Dane
Hollar
Christopher
Werry
RWS 200
March
18th, 2015
More Than One Solution
When it comes to demagoguery, we
typically think of people such as Hitler or Stalin. But what we do not notice
as easily is the practices of demagoguery on a much smaller scale. Patricia
Roberts-Miller, author of the article “Democracy, Demagoguery, and Critical
Rhetoric”, analyzes the use of demagoguery, its negative and positive effects,
and how it is used to persuade an audience. Roberts-Miller defines
demagoguery as “ . . . polarizing propaganda that motivates members of an
ingroup to hate and scapegoat some outgroup(s), largely by promising certainty,
stability, and what Erich Fromm famously called ‘an escape from freedom’”
(Roberts-Miller 66). There are many strategies revolved around demagoguery, and
each strategy can be used by an authority figure to influence their audience on
an issue by favoring their opinion and negatively representing their opponent
or opposition. Within her article on demagoguery, Roberts-Miller coins the
term, “standards of good public discourse”, which can be represented by author
John Bohman’s quote; “in which citizens and their representatives, going beyond
mere self-interest and limited points of view, reflect on the general interest or
on their common good” (Roberts-Miller 64). Her standards revolve around how
demagoguery is used to benefit the people in which a speaker is representing or
influencing. Her
analysis on demagoguery and “standards of good public discourse,” can be used
to analyze other writer’s works, for example, executive
vice president of the National Rifle Association, Wayne Lapierre’s
speech on the Newtown Tragedy. Within Lapierre’s article, he attempts to
persuade the public, and congress that our country needs armed guards in every
school in America to prevent more school shootings. In doing so, Lapierre uses
demagogic strategies: scapegoating, polarization, and grouping. His demagogic
appeal reaches out to those that it would affect the most, such as parents and
teachers, for support on the issue. Lapierre does not think rationally about
the issue and wants to act immediately. His ideals can be deceiving and
powerful if one does not take the opposition into consideration. Lapierre’s
deception also includes fallacies such as false dilemma. His use of false
dilemma forces the reader to make a choice between his plan of armed guards, in
which he emphasizes that it is the right choice, or to let the government
continue what they are doing, which he emphasizes is the wrong choice. It is important for people reading any paper
to analyze and rationalize the author’s ideas before making their own
conclusion. Within this paper, I will analyze Lapierre’s text with respect to
Roberts-Miller’s article on demagoguery. After, I will focus on a fallacy,
false dilemma and how it affects Lapierre’s argument. Lastly, I will conclude
how demagoguery and fallacies play a part in Lapierre’s article and how it is
important to understand what authorities figures are saying when trying to
persuade an audience.
Within Lapierre’s text, he uses demagoguery to influence his
audience that our government needs to put armed guards in every school in
America. He uses polarization to influence parents that this is the only
logical solution to stop school shootings by saying, “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 62). This statement focuses and
emphasizes that armed guards is the only solution, which polarizes people’s
opinions in favor of his solution. Lapierre is able to swing (polarize) his
audience’s thoughts in one direction without referencing the other half of the
argument, such as how much armed guards would cost the public in tax dollars.
Lapierre’s use of scapegoating focuses primarily on President Barrack Obama. He
states, “But do know this President zeroed out school emergency planning grants
in last year’s budget, and scrapped ‘Secure Our School’s’ policing grants in
next year’s budget” (Lapierre 61). Here,
Lapierre focuses the topic on a single person that he says is responsible for
school shootings. Generally, people like to blame others for mistakes or
problems rather than taking responsibility. Lapierre’s attempt to persuade his
audience of the President’s wrong doing is unsuccessful for there are multiple
factors that have to be taken into consideration. Lastly, Lapierre’s article
consists of demagoguery through the use of grouping. He insists that his
solution of having armed guards in all schools is the only way to ensure
students safety. “And does anybody really believe that the next Adam Lanza
isn’t planning his attack on a school he’s already identified at this very moment?”
