

This “crisis of legitimacy” explains the central paradox of the modern demagogue: how a “lying demagogue” can be seen as “authentically appealing”.3

The mechanism is as follows:

1. A constituency feels aggrieved and views the “system” (e.g., media, government, “elites”) as illegitimate.⁴⁴

2. The demagogue “deliberately tells lies” and “appeals to non-normative private prejudices”.³

3. Supporters recognize these as “common-knowledge” lies. They are understood as “flagrant violations of the norm of truth-telling”.⁴⁴

4. By visibly breaking the established norms of the illegitimate system, the demagogue signals that they are an outsider and an “authentic champion” of the aggrieved constituency.⁴⁴

The lie, therefore, is not a factual claim but a symbolic act. It proclaims a “deeper truth” about the system’s own perceived corruption.⁴³ Supporters are not duped by the lie; they accept it as a “worthwhile tradeoff.” They may see the demagogue as “less considerate,” but they embrace this as a necessary trait for a leader willing to fight a corrupt system.³

This is why focusing on the identity of the demagogue (e.g., “Is X a demagogue?”) is a “methodological error”.⁴⁵ The term is often used as a partisan “devil term” that “fuels demagoguery”.⁴² The focus must shift from the rhetor to the rhetorical practice itself.⁴⁵

C. Analyzing the “Validity” of the Grievances

The user’s query about “validity” is critical. The research provides a clear affirmative: the grievances are often real, even if the demagogue’s proposed solutions are toxic.

• 1. Economic Grievance: Demagogues find fertile ground in “economic fragility”.⁴Research on populism reveals deep-seated concerns with inequality.⁴⁷ This “economic and social polarization” provides the raw material.²⁹

• 2. Social & Psychological Grievance: This grievance is often rooted in perceived status inequality rather than just economic disparity.⁴⁷ Support for demagogues is strongly predicted by factors such as the “racial and ethnic isolation of Whites at the zip-code level”.⁴⁸ This taps into a “paranoid style” in politics ⁴⁹ and is more effectively mobilized by anger than by fear.⁵⁰

• 3. Political Grievance: This is the “crisis of legitimacy” ⁴⁴—a widespread sense that political elites are corrupt, unresponsive, and control the levers of government at the expense of the “true people”.¹⁹

D. The Demagogic Pivot: Channeling Valid Grievance into “Pure Demagoguery”

“Pure demagoguery” lies in the pivot: the moment the demagogue co-opts a valid grievance and redirects it toward a destructive, self-serving end. The goal is “to gain power” ⁵¹ or “win power for themselves” ³¹, often for self-enrichment or to implement a specific ideology.⁵²

This pivot relies on specific tactics:

Continue reading here (due to post length constraints): https://p4sc4l.substack.com/p/the-demagogues-authentic-appeal-stems