Robert Miller Reflection Paper

Jose Arroyo

Professor Werry

RWS 200 M & W 3:30-4:45

2 March 2015

Robert Miller’s “Democracy, Demagoguery, and Critical Rhetoric” Reflection Paper

            According to Robert Miller, he defines “demagoguery” as “polarizing propaganda that motivates members of an in-group to hate and to hate and scapegoat some outgroup(s) largely by promising certainty, stability, and.. “an escape from freedom.” His other definition of scapegoating is “deny[ing] responsibility for a situation by projecting that responsibility onto some outgroup. His definition of polarization is “those who are not with us are against us” also that “membership in the outgroup is defined simply by not being in the ingroup.”  He defines outgroup and in group thinking by how “polarization is relian[t] on ingroup and outgroup thinking.” He states how the group’s common views on the world help bring demagogues to power. The “Simple Solution’s” is how the “major function is to demonstrate loyalty to the threatened group.” That is for the commoners in the threatened group to protect their attacked group. Victimization is defined by Miller as passing on prior judgment or abuse onto another group, which further pins social groups against one another.

            Miller believes that an argument based solely on “scapegoating” and “polarization” etc. leads to an unfixable division between the “ingroup” and “outgroup.” The division begins by creating a sense of “us” and “them” as well as if they are not “with us they are against us.” The inability to be open-minded creates the hatred from the inner group and enables them to assert the blame on the outer group for prior prejudices they have encountered. Then they are unified under a demagogue who utilizes this hatred to his/her advantage to manipulate his followers by undermining them to follow their policies through their loyalty. But also the use of these words creates an “infection,” that needs “medicinal” practices to help cure the disease that was helped spread by the promise of “certainty” by the demagogue.

            One fallacy Miller believes that is a violation to the “standards of public discourse” is the very first one she describes. She states that, “ Parties should not prevent each other from advancing standing points or casting doubt on standpoints… try to prevent disagreement from happening at all.” She thinks this violates “public discourse” because it restricts the opposing sides to speak on behalf of their thoughts as well as the protective side trying to resolve the issue with only their bias without the bias of the opposing side. The rejection of opposing ideas leads to the division I mentioned earlier that is used by demagogues.

            One example of this first fallacy Miller talks about is present in LaPierre’s piece. Throughout his piece he specifically states only one possible solution to the problem of mass shootings. His proposal of the “National School Shield Response Program,” illustrates how he is quick to propose a solution without allowing further argumentation or the chance for disagreement. By imposing this only solution onto his audience he elicits himself as a demagogue that is trying to create a division between of “either you are with me or you are against me.” The proposal is persuasive but has holes due to the fact he is trying to eliminate any prior or current ideology of any person and only present his piece as the only viable source.

            One characteristic in LaPierre’s piece that conforms to a demagogic discourse is the use of scapegoating. The criticism the NRA is taking enables LaPierre to use this type of discourse. His “innergroup” (gun users) place the blame onto the media and the usage of violent video games to alter the mindsets of many outraged parents and citizens. The NRA is trying to due the “curative process” and disassociates themselves from the possible reasons for mass shootings by passing the blame onto objects like “Kindergarten Killers” and “the press” as the real problems. But by proposing a solution for the problem his argument is flawed because it reveals how he might of felt a sense of the blame but his audience does not pick up on this because the emotional connection this extract from his speech distracts them from this slip up.