Hwk for March 9th

Jose Arroyo

Professor Werry

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

4 March 2015

Project #2 1-4 Parts

            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, pathos, and redefinition 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, pathos, and redefinition.

            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.