Rough draft (full)

Jackson Barackman

RWS 200

Christoffer Werry

March 11, 2015

Demagoguery is "polarizing propaganda that motivates members of an in group to hate and scapegoat some out group(s) largely by promising certainty, stability, and what Erich Fromm famously called 'an escape from freedom'"(Miller 462). Patricia Robert Miller, author of "Characteristics of Demagoguery", gives the reader the idea of "good public discourse" by illustrating how decision making and debating is affected by standards given to evaluate an argument. LaPierre, spokesman for the NRA, gave a speech in 2012 discussing the shooting of an elementary school in Connecticut. LaPierre's speech discusses how we need an immediate fix for the issue to prevent shooting such as this from happening ever again. LaPierre's target audience was the parents and staff affected by the tragic event, but he also forced it towards all schools who do not have a security force on campus to protect staff and students. In this paper I will use the demagoguery standards mentioned by Robert Miller to evaluate the effectiveness of LaPierre's speech.

    Robert Miller introduces the idea of scapegoating as a way to cause blame on others. Robert Miller defines scapegoating

as denial through projection. Tsesis has said,“A racist society may actually promote bigotry in order to unite ingroup members and distract them from real political and economic problems by sacrificing a historical scapegoat. Intragroup conflict is diffused by focusing anger on a common target.” Individuals (or communities) can deny responsibility for a situation by projecting that responsibility onto some outgroup. (Miller 464)

When La Pierre sees the blame of what happened to Sandy Hook Elementary is on the NRA, La Pierre scapegoats media and the government for the incident. La Pierre believes that with the violent media people are encouraged to take the actions such as what happened at Sandy Hook Elementary. He gives a list of several video games and movies that promote violence and the killing of children.  La Pierre explains

too many in our national media … their corporate owners … and their stockholders … act as silent enablers, if not complicit co-conspirators. Rather than face their own moral failings, the media demonize lawful gun owners, amplify their cries for more laws and fill the national debate with misinformation and dishonest thinking that only delay meaningful action and all but guarantee that the next atrocity is only a news cycle away. (LaPierre 4)

La Pierre believes that the acts at Sandy hook could have been avoided had it not been for the media and government. La Pierre scapegoats both the media and government to persuade the audience to his side of the argument and take control of the debate.

    Robert Miller explains that one form of demagoguery is having in groups and out groups. Robert defines in groups and out groups as “Our views of people like us (the ingroup) are nuanced and complicated, whereas we define the outgroup by one or two salient and generally negative features that we insist epitomize the entire group.” (Miller 463) By this statement Miller explains that the in group would be the group of people who agree with what you believe in and the outgroup is the opposing group. Miller goes on to say “there are some people whom we think of as “like us” in some important regard, and others who are very different from us in some equally important regard” (Miller 462), not discriminating either side, however showing that they are separate in important manors. In La Pierre’s article, La Pierre uses the media, government, and certain parts of society as the outgroup and ultimately scapegoats them for their disbelief in the shootings that occurred at the elementary school, Sandy Hook. La Pierre explains that the media is the “filthiest form of pornography” because of its constant violence. La Pierre also believes that the governments laws to control guns are not useful because they “refus[e] to create an active national database of the mentally ill[.]” (La Pierre 3) La Pierre believes that the NRA is a defender of the nation and gun rights. La Pierre believes the NRA is the ingroup and the out groups are media, government, and other opposing parties who blame the NRA for what happened at Sandy Hook Elementary.

    Motivism can be described as a piece of demagoguery that is the influence of others to cause situations such as the one at Sandy Hook Elementary. La Pierre speaks of the media that becomes a motivator for many of the shootings that happen today. He lists multiple violent video games, saying

Through vicious, violent video games with names like Bulletstorm, Grand Theft Auto, Mortal Kombat and Splatterhouse. And here’s one: it’s called Kindergarten Killers. It’s been online for 10 years. How come  my research department could find it and all of yours either couldn’t or didn’t want anyone to know you had found it? (La Pierre 3)

La Pierre essentially scapegoats video games and other media as the source of motivism for the shooting. Robert Miller describes motivism as the in groups source to argue, or reason to take action. La Pierre points out that maybe the shooting at Sandy Hook may not have happened had the motivators for the shooter had been accessible.

In Conclusion, Robert Miller shows us the techniques that were used in La Pierre’s speech and gives us a good definition of how demagoguery was used in La Pierre’s speech. La Pierre’s speech was meant to motivate the correct actions to be taken to control happening such as the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting. I have learned that demagoguery is highly negative but can be used in a positive way to motivate others. Demagoguery is a strong form of persuasion. I believe that La Pierre’s speech was to show the problem that was presented to many the day of the shooting. Robert Miller’s demagoguery rules help the listener, or audience, understand that La Pierre wants to be a problem solver in a strict way. To improve La Pierre’s speech, instead of scapegoating other medias, La Pierre should pay more attention to his audience and realize many may be offended by what he says. I do, however, agree with his argument that the NRA is not to blame for the actions of that day. Instead of a scapegoat he should offer a proposal to help everyone understand gun safety and protection of others.