Rough 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.

            The first element that will be investigated is scapegoating.  Scapegoating as defined in Roberts Miller’s paper is “denial through projection”.  Essentially scapegoating is conflict spread by focusing 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 scapegoats the media 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 entirely at blame for all “deranged genuine monsters” that walk amongst us in society performing such cruel acts like the one observed in Newtown.  This argument is valid in the way that yes media plays a huge role, 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 they just want someone to take all the heat from 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 blast 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.

            One noted fallacy that is clearly seen in LaPierre’s speech is the fallacy commonly known as stacking the deck. In this practice, the speaker presents evidence that favors and suits ones own claim and simply ignore facts and evidence that do not support it. According to Patricia Roberts Miller this is a violation of the fifth rule of discourse, “inoculators must accurately represent the unexpressed premises of themselves and the others”. It is seen in LaPierre’s speech that this is common though he may not intentionally doing so. LaPierre talks in his speech only about his side of the issue, and fails to really address anything other than what he thinks supports himself and his own beliefs as Executive Vice President of the NRA. It is mentioned that the NRA is not to blame really at all for this crisis. As he reflects about what he stated for a prior tragedy that occurred in 2007, “when I said that we should put armed security in every school the media called me crazy”. LaPierre continues on to mention that the “political class” is taken over by “fear and hatred”, yet fails to address what they have actually done thus far. LaPierre continually bashes on the opposition without giving full reason as to why. There are little to no facts that can prove the opposition has done anything about the situation. This is a major flaw in LaPierre’s piece. As Patricia Roberts Miller described the fifth rules essence she stated that, “they must fairly represent their own arguments as well as the oppositions arguments, while they take responsibility for their premises”. Despite LaPierre’s efforts to give a flawless, sound speech to the public following yet another shooting tragedy, it is apparent that he could not deliver on this specific fallacy.

            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.