In America all of its inhabitants have certain rights protected by the government under the United States Constitution. One of those rights states that people have the right to keep and bear arms. Recent tragic event that have happened in the United States have brought up the question and many arguments on whether guns should be eliminated or if they should continue to be sold. Patricia Roberts-Miller is the author of “Characteristics of Demagoguery” and “Democracy, Demagoguery, and Critical Rhetoric”. In her texts she takes a looks at what aspects a public debate must have so that it is not only good but that also allows for democratic decision making while also taking a look at certain forms of persuasion that are flawed, manipulative, one sided along with many other details that can make an argument weak. Wayne LaPierre, the National Rifle Association Vice President, gave a speech a week after the Sandy Hook incident in Newton, Connecticut. He gave this speech to reach out to anyone across the United States that has children and cares deeply for their security. In his speech LaPierre argues that the only way we can prevent tragedies similar to those is to train and post people with guns at schools to protect the children. He sees that the only way to protect children from a bad person with a gun is to have a lot of other good people with guns in the same vicinity. Throughout this text I will take a look at LaPierre’s speech while using Roberts-Miller’s text as a lens in order to see how and to what extent certain elements of demagogic discourse I can identify in his speech.
In Roberts-Miller’s text she gives many examples of the types of demagogic discourse that many people use in speeches, just like Wayne LaPierre did, and in their writing. LaPierre uses many if not all of the types of demagogic discourse that Roberts-Miller mentions in her article. A very prominent element of demagogic discourse that LaPierre uses is that of polarization. Roberts-Miller gives a definition of polarization when she states, “Demagogues polarize a complicated (and often frightening) situation by presenting only two options: their policy, and some obviously stupid, impractical, or shameful one” (Roberts-Miller, 462). Some examples of polarization in LaPierre’s text are when he states, “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Would you rather have your 911 call bring a good guy with a gun from a mile away … or a minute away?” (LaPierre) and “If we truly cherish our kids more than our money or our celebrities, we must give them the greatest level of protection possible and the security that is only available with a properly trained— armed —good guy” (LaPierre). In this quote he insinuates that our country cares more about protecting our money [in banks] and our celebrities than we do our children but believes that having guns around them in schools will protect them. In LaPierre’s speech his main focus is the children of this country and the amount of safety provided for them at schools. Therefore he uses polarization to provide his listeners with just two options; we as a whole nation either position armed “good” people at every school in order to prevent a incident like that of Sandy Hook’s from happening again or we allow for the children to die because they did not have security. LaPierre uses polarization in his speech because at moment of panic and distress people are more willing and open to options that can help “fix” a certain problem. By using polarization in this context is very persuasive because parents obviously do not want their young children to die in a tragic way, they want them to be safe and grow up.
Another element of demagogic discourse that LaPierre uses in his speech in order to persuade his audience to want to have “good” people with guns at their children’s schools is that of scapegoating. Roberts-Miller gives scapegoating a definition when she writes, “Individuals (or communities) can deny responsibility for a situation by projecting that responsibility onto some outgroup. This is an attractive way of seeing a situation both when the causes are complicated (and there is no clear villain) as well as when the community does not want to hold responsible the individual or group who caused the situation…” (464). At the time that LaPierre did his speech it had only been a week since twenty six students and staff were fatally shot using a rifle at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. Being the Vice President of the National Rifle Association there is many reasons why LaPierre would not want the blame of this incident to fall back on them so therefore he turns to scapegoating to put the blame on others. An example of this is when he begins to blame the media for having some form of influence on people to commit these sort of atrocities. He says that they [the media] promote the “filthiest form of pornography” and that they bring a “toxic mix of criminal cruelty” into homes causing people to go mad. LaPierre goes on to say that the media are “silent enablers, if not complicit co-conspirtators” who “demonize lawful gun owners” and make the world believe fallacies about them. Here LaPierre is trying to make people who take full advantage of the second amendment as victims to this and making the media seem as the true culprit. He also blames politicians when talking about measures that this country should take to protect the children he states, “…politicians have no business — and no authority — denying us the right, the ability, or the moral imperative to protect ourselves and our loved ones from harm” (LaPierre). This argument would work if a politician had actually denied citizens the right to protect their families but he is very unclear on who has actually done that. Overall the use of scapegoating seems like good way for LaPierre to make his audience believe him but if his audience really looked into statements like the ones he made in his speech they could possibly debunk them.
No comments:
Post a Comment