Jose
Arroyo
Professor
Werry
RWS
200 M & W 3:30-4:45
4
March 2015
LaPierre Analysis using Miller’s Piece as
a Lens
The ability to unite people under
the sense of “certainty” has been displayed throughout history. The term we use
today to describe how groups of people are influenced by a single condescending
authoritarian to polarize towards another group of people is called demagoguery.
The issue of demagoguery is discussed in Patricia Robert Miller’s 2005 article,
“Democracy, Demagoguery, and Critical Rhetoric.
In her piece she refers to famous demagogues such as Adolf Hitler to
reveal how they try to create an in and out group and provide one single
solution to the in groups problem. She also states the fallacies they have on
their arguments that the common people do not seem to catch onto due to the
fact that during those time periods the sense of an answer was being worth
listened to. The topic of demagoguery is highlighted in the NRA’S Wayne
LaPierre’s 2012 speech concerning the Newtown Tragedy. In his speech he defends
the NRA against the angered and dismal parents who are pushing for an increase
in gun control. Throughout his speech he provides claims but none as important
as these three: that the media is encourages killers to plot and scheme, that by
putting a “gun free zone” sign this enables killers to have a target, and
finally his main claim is that guns should be instituted in schools and handled
by certified people. Through the use of ethos and pathos he tries to persuade
his audience in trying to open their minds to how useful guns can really be.
In LaPierre’s speech, he directs the
negative emotions from angered and outraged parents of the victims of Newtown
to try to make them realize how guns can prevent future incidents. He starts
off his speech on conceding and acknowledging the difficult time the parents
are experiencing and begins to build his claims of how his organization can
help join the cause of defending against future gun incidents by using their
own policy. His attack on the ethics of the victims parents her tries to make
them realize how their anger towards guns is misleading. With the use of Robert
Miller’s piece we will use her text as a lens on analyzing the strengths and
weakness of Lapierre’s piece y using the definition of Millers’ “good public
discourse” but also on how he builds his argument through ethos and pathos.
In Lapierre’s speech he gains form
of a demagogue by the use of several aspects of demagoguery. His prime use of
polarization enables him to reinforce his central claim of how guns should be
allowed into schools. In Robert Miller’s eyes she define polarization by
“presenting only two options: their policy, and some obviously stupid,
impractical, or shameful one.” She believes that through the use of polarization
it “contributes to stereotyping and racism.” She states this because the use of
polarization creates a divide between the in group and out group and that line
creates prejudice and hatred toward one another. Even though she disagrees with
this assessment LaPierre uses this form of demagoguery to argue how armed
professionals at a school are the solution to the problem. He states in his
speech how “ the only thing that
stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun… bring a good guy with a
gun from a mile away… or a minute away.” His proposed ideology fits
Miller’s definition because LaPierre proclaims how ethically just and right it
truly is and because all parents want their children to be safe. His counter
argument to his audience of how dangerously things can be on how far a “good
person” is away from an incident emphasizes the “impractical” side. But through
his eyes he believes that there are only two choices and that is why he
presents them to his audience. He attacks his audiences ethics because his
organization is facing heavy criticism and realizes how he can only make the
use of guns morally right for the sake of the children safety. He continues to
ensure that his audience his with him by questioning his audience and making
them realize that his solution is the only real way for progress. When he
states, “if we truly cherish our kids more than our money or our celebrities,
we must give them the greatest level of protection possible… properly trained- armed- and good guy.” This
statement attacks his audience’s priorities and realigns their viewpoints on
what truly is most important. The prior
quote reaffirms Millers definition because even though LaPierre isn’t trying to
make another solution, but rather he was still trying to establish how his
audiences importance of protection for materialistic things is such at a high
standard; that those same standards should be applied to their children who
they care for a whole lot more. The ability to readjust their viewpoint is
essential in rallying support for his solution. His proclaimed mater plan of
installing a “ National School Shield Emergency Response Program,” illustrates
what he wants to do for his audience but also provides this one; and only,
solution to these incidents. The ability to show his audience a plan to prevent
mass shootings may of gained popular support due to the recent shooting and
enabled him to unhook himself from being the poster boy of guns but rather a
solution maker. The program statement helped him gain credibility from his
audience but he did that by attacking their own throughout the process. By
attacking his audiences morals and ethics he allowed himself to install the
only solution to the problem but also created an in group and out group which
creates a major divide between his audience. The line creates a form of racism
which a problem that Miller warned against.
