Political rhetoric, in fact the rhetorical nature of politics, is not by definition bad. It oftentimes is both necessary and good. In fact, when done properly, political rhetoric reaches through reason and emotion into the soul of individuals to resurrect their faith in themselves and others. By contrast, when done improperly, it purposefully invokes fear by inflaming the passions which arise out of ignorance and the hate born out of hurt. This is because fear – fear of admitting publicly to being hurt and vulnerable, fear of having to admit the tenuous nature of your social status no matter how much wealth or connections you possess, fear of being found out to be wrong because you did not have your facts straight or made an error in judgement – stands at the core of alienation.
And thus, it is alienation that ironically serves to coalesce people around common grievances that formerly were held in private. How so? When people experience discrimination if not assault, they remove themselves from the people and spaces that caused them to experience such. They shut people out and restrict social interaction, for fear of being hurt again. In that space, a space born of isolation, the individual not only exists alone but becomes more and more lonely as personal grievances fester. Depression might well set in, further isolating the individual, or anger might well arise and search for an outlet through which it can be expressed.
But in each case, actions – essentially reactions to another’s act – are limited in scope: the individual may harm him- or herself, he or she may lash out verbally or physically to family members or persons who trigger them, or he or she may attempt to make a statement by striking out against a group of individuals or an environment that symbolically represents the problem (think school shootings, the Unabomber, Timothy McVeigh). It is a response designed to make a statement in a particular time and at a particular location. Though the consequence may invoke fear for a time until a rallying cry or message of retribution is received and/or the individual is caught, it is not a response specifically designed to alienate people in mass for personal and political gain. That is, of course, the difference: individual isolation and loneliness are particularized around personalized grievances that cannot sustain a mass movement, but alienated individuals can forge a mass movement as they align in common under a banner or person who claims to represent their interests and who advocates for remedy of their collective grievance.
To achieve this collective alignment, however, the leader of such a movement must create a “bogeyman” upon which individuals will lay their grievances as s/he or it represents the cause of their trouble. Usually, the leader identifies the State and state apparatus as this bogeyman, as the state oversees or is aligned with many of the elements which people believe caused their injustice: the suppression of religious belief or personal freedom, nonrepresentative or excessive taxation, military conscription, acceptance of slave or child labor, discriminatory criminal codes, etc.
Yet, here again, the point is not for the leader to provide remedy: most countries have courts that can adjudicate issues or legislative bodies that can rewrite laws. The point is to frame a means for people to rally around the leader, whom they believe will act in their best interest because they, too, have been treated unjustly. Tragically, unbeknownst to believer/supporter is the fact the leader cares little if anything about the believer’s grievances or claims. All the leader cares about is using the support of followers to gain political power, advance personal agendas, and/or address certain personal and psychological needs however disturbing.
Thus, the mass movement turns into a cult of personality. Under such a scenario, the “leader” must necessarily keep followers angry and confused: angry so their passions rule their reason, and confused so only the leader can explain things and direct them toward certain goals and actions. This is why the leader engages in outlandish claims or lies, and the more outlandish the better as it creates a
38