2nd Draft

              Demagoguery is defined as, “a political leader in a democratic system that appeals to the emotions, fears, prejudices, and ignorance of the classes of society in order to gain power and promote political motives”.  Often this strategy is advocated and utilized by populist’s governments, one of the most popular being Adolf Hitler, yet Demagoguery can be found across the political spectrum.  Underlying elements of the practice of Demagoguery include polarization, oversimplification, scapegoating, demonizing, double standards, denial, ultra-nationalism, authoritarianism, anti-intellectualism, motivism, and stereotypes.  Patricia Roberts Miller is a rhetoric-writing professor at the University of California, Berkeley, a very prestigious and a well-educated woman.  She wrote, "Democracy, Demagoguery, and Critical Rhetoric" a well-known article that puts demagoguery discourse and fallacies into different lights.  Roberts Miller focuses on the idea of Demagoguery throughout her article, and outlines individual elements.  Using Roberts Millers demagoguery discourse elements as laid out by her article, we compare it with NRA executive Vice President's Wayne LaPierre's speech to the public just shortly after the Sandy Hook shooting in Newtown, Connecticut to see how some of these discourse elements are embedded in his work.  It is clear that this is article is a very emotional piece due to the massacre that occurred just days before, and LaPierre is speaking to notify his audience of parents and the general American public about what can and should be done to

prevent further incidents such as Sandy Hook.  LaPierre's central claim lies in the question, "If guns are good to protect the president, or a bank...  Why is it so bad to have guns to protect our loved ones [our children] as well?"  In this paper, I will take Patricia Roberts Miller’s paper and use it as a lens to examine how demagoguery can be embedded into texts, specifically in LaPierre's speech given just after the Sandy Hook tragedy.

            Wayne LaPierre, Vice President of the NRA, delivered his speech on the Newtown Tragedy on December 12, 2012 just after the death of 26 victims.  In LaPierre’s speech his main claim and central points were that, “we must speak…for the safety of our nation’s children.  How do we protect our children right now, starting today, on a way that we know works?” LaPierre brings in many additional claims to support this central one including pointing to how society is inevitably “populated by an unknown number of genuine monsters” and installing fear regarding this by stating “does anyone really believe that the next Adam Lanza isn’t planning his attack on a school he’s already identified at this very moment?”  He points to the media and the “dirty truth” that “the shocking headlines you’ll [the media] print tomorrow morning: ‘More guns’ are the NRA’s answer to everything.  One other claim that really stood out was the idea that guns are ‘good’ to protect our President, our banks, our soldiers, yet suddenly the meaning changes when it is argued that protection of our children in schools is called for.  LaPierre mostly uses factual evidence to back up his claims as well as emotional appeals that build a fear in the audience as well as the determination to act quickly.  LaPierre is very strategic in his word choice, or diction, as well.  He finds ways to make the words he say provoke the readers to feel a particular way about the situation.  This is an interesting, persuasive and very successful way to get his main points across.

            The first element that will be investigated is scapegoating.  Scapegoating as defined in Roberts Miller’s paper is “denial through projection”.  Essentially scapegoating is redirecting hatred or anger towards a specific individual or community.  While the scapegoat bears the blame, the scapegoaters feel a sense of righteousness and increased unity, whether the problem is legitimate or not or whether the actual targeted group is innocent or partly responsible (Roberts Miller).  Ultimately what Roberts Miller is trying to portray, is that scapegoating is a real issue because it promotes prejudice, stereotyping, and it manipulates people’s minds into thinking the only solution is the entire removal of the group (as seen with Hitler and the Jewish people).  Using this definition, we can critique LaPierre’s speech on the Newton Tragedy.  LaPierre states that the national media is to blame for tragedies such as Sandy Hook.  The national media “rewards them [killers] with wall to wall attention and a sense of identity that they crave-while also provoking others to leave their mark”.  He directly uses the media as a scapegoat by calling them a “callous, corrupt, and corrupting shadow industry” that not only “portray life as a joke and murder as a way of life” but also promote “an ever-more toxic mix of reckless behavior and criminal cruelty”.  LaPierre is suggesting here that media is to blame for the “deranged genuine monsters” that walk amongst us in society performing such cruel acts like the one observed in Newtown.  This argument is valid because it is true that the media has such an influence on society yet it is not the only aspect in this situation.  There is how guns are distributed, how they are controlled, the NRA, the government and so much more that could have influence in murders, assassinations, school shootings, and domestic burglary.  By demonizing the national media so hard and using them to blame, LaPierre and the entire NRA organization are simply finding someone else to blame beside themselves.  This is the definition of scapegoating, and the

audience will follow what LaPierre preaches because many people want someone to take the heat for the Sandy Hook shooting.  The second element of demagoguery that will be investigated is polarization.  As put forth by Roberts Miller, polarization is the idea that, “those who are not with us are against us”.  Essentially through polarization a divide is created amongst people, it completely splits a population into “us” and “them”.  Roberts Miller elaborates that this is an inappropriate strategy to use because it leads to yet another demagoguery flaw, in-group versus out-group thinking.  This “intensifies” and “divides” the world to contribute to “stereotyping and racism” just as scapegoating does.  Through this explanation, LaPierre’s speech was analyzed for possible use of polarization.  LaPierre makes claims that divide political leaders from the general American public.  He points out, “politicians pass laws for Gun-Free School Zones…bragging about them”, they “advertise” and inform potential killers that the “safest” places are those that have minimum security so that they can perform maximum damage.  Politicians don’t seem to care about “the most beloved, innocent and vulnerable members of American family”.  LaPierre urges that leaving “utterly defenseless” children “must change now”.  He continues to create a bigger divide when stating, “I call on Congress to act immediately” yet assumes they will not due to “consumption of fear and hatred”.  How can the American Public trust its political leaders if LaPierre has them on target for majority of his paper?  How would anything become solved if this mindset between “us” and “them” were further solidified into the audience’s head?  Although it can be observed what LaPierre is trying to get across, ultimately his strategy is flawed.  It would not be possible for a change to even occur if the people of this nation could not trust the leaders of this nation to speak for them and make the change.  Through the installation of this idea of division between “us”, the American public and American families, and “them”, the political leaders of our country, LaPierre can begin a whole new polarized identity situation which further takes the audience away from the real issue that should be being discussed.

            In reading through both of these pieces I have been presented with a plethora of

information. Patricia Roberts Miller discussed what demagoguery is exactly, and how a speaker can portray different forms of demagoguery discourse throughout their speeches. Roberts Miller also presented points regarding fallacies in everyday, or public speaking as well. In teaching both of these elements to her audience, it can be better understood the power of persuasion. By taking all that was learned throughout the course of Roberts Miller’s paper, being able to put it into real terms in LaPierre’s paper proved beneficiary because suddenly things that weren’t apparent before, became obvious. In terms of one of my past teachers, the obvious did not become obvious until it was completely obvious. These ideas of demagoguery and fallacies are important, better yet essential for analyzing and comprehending any given speaker that is presented to an audience. In conclusion, the importance goes as far as creating a better understanding of speaker’s motives, and implications so that a reader/audience member can create a valid unbiased opinion of any given situation.