(Lapierre 59). By doing so, his followers are a part of the ingroup, and those
that oppose the idea are a part of the outgroup. This question gives a negative
appeal to those of whom oppose it, therefore, very few people will attempt to
disagree with having armed guards in every school. In this instance,
Roberts-Miller’s, “standards of good public discourse” is not followed. In fact
Lapierre tends to stray away from the standards by not taking the “common good”
of the citizen’s into consideration. He is uniting their “general interest” and
separating them into two separate groups where one is right and the other is
wrong. According to Roberts-Miller, using these demagogic strategies has a
strong effect on the audience, but could be for the wrong reasons. People are entitled
to their own opinions, but when those opinions are swayed by demagogic
authorities due to polarizing, scapegoating, or grouping, it defeats the
purpose of democracy. Those of whom choose to use these strategies do not have
a strong enough rebuttal to explain why their reasoning is better than the
opposition. Therefore demagogic strategies have a strong emphasis on people’s
opinion through emotion and the audience has difficulty disagreeing with the
authority abusing demagoguery.
Amongst
demagogic nature, Lapierre’s use of fallacies comes into play throughout his
argument. Our country’s government has been issuing gun laws in which are
intended to decrease and put an end to gun murders throughout the United
States. Although these laws are difficult to impose without taking away an
individual’s rights to bear arms, the government is attempting to enforce them
with respect to the constitution and human rights. On the other hand, Lapierre
feels that more can be done. He negatively accuses the government’s actions
towards gun shootings by saying; “Worse, they [the United States government]
perpetuate the dangerous notion that one more gun ban – or one more law imposed
on peaceful, lawful people – will protect us where 20,000 others have failed”
(Lapierre 60). Here, Lapierre is jumping to conclusions. We do not know if all
20,000 have not worked, for we do not know if they have prevented, as Lapeirre
said, the next Adam Lanza from planning to attack another school (Lapierre 59).
Lapierre uses the fallacy, false dilemma, to persuade his audience that armed
guards in every school is the only solution to protecting our students.
Lapierre emphasizes this by saying, “ . . . we need to have every single school
in America immediately deploy a protection program proven to work – and by that
I mean armed security” (Lapierre 61). How does he know that “armed security” is
proven to work? He stated earlier that the laws the government have approved
for gun shootings have yet to work, so who is to say this is not just another
law that is not going to work? In addition, guards surrounding a school at all
times creates a prison like atmosphere. If our students feel this way, it could
give them the wrong idea about what it means to receive an education. As you
can see, the false dilemma Lapierre is using is unsuccessfully persuading his
audience that our country needs armed guards in every school.
Lapierre cannot be compared to
Hitler or Stalin in their ability to persuade millions of people into following
their paths of destruction, but his writings do relate to their demagogic
ideals. Roberts-Miller’s demagogic strategies can be found within Lapierre’s
article and are very effective if not analyzed. Lapierre’s use of polarization,
scapegoating, and grouping, influences his readers to agree with him, even
though his plan of putting armed guards in every school in America is
irrational. Roberts-Miller describes a term “simple solutions,” as the answer
to complex situations. These “simple solutions” may be right or wrong, but the
people listening or reading do not care as long as the problem is fixed. This
relates to Lapierre for he is presenting his audience with his “simple
solution” and his audience is persuaded by his demagogic strategies and
confidence in his plan. Therefore they would rather have the problem fixed than
have their students or children be victims of another gun shooting. By over
simplifying this issue, Lapierre has used the fallacy, false dilemma. He has
given his readers two options, armed guards, or let the government keep
initiating new laws to prevent gun shootings at schools. By creating two
options and making the opposition seem like a bad idea, Lapierre’s audience is
influenced to choose Lapierre’s stance, which goes against Roberts-Miller’s
“standards of good public discourse”. Readers should know that there are
multiple solutions to this problem, such as strengthening gun laws. Why must
the solution be to bring more guns into the situation rather than taking more
away? Most would think fewer guns would mean less shootings, but Lapierre feels
differently. Although he is misleading, Lapierre’s illogical ideals can be seen
through his use of fallacies and Roberts-Miller’s demagogic strategies.
Works Cited
Laierre, Wayne. “Transcript
of NRA’s Lapierre’s speech on Newtown Tragedy” RWS 200 Course Reader. Ed. Christopher Werry. San Diego, Ca: San
Diego State University, 2015. 59-62. Print
Roberts-Miller,
Partricia. “Democracy, Demagoguery, and Critical Rhetoric” RWS 200 Course Reader. Ed. Christopher Werry. San Diego, Ca: San
Diego State University, 2015. 64-75. Print
