Halloween is not my favorite time of year. The grotesque, twisted aspects of reality are already quite sufficient without it being complemented by horror films or costume parties. However, given the lamentably dark themes that are woven throughout our politics today, I wanted to dedicate a small offering to the Hallow's Eve spirit. As the chaos continues to reign, the sick grin of the Demagogue looms ever more visible out of political uncertainty, making for the perfect ghost story.

Borrowing a Term from Gramsci

We are currently undergoing an interregnum. The old, liberal cosmopolitan conception of society, politics and economics is being crush under the weight of its own contradictions, but there is still nothing yet viable enough to replace it. Economic stagnation and inequality, cultural and immigration issues, painful questions of identity and society, have only been growing more vivid, rather than simmering down. The ruling political class who continue to believe in this worn out paradigm are running out of the tools and ideas to best stave off the problems that are emerging, and people are getting more desperate as a consequence.

This is characteristic of an interregnum. As Antonio Gramsci put it, writing from his prison cell in Turi, we are caught between two political worlds: the old that is currently dying and the new one that cannot be born, and where "a great variety of morbid symptoms" are appearing (Gramsci, 1971, p. 276). And morbid they certainly have been, as incessant crises, ideological sectarianism, and social nihilism have swooped in to consume the ordinary voter's despair.

Gramsci's writings about the rise of European totalitarianism in the 1930s and 1940s were to document another interregnum. The financial and economic destruction that followed in the aftermath of the Wall Street Crash in 1929 also challenged a fatigued political paradigm. The laissez-faire solutions and repeated attempts to return to the gold standard implemented by many governments in response to the crash only made it worse. The old ideas were wrong and it was only when new ideas were tried (in this case, with Keynesian economic ideas) were the more destructive social ailments kept at bay in the United States.

Europe was not so lucky. With neither new ideas nor effective political response, the interregnum endured and the demagogic forces rose to their terrible climax with Nazi Germany. The resultant war and the violence persisted the interregnum and required both governments and ordinary people to fight for what was good in order to bring an end to it. But not before it caused irrevocable destruction. The Second World War is an example of what happens when an old status quo is not replaced by new ideas that solve the political problems of the day. Meaningless and disillusionment grow, ideologies invade people's minds, and demagogues rise to the point at which they can do the most damage. The result is almost always violence because, in an interregnum, demagogic forces are left unchecked by stability, certainty, or hope, and instead anxiety and desperation rule the roost, until (often) defeated by force.

Behind all of this is the leering face of the Demagogue. Though we are used to Aristophanes' comedic, rabble-rousing Cleon as the supreme archetype of demagoguery, the reality is that the Demagogue is much more abstract. It is a force that awaits an interregnal moment in the back of our political psyches, ready to feast on the meaninglessness and turn it to radicalized purposes. The demagoguery employed is thus not merely the rhetorical tool of the authoritarian strongman, but instead a cultural pathology that is embodied in ideological sectarianism. In the 1930s, the collapse of liberal laissez-faire stability led to the rise of Fascism, Communism, and Nazism taking hold over individuals and turning them to evil, while the Demagogue worked as a puppeteer toward its genocidal crescendo.

Today, the same forces are taking hold once again.

Reeling from the Previous Interregnum

The origins of our current interregnum naturally owe themselves to the results of the previous one. The economic conundrum that Keynesian economists in the 1970s faced with the seemingly paradoxical phenomenon of rising unemployment and runaway inflation, challenged the then-reigning conventional wisdom at its core. The contradictions of this wisdom vs. the reality that was unfolding led to social upheaval that characterized that decade. Trade union strikes, skyrocketing prices, economic stagnation, and prophets of doom emerged as new free-market oriented ideas flourished and old democratic socialist policies began waning.

The academic debate that raged over the correct approach to the economy was at the heart of this interregnum. Milton Friedman's monetarist solutions were gaining traction, whilst those still clinging dogmatically on to the Philips Curve's supposed infallibility were losing out. Political polarization grew between the ideologues of both capitalism and socialism, plunging Europe and the US into deep division.

Finally, the 1970s interregnum came to a clunky but also sudden end as then US Federal Reserve chairman, Paul Volcker, decided to hike up interest rates to produce his "Volcker shock" in order to put the emergency brakes on inflation. Though it had its consequences, particularly in mass unemployment, Volcker's actions worked in stabilizing both the economy and the social unrest, and ushering in a new paradigm with monetarism as the new guide to running economic affairs. And thus the 1980s became the historical springboard for subsequent economic globalization.

Beyond economics however, this new paradigm was consolidated in other social and geopolitical aspects. The Fall of the Berlin Wall and the subsequent collapse of the Soviet Union brought with it an end to the capitalism vs. communism dichotomy and was replaced almost instantly by our current liberal cosmopolitism, later accelerated by both Blair and Clinton. International institutions gained more importance in line with the increasingly interconnected global economy, and intergovernmental organizations were bolstered by the new scene. Governed by the principles of universal human rights, economic liberalization and individualism, this paradigm has worked in ending the horrors of the Cold War.

But while new ideas can resolve problems, they also create contradictions that rub up against reality and then turn into crises. And these are almost always unprecedented.

