Cover not available
Article published In:
Journal of Argumentation in Context
Vol. 9:3 (2020) ► pp.342–367

“The people want it”

Analysis and evaluation of the populist argument in the context of deliberation

| Leiden University
This article reflects on the reasonableness of populist arguments supporting a prescriptive standpoint in the context of deliberation (which I call ‘deliberative’ populist arguments). A literature survey shows a divide between authors who claim that populist arguments are always fallacious and those who think that in some situations they can be reasonable, including the context of political deliberation. It is then argued that deliberative populist arguments are based on a linking premise that appeals to majority opinion as a principle of democracy. This linking premise differs from the one underlying the traditional interpretation of a fallacious populist argument (argumentum ad populum) and appears at first sight to make the argument reasonable. However, I conclude that a deliberative populist argument is also unreasonable, because it acts merely as a trump card, creating a false impression about democracy and avoiding engagement in real debate and substantive reasons.
Keywords: appeal to popularity, popular opinion, argumentum ad populum , bandwagon, deliberative democracy, opinion polls, majority
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Studies of populist arguments
    • 2.1The standard approach
    • 2.2Walton’s ‘bolstered’ populist arguments
    • 2.3Populist arguments in the context of political deliberation
    • 2.4Johnson and Blair’s ambiguous position
  • 3.The linking premise of a populist argument
    • 3.1A criterial linking premise
    • 3.2A procedural linking premise
  • 4.Evaluating populist arguments in the context of deliberation
    • Evaluation of the propositional content
    • Evaluation of the justificatory power
    • Evaluation in light of the institutional point
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 17 December 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.17028.jan
References (46)
References
Anderson, C. 1979. The place of principles in policy analysis. The American Political Science Review, 73(3), 711–723. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Andone, C. 2015. Engagement et non-engagement dans les appels à la majorité par des hommes politiques. Argumentation et analyse du discours, 151, 13 pp. Retrieved from: [URL]
2016. Argumentative patterns in the political domain: The case of European parliamentary committees of inquiry. Argumentation, 301, 45–60. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Buruma, I. 4 September 2019. Britain’s enemy of the people? Project Syndicate. Retrieved from: [URL]
Cook, F. Lomax, Barabas, J., and Page, B. I. 2002. Invoking public opinion. Policy elites and social security. Public Opinion Quarterly, 661, 235–264. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Copi, I. M., and Cohen, C. 1990. Introduction to Logic, 8th ed. New York/London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Dedrick, D. 2019. Is an appeal to popularity a fallacy of popularity? Informal Logic, 39(2), 147–167. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Eemeren, F. H. 2010. Strategic manoeuvring in argumentative discourse. Extending the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Eemeren, F. H., Garssen, B., and Meuffels, B. 2009. Fallacies and judgments of reasonableness. Empirical research concerning the pragma-dialectical discussion rules. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Eemeren, F. H. and Grootendorst, R. 1992. Argumentation, communication and fallacies. A pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale, NJ etc.: Erlbaum Publishers.Google Scholar
van Eemeren, F. H., and Grootendorst, R. 2004. A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
van Eemeren, F. H., and Snoeck Henkemans, A. F. 2016. Argumentation: Analysis and evaluation (2nd rev. ed.) New York/London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellwanger, A. 2017. Reinventing doxa: public opinion polling as deliberative discourse. Argumentation and Advocacy, 53(3), 181–198. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fishkin, J. S. 2009. When the people speak: Deliberative democracy and public consultation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gallup, G. and Rae, S. F. 1968. The pulse of democracy. The public-opinion poll and how it works. New York: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
Godden, D. 2008. On common knowledge and ad populum: Acceptance as grounds for acceptability. Philosophy and Rhetoric, 41(2), 101–129. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Govier, T. 2010. A practical study of argument, 7th ed. (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth). Retrieved from: [URL]
de Gruyter, C. 31 August 2019. Democratische schade door referendum (Democratic damage through referendum). NRC Handelsblad, p. 10. Retrieved from: [URL]
