RM and Lap Rough Draft

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 what the works of demagoguery are, it’s negative and positive affects, and how it is used to persuade an audience. Her analysis on demagoguery can be used to find fallacies amongst other writer’s works, for example, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association, Wayne Lapierre’s speech on 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 stratagies: 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 on it. Within this paper, I will analyze Lapierre’s text with respect to Roberts-Miller’s article on demagoguery. 

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). This definition includes the demagogic strategies scapegoating, grouping, and polarization in which are used throughout Lapierres excerpt. Each stratagy is used by an authority figure to influence their audience on an issue by favoring their opinion and downgrading their opponent or opposition. Within Lapierre’s text, he uses demagoguery to influence his audience that our government needs have 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 is focusing on one solution and emphasizing that it 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 it would cost the public in tax dollars. Lapierre’s use of  scapegoating, focuses primarily on President Barrack Obama. He say’s, “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. People like to blame others for mistakes or problems rather than taking responsibility or trying to help find a solution. Lapierre’s attempt to persuade his audience that the reasons for school shootings are solely the Presidents fault 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 apart of the ingroup, and those that oppose the idea are part of the outgroup. This question gives a negative appeal to those of whom oppose it, therefore, very few people will tempt to disagree with it. According to Roberts-Miller, using these demagogic stratagies has a strong affect 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 fallacies 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 pathos and the audience has a hard time disagreeing with the authority abusing demagoguery. 

            Our country’s government has been issuing gun laws in which are intended to decrease or even put an end to gun murders throughout the United States. Although these laws are difficult to impose without taking away an individuals rights to bear arms, the government is doing what it can to cope with the constitution and human rights. On the other hand, Lapierre feels that more can be done. He negatively accuses the governments actions towards gun shootings by saying; “Worse, they 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). Now how does he know that “armed security” is proven to work? He just said 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? Plus, having guards surrounding a school at all times gives off a prison like feel. We do not want our students to feel like they are practically in a prison. As you can see, the false dilemma Lapierre is using is unsuccessfully persuading his audience that our country needs armed guards in every school.