Postdemocratic Trauma

Despite the undeniable strides in both human and economic development made by globalization, it has, of course, had its drawbacks. Reduction in global poverty aside, the greater international and economic integration has required the emergence of more intergovernmental organizations, multinational corporations, and global financial institutions just to coordinate the vastly complex international policies necessary to keep everything running smoothly. The immense demands of a worldwide system needs the attention of expert technocrats who understand and can formulate these policies, but unfortunately at the price of removing democratic oversight.

This has led, as political scientist Colin Crouch has observed, to the steady shift of liberal democracy toward postdemocracy. He argues that, while all our democratic institutions exist and are fully elected, the real policy decisions are made outside of the usual political covenant between state and people. Lobbyists, big businesses, financial institutions and transnational organizations have created a system that essentially bypass the normal bottom-up process of our representative democracies and thus allowing laws to be made without much consideration for the electorate (Crouch, 2020). Perhaps the most significant example of this is the democratic deficit present in the European Union that, just from the pure distance between the voters and the decision-makers, is one of the most glaring example. For instance, the imposition of the bailout conditions by the troika against the wishes of the Greek people in 2015 exemplified the typical way politics is done in postdemocracy.

But besides problems with democratic accountability, the reality is that this steady movement upward of policy decision has left national politicians in a bit of a bind. Before, politicians would compete in elections, proposing policies that might best reach that critical balance between appeal and pragmatism. However, as the actual power to deliberate on political solutions has mostly left the politicians' remit (in real terms, anyway), politicians have found themselves between a rock and a hard place. The rock, in this case, has been the social unacceptability of local and national representatives disappearing completely from the political process, something that would be impossible to sell to any populace. The hard place, however, has been the inescapable recognition of their own redundancy in political decision making.

This became more and more apparent during the early 2010s.

A Warning from Simone Weil

Indeed, both political parties and individual politicians have been affected by this essential obsolescence. The average politician today operates no longer on principle but on the ruthless dedication to their own career. The modern caricature is no longer as a representative of the people but instead of a sniveling, self-interested, and spineless cynic that has abandoned the common good for themselves. The modern politician's objective appears to be nothing more than the subordination of all notions of right or justice, to say or do whatever it takes to climb yet another rung of the party ladder. Showing servility to their party leader until opportunity dictates the time to take out the knife, without any clear idea of what they want to achieve when they do have the top job. Being able to maneuver effectively, cling onto power for as long as possible, without any deference toward virtue, is now the only thing that can allow you to “get ahead” in the political game.

This has been a gradual transformation, but in the last few years it has become much more obvious, with the most noticeable aspect being the falling quality in both speeches and government effectiveness to respond to problems. Statements by official politicians are rehearsed and glib lacking any sort of rhetorical style. Inaction has become widespread, with politicians seemingly completely incompetent to act, especially if it is not in their party's interest to do so. One only has to look to the appallingly lacking state response to the deaths of 232 people in Valencia from la DANA in 2024, to understand how cynical inaction for the sake of party is not harmless.

As a consequence, political parties have ceased being longstanding institutions of representation for certain social groups. Today, political parties act much more like private corporations selling the same product, just in different flavors, vying for a slice of the market share (i.e. the electorate). Policies and manifestos are no longer decided upon after careful consideration over the well-being of their base (let alone wider society), but instead are cooked up with a mishmash of watered down proposals purely chosen for broad appeal. Electoral campaigning today is no more than two or more political marketing campaigns cynically targeting certain groups like private companies, except without any laws regarding false advertisement.

There is, in all political parties, a central tension between being a representative social forum for proposing policy and for winning elections. While the former is nobler and allows for voices to have a stronger platform, broad appeal and rhetoric takes precedent when votes are at stake. And today, as a result of our creeping postdemocracy, almost all political parties have become great engines for demagoguery. Indeed, before demagoguery is used by demagogues, it is usually employed first by desperate cynics.

Simone Weil, in her political essay calling for the abolition of all political parties, sharply criticized this demagogic tendency. She strongly condemned the political party as the "machine to generate collective passions", that look only to grow their own members and their own hold over the state and reproached them for having "a natural affinity between totalitarianism and mendacity" (Weil, 2014). While there is evidence still of parties tending to that nobler cause of advocacy, it is difficult not to see Weil's concerns of political parties as invalid, looking at our situation today. Parties will now say almost anything to stir up the ire of their voters toward their competitors, and wisely engage in us vs. them rhetoric in order to gain power, although still looking cheap and insincere while doing so.

This sad trend in the deterioration of our political debate is one of the outcomes of the contradictions in our dying liberal cosmopolitan paradigm. By the sheer fact of the growing complexity derived from the globally integrated vision, the unintended repercussions has been the need to implement policies that most populations don't like the sound of. In essence, in the underlying tension between the democracy and the final liberal vision for the world, democracy has had to give way.

