Revised RWS 200 Paper

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 encourages killers to plot and scheme, that by putting a “gun-free zone” sign this enables killers to have a vulnerable target, and finally his main claim is that gun enforcement should be instituted in schools, handled by certified people. Through the use of ethos and pathos he tries to persuade his audience 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 victim’s parents of how they are going to “ protect [their] children right now” reveals how he tries tries to make them realize how their anger towards guns is misleading. With the use of Roberts 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 Roberts Miller’s eyes she defines 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 the 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. 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 is with him by questioning them, 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 guys.” 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 have 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 audience’s morals and ethics, he allowed himself to install the only solution to the problem; however in the process he creates 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.