Another form of demagoguery LaPierre
utilizes is ingroup/outgroup as well as demonization. He is able to use
ingroup/outgroup thinking by previously using polarization and from there he is
able to separate his audience from who’s with him and who’s against him. This
is critical because his sppech will gear itself toward the emotions of the
ingroup to rally and support his cause (solution). According to Miller she
define outgroup/ingroup thinking and demonization as a “common way for people
to view the world: there are some people whom we think of as like us in some
important regard, and others who are very different from us in some equally
important regard.” She is trying to reveal how demagogues try to make their
audiences see the world around them how they interpret the world. She believes
this is problematic because this enables people to see a population as a
“subhuman” and create a “high and low ground.” This dehumanization will create
affect society in a negative way, which is speculated by Miler. In LaPierre’s
speech he centrally creates an in-group by stating, “ Those who exploit the
tragedy for political gain, directing anger and noise at NRA while doing
nothing to solve the problem vs. the NRA… committed to real solutions.” This
assertion quickly reveals how the people inside the NRA are the in-group trying
to reach out to the victims parents who are the out-group. He is slowly carving out his members and
deciphering whom else he can possibly recruit and agree to his claims. The
ability to create one type of thinking creates a uniform, universal pedigree,
and association that brings together his in-group even tighter. His beginnings
of demonizing people who commit these atrocities starts off in line eight by
calling them “monsters, predators, and the mentally ill.” The demonizing
creates an inferior group, who are the people who commit mass shootings but
also people who seem not to believe in the prime solution. The ingroup consist
of the NRA and believers of the prime plan. The use of these dehumanizing words
can help the in group associate this jargon towards the people against them and
unite these toward the cause. Another way he uses demonization is by installing
fearful pathos by saying “They walk among us every day. And does anybody really
believe that the next Adam Lanza isn’t planning his attack on a school.” The
use of this intimidating and terrifying emotional language creates a higher
ground (in group) and puts these people at the bottom of the pyramid (out
group) and makes the audience leave the speech being suspicious and fearful
from strangers that are around them. The frightened emotion that his audience
most likely would have felt makes them side with the in group because they do
not want to be considered belonging with the demonizing group. The unwanted
switch of his audience accomplished his goal of trying to make them see the
world but also the people around themselves as how he does. This is problematic
to Miller because this huge divide now creates a further strain on society as a
whole but also subjugates people and dehumanizes them as well.
Despite LaPierre’s attempt to lure
his audience into seeing the world the way he sees it, there was a false
dilemma inside his speech. The fallacy he deployed in his speech is defined as
a false dilemma because he only presented two choices to his audience. He
realized if he could show his side as a brilliant and credible option he most
likely would have been supported. But as we look more depth into his quote, “ bad guy with a gun… or a good guy with a gun,” we begin to
exploit the weakness of his argument. The quote exemplifies how LaPierre is
unwilling to ascertain any other outside arguments and believes that these are
the only two valid and assured options to propose to society; but in reality it
is not. He also does not allow any room “in between” both sides which makes his
audience chose one side or the other, which most likely led to hatred between
the two sides. But LaPierre does not realize that his argument is flawed
because he simply does not have examples to back up this claim. Matter in fact
a “good guy” can easily snap at any
moment and kill innocent children just like a “bad guy” with a gun. The inability to take in account another viewpoint
undermines a reasoned debate, which is encouraged by Miller. LaPierre violates
her belief and he disregarded her first rule. She states in her first rule that
by trying to “discredits the interlocutor- are fallacious because they try to
prevent the disagreement from happening at all, thereby preluding its being
resolved.” Her quote illuminates how LaPierre tries to provide his only two
choices with the resolution of the “Shield Program,” to prevent any further
disagreement or anger. Despite his efforts his attempt is flawed and was most
likely not accepted by most of his audience because other parents may of not
wanted their children around guns because a trained and certified individual
can still commit the same type of crime due to the fact that everyone is human.
His audience probably did not easily notice his fallacy but once they truly see
what he is trying to do they begin to make counterarguments toward his cause.
The incident of Newtown was a global
phenomenon that required a closer look to analyze the exact way LaPierre tried
to ensure that the NRA was not responsible for the horrible occurrence. The
ability to decipher exactly how LaPierre tried to figure out a way to reveal
his claims and arguments through is speech was fascinating because I was able
to see the fallacies that he used. But most importantly, I saw exactly how a
speaker tries to appeal to his audiences ethics and emotions and as well as
LaPierre trying to hide his non supported claims with fallacies by appealing to
these rhetorical devices.
No comments:
Post a Comment