Gutman, A. and Thompson, D. 2004. Why deliberative democracy? Princeton/Oxford: Princeton University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harrison, T. R. 1995. Are public opinion polls used illegitimately? 47% say yes. In S. Jackson (Ed.), Argumentation and Values: Proceedings of the Ninth SCA/AFA Conference on Argumentation. Annandale, VA: Speech Communication Association.Google Scholar
Holzinger, K., Reinhard, J., and Biesenbender, J. 2014. Do arguments matter? Argumentation and negotiation success at the 1997 Amsterdam Intergovernmental Conference. European Political Science Review, 6(2), 283–307. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hornikx, J. 2013. Een Bayesiaans perspectief op argumentkwaliteit. Het ad populum-argument onder de loep. [A Bayesian perspective to argument quality. The ad populum argument under scrutiny]. Tijdschrift voor Taalbeheersing, 35(2), 128–143. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Herman, T. & Oswald, S. (forthcoming). Everybody knows that there is something odd about ad populum arguments. In R. Boogaart, H. Jansen, & M. van Leeuwen (Eds.), The language of argumentation. Cham: Springer.
Jansen, H. 2019. De invloed van het standpunt op de beoordeling van ad populum-argumentatie [The role of the standpoint in the assessment of ad populum argumentation]. Tijdschrift voor Taalbeheersing, 411, 143–157. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jansen, H. and van Leeuwen, M.. 2021. The presentational dimension of Geert Wilders’s populist argumentative style. Journal of Argumentation in Context, 10(1). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johnson, R. H., and Blair, J. A. 2006. Logical Self-Defense. New York etc.: Idea Press.Google Scholar
Kahane, H. 1984, Logic and contemporary rhetoric: the uses of logic in everyday life (4th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
Kienpointner. 2003. Populistische Topik. Zu einigen rhetorischen Strategien Jörg Haiders. Rhetorik, 21(1), 119–140.Google Scholar
Minot, W. S. 1981. A rhetorical view of fallacies: Ad hominem and ad populum. Rhetoric Society Quarterly, 111, 222–235. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mudde, C., and Rovira Kaltwasser, C. 2017. Populism: A very short introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Müller, J. W. 2016. What is populism? Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nolt, J. E. 1984. Informal logic. Possible worlds and imagination. New York, etc.: McGraw-Hill Book Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oswald, S., and Hart, C. 2013. Trust based on bias: Cognitive constraints on source-related fallacies. In D. Mohammed and M. Lewínski (Eds.), Virtues of Argumentation. Proceedings of the 10th International Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA), 22–26 May 2013. Windsor, ON: OSSA, 13 pp.Google Scholar
Rawls, J. 1999. A theory of justice (Revised edition). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Reisigl, M. 2006. The dynamics of right-wing populist argumentation in Austria. In: F. H. van Eemeren, J. A. Blair, C. A. Willard and B. Garssen (Eds.), Proceedings of the Sixth Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (ISSA). Amsterdam: Rozenberg.Google Scholar
Shapiro, R. Y. 2011. Public opinion and American democracy. Public Opinion Quarterly, 75(5), 982–1017. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Skinner, G. 4 September, 2019. An election is on the cards. So what do the polls tell us? The Guardian. Retrieved from: [URL]
Taggart, P. 2000. Populism. Buckingham/Philadelphia: Open University Press.Google Scholar
Tindale, C. W. 2007. Fallacies and argument appraisal. Cambridge etc.: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Toulmin, S., Rieke, R. D., and Janik, A. 1984. An introduction to reasoning. Macmillan: University of California.Google Scholar
Walton, D. N. 1992. The place of emotion in argument. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
1999. Appeal to popular opinion. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
2006. Fundamentals of Critical Argumentation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Walton, D. N., Reed, C., and Macagno, F. 2008. Argumentation schemes. Cambridge etc.: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weale, A. 2018. The will of the people. A modern myth. Cambridge/Madford: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Yankelovich, D. 1991. Coming to public judgment. Making democracy work in a complex world. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

van Laar, Jan Albert
2023. Arguments from Popularity: Their Merits and Defects in Argumentative Discussion. Topoi 42:2 ► pp. 609 ff. DOI logo
Jansen, Henrike & Maarten van Leeuwen
2021. The presentational dimension of Geert Wilders’s populist argumentative style. Journal of Argumentation in Context 10:1 ► pp. 121 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.