To understand the workings of populist discourse and be able to react constructively we must be able to recognize its constituent elements. This paper hones in on one commonly accepted element of populist discourse: appeals to the gap between ‘the People’ and ‘the Elite’ and examines how scapegoating as a rhetorical strategy creating division between ‘them’ and ‘us’ works as an attractive way of presenting a situation where the causes are complicated and/or when the community does not want to hold those responsible to account. The key text for analysis is a debate book written by a relatively unknown Danish politician.

In his 2017 book “The Tyranny of the Learned Class – How The Creative Class Creates Inequality and Undermines the World’s Best Society” [De lærdes tyranni – Hvordan den kreative klasse skaber ulighed og undergraver verdens bedste samfund] Social Democrat Kaare Dybvad criticized the so-called creative class for pulling Denmark in a direction at odds with the wishes of ‘the people’. With what can be characterized as an anti-intellectual scapegoating tactic Dybvad identified the creative elite as responsible for tricking (with their “eloquence” and “high ideals”) the people into promoting policies that ultimately work to the detriment of the common people.

This paper focuses on the how of the populist elements in the book: How does the author of the book (who holds a MS in Geography) present himself as a credible spokesperson for ‘the people’, how does he constitute his readership as ‘the people’, and how does he argue his case that the problems besetting Denmark are caused by an intellectual elite placed both inside the Social Democratic party and outside? The paper pursues these questions primarily through close textual analysis employing contemporary rhetorical theory and critical methods including the 2nd persona, iconicity, constitutive rhetoric, and the scapegoat mechanism. In so doing the paper responds specifically to the cfp’s first set of questions regarding the form and content of populist discourse.

Further, the paper contributes to the broader scholarly inquiry into the relation between populist discourse and political culture. This purpose is served in part by embracing Moffitt’s view that populism should not be considered a binary concept but rather a phenomenon that occurs by degrees. Hence, the paper analyzes political rhetoric that – while utilizing populist mechanisms – might not be characterized as populist tout court. The choice of this material from a lesser known politician serves the goal of discussing the way populist rhetoric emerges in non-extremist political contexts and thereby raising attention to the partial and gradual emergence of populist rhetoric across the political board. I link this to Engels’ ideas of how a “democratic style” can be seen as “a set of rhetorical conventions”, such as scapegoating, “developed to cope with democratic alienation” (477-478).