The influence of the Roman Republic and Empire is visible everywhere in the contemporary United States government. Some even propose a “democratic legacy” that the United States has inherited from the Roman Republic, a legacy that dooms modern America to a similar “decline and fall.” These arguments reached their apex in journalism surrounding the 2016 presidential election. A comparison between American Presidents and Roman Emperors proves that these assertions are false, employing case studies in each society’s democracy, interactions with deliberative bodies, public image management, and demagoguery. The distinctness of Roman and American social and political culture in each of these areas suggests a fundamental incongruity between the political figures of the two cultures. Even apparent commonalities can be misleading, as there are significant structural or cultural discrepancies that prevent scholars from drawing conclusions about Presidents using the Roman Imperial example. The argument of this thesis is therefore historiographical in nature: The findings this thesis contains suggest that modern scholars should not read history, specifically Roman history, to predict or justify present political circumstances. The comparisons made between Emperors and Presidents instead serve to prove the distinctness of contemporary American political culture as well as ancient Roman political culture. Acknowledgement of the uniqueness of both of these societies allows scholars to better understand both Presidents and Emperors within their own context. This separation will also lead to more directed, better informed study in the field of Roman history and in the field of modern American governmental policy.

Ever since the dawn of democracy, its very existence has been threatened by people whose intention has been to exploit the system to gain all power for themselves. These antagonists are called demagogues. By 2018 accusations about demagoguery and demagogic rhetoric are directed at many world leaders, not least US President Donald Trump. But what does such an allegation really mean? The existing research on demagogic rhetoric lacks a distinct framework for what is included in the concept, which undermines the meaning of these statements. This essay aims at investigating which rhetorical topics characterize demagoguery and, by doing this, expand the theory of demagogic rhetoric. A new methodology consisting of six topics is introduced, and its analytical potential is tested by an analysis of Donald Trump. The result of the analysis both shows that the president’s rhetoric repeatedly reflects the six topics, and that the new methodology works well to analyse demagogic rhetoric. This essay shows how social and political circumstances, for example political instability, can favour demagogues, and furthermore, it shines a light on the crucial consequences that demagoguery potentially can have on democratic society. Finally, the essay highlights the importance of increased understanding of demagoguery to protect and strengthen the democratic society, and suggests that this understanding can increase partly through research on demagogic rhetoric.