Our Demagogic Culture

It has not taken very long for demagoguery, legitimized as a tool by the mainstream, to slowly take its grip over society. Free and open debate, carefully crafted argument, dialectical investigation, social action, have now almost entirely ceded to superficial demagoguery that is now almost ubiquitous, as everyone and everything are being compelled to take a side in political debate. Where political discussion was once reserved in one agreed upon public space, it now has dissipated into all aspects of culture.

Art and music, television and film, education, news, literature, and even family dinner time, have all been dragged into this swirling sinkhole of ideological sectarianism. Everywhere is being filled by a cacophony of angry voices constantly talking past one another, without any regard for what is being said or for the person saying it. And almost nothing being said is very meaningful.

The civil basis for political discussion, where most participants were in agreement over the rules, has now deteriorated, as people cease to believe in any shared foundational values. This failure to listen to one another has created deep, sectarian divides of mistrust that are becoming psychologically insurmountable. Although left vs. right, socialist vs. capitalist, liberal vs. conservative, have managed to coexist for many decades through democratic tension and respect for pluralism, they are now collapsing under repeated deconstruction into a Foucaultian vortex of zero-sum power struggles.

Both the mainstream news sources and social media have significantly contributed to the making of our demagogic culture. Once trusted news sources have become noticeably more partisan and biased, eroding that confidence it once had from the moderate majority. Moving toward sensationalist news sources and pandering to certain collective narratives, journalistic integrity has now taken a backseat in order to cater to these demagogic splits.

As a result, many dubious alternatives have emerged to hold these larger outlets to account, but they instead have just exacerbated our anxiety in producing more disjointed angles. In our understandable desperation to want to form an informed opinion, we come up against a mess of conflicting stories and moral facts that are almost impossible to untangle. The mental effort of trying to discern the truth of a political issue nowadays is so immense that we naturally entomb ourselves within the walls of a certain camp just to make things simpler.

In turn, social media has capitalized on this emergence of many "truths" and make the problem altogether worse. In interacting with algorithms, we are inadvertently building our own echo chambers where we receive strategically presented facts and ready-meal style takes that were easy for consumption and regurgitation. We are unwittingly withdrawing ourselves from real conversation, content instead to be exposed to viewpoints from the confort and convenience of our own minds. We develop greater cognitive dissonance because it's easier to understand reality from just one side, and whether it is true or not becomes much less important.

But the real tragedy of demagoguery infecting our culture has not just been the loss of individual critical judgement and the ability to form independent political thought, but that the clash of ideas that once belonged to the social agora, has now been effectively privatized. We choose, like consumers, a camp to subscribe to and we receive our opinions, no matter how devoid of flavor or depth. Though details might exist, we remain brand-loyal to the general theme of a particular ideological perspective, our only task being to integrate a new opinion into whatever else is sloshing about in our heads.

We see the first symptom of this in our speech: instead of actually responding to a proposition by an opponent, we simply repeat the relevant slogan or argument we have consumed, paying no attention to whether it makes sense. One only needs to listen to a few ideologically possessed individuals to recognize the patterns and to predict what they will say next. If we do change perspective, it is a radical change, casting off the old brand completely and shifting to a new one with the same conformity. We simply adopt the opposite talking points, slogans, and poorly cobbled together arguments with the same build quality. Innovations occur, new rhetorical styles tried out, and an exciting and fiery debater might come along, but this is not the result of actual political acumen, just market competition.

The real essence of a demagogic culture is this: all sides offer the same, low resolution product and all use the same sales tactics.

The Dark Consequences

This new dystopia has come from that meaninglessness that follows the collapse of a reigning idealism. With cosmopolitan liberalism shown to have so many contradictions, belief in a future is becoming impossible. People have increasingly turned desperately to any possibility of regaining that certainty, however extreme it is. The rise of vulgaristic movements, from Donald Trump in the US to Marine Le Pen in France to Vox in Spain, has been one of the dark consequences of this social nihilism, and the further entrenchment of intersectionalism's racial and sectarian divisions for society are directly linked to this tragedy.

We are unsatisfied and anxious over what seems to be an enduring political crisis and upheaval. Pandemics, inflation, economic insecurity, ballooning debt, as well as the collapse of social feeling into radical solipsism, is deeply alarming. It is becoming harder than ever to resist the Demagogue's pull into extremism as it seems that only extremism will do to face off the despair that confronts us in this interregnum.

The 1930s were inevitable because, until that point, no one had been through the 1930s. The rise of totalitarian violence spreading across the entire world was something that had not happened before, and after WWII, it has been resisted ever since. But today, there are worrying trends that ideological violence is becoming more normalized. The Demagogue has pushed us to see our political rivals are enemies that must be killed off before they kill us. Hate runs hot and as ideologues continue to monopolize the conversation, it will only radicalize us more and more; the murder of Charlie Kirk is evidence of that terrifying potential future.

This is a ghost story that is real in the past, present and future. The Demagogue is pulling the strings with their claw-like fingers to bait us into following the worst of our emotions to push us further into chaos. However, there is a sliver of tragic optimism available: that in order to prevent this going too far, we can rely on the progress we have already made. This should serve as comfort for any comparison with the 1930s, since this was what they unfortunately lacked.

There is no reason why we can't make new political ideas to get out of this interregnum.

The only thing is, we need to want to.