As it's Election's time in UK and some other countries as well, we're used to listening politicians' oratory. During the speeches we often observe how politicians try to win public support by denigrating their opposition or laying blame on them at times even unfairly and unjustly. Is there a word for such tactic?; it may not necessarily relate to Politics alone.

  • 3
    "Demagogy" or "demagoguery" is a term for appealing to the emotions of the public to gain power. This isn't specific to denigrating one's opponents, though. – augurar Apr 25 '15 at 8:42
  • Also, a "polemic" is "a contentious argument that is intended to affirm a specific understanding via attacks on a contrary position". – augurar Apr 25 '15 at 8:44
  • @augurar No, I know this term and it wouldn't aptly apply to the given context. – Andy Semyonov Apr 25 '15 at 8:44
  • 3
    This is typically termed mud-slinging. – Dan Bron Apr 25 '15 at 12:16
  • 1
    In the United States the standard (and broadest) term for all such tactics is "negative campaigning" or "going negative." The idea is that you focus on the shortcomings of your opponent (whom you cast in an unrelentingly negative light) instead of on your own virtues and accomplishments. – Sven Yargs Apr 25 '15 at 18:44

You could say they are using ad hominem arguments, or engaging in ad hominem attacks. It generally means attacking the person rather than their arguments.

(edited after realizing Andy was looking for the word for denigrating, and not just overall lying)

| improve this answer | |
  • How can demagoguery mean denigrating your opposition? – Andy Semyonov Apr 25 '15 at 8:46
  • I think I might have taken ad hominem if it wasn't for attack on character alone, I didn't imply that in my OP. :) By saying opposition, the entire political party is/maybe in question, not just the leader. I have Ed Miliband, on my mind, casting unjust aspersions on Tories for all the failures in their tenure. :) – Andy Semyonov Apr 25 '15 at 9:05
  • Ad hominem does not just refer to attacking one's character...check the wikipedia article I linked, and also this link:(fallacyfiles.org/adhomine.html) ...IIIRC there are even more types than listed in either of them. – JeffSahol Apr 25 '15 at 9:56

They could be addressing Strawman arguments

This basically means they're deliberately presenting distorted, exaggerated versions of their opponents' arguments that are very easy to tear apart. For instance:

Senator Jones says that we should not fund the attack submarine program.

I disagree entirely. I can't understand why he wants to leave us defenseless like that.

Sound familiar?

| improve this answer | |
  • Yes, thank you, I think this term has the connotations of denigrating, fallacy and even persuasive appealing attached to it. – Andy Semyonov Apr 25 '15 at 10:56

Depending on the situation, many of these may apply :-)

The Synonym Finder - Page 662 Jerome Irving Rodale - 1978



misrepresentation ... torturing; canard, rumor, hoax, forgery; monstrous lie, the big lie, mendacity, SI. whopper, SI. barefaced lie, SI. dirty lie, SA shameless lie; defamation, scandal, traducement, calumny, calumniation.

| improve this answer | |

You would say that they're scapegoating the opposition.

From Merriam-Webster's, a scapegoat in the figurative sense is:

  1. one that bears the blame for others
  2. one that is the object of irrational hostility

The transitive verb "to scapegoat" means "to make a scapegoat of someone".

| improve this answer | |
  • But is there always some advantage to accrue from scapegoating someone? I don't think so! – Andy Semyonov Apr 25 '15 at 9:11
  • The advantage of scapegoating is to put the blame on your opponent (that should be placed on other people, or on yourself, or on nobody) so that your opponent is unfairly seen as less worthy to vote for. And that's what politicians who engage in this want to achieve. – Erwin Bolwidt Apr 25 '15 at 9:32
  • Right that's assuming someone is guilty and must take the blame, but gets away by putting it on someone else's head. It's more like impunity, where a person who commits the crime and should get punished, doesn't get punished and gets away with it time and again. With impunity, however, we don't have the connotation of getting away by putting the blame on someone's head. Politicians make many a false statement, some are true some aren't. :) So although scapegoating sounds relational in my context, it's not the ideal term to describe it. – Andy Semyonov Apr 25 '15 at 11:51

Jeff's "ad hominem" phrase is sometimes known – to footballers uncomfortable with Latin, perhaps – as "if you can't get the ball, get the man who's got it".

"Demagoguery" (augurar was first) has to be the market leader here. One could also work in a reference to "bread and circuses" or "panem et circenses" It's in the accusative case because "give'em" is understood as preceding). Though this is not about trashing the oppo.

Shakespeare probably has some good terms for flattering the mob in "Julius Caesar" and "Coriolanus", I suggest you riffle the pages.

I agree that "polemic" is misplaced. It does carry an overtone of being "over the top", though, and the root ("war") reminds me of the "Philippic", or oration calling for national resistance to an outside threat.

Might I also suggest "calumniation" and "scapegoating"? Then you have "black propaganda" against your opponents. When this was done against the Jews in the Middle Ages, we call it "the Blood Libel".

| improve this answer | |

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.