Find Out Why Socialists HATE This Man
 |
| Wayne LaPierre in all of his glory. |
LaPierre took on an irritated tone throughout his speech, adding emphasis for his disgust in his opponents and their beliefs. This is evident through quotes such as, "As usual, the opportunists wasted not one second to exploit tragedy for political gain," and "In the rush of calls for more government, they have revealed their true selves. These elites don't care..." These quotes and specific phrases like, "as usual" and saying that elites "don't care," demonstrate that he is fed up with the alleged actions of the opposition. The combination of this tone and LaPierre's attacks on the other side, aim to outrage his conservative audience and rally support for conservative ideals and the NRA.
One of LaPierre's most considerable strengths, however, is his ability to effectively appeal to his audience. This audience, of course, being conservatives. He does this by disavowing actions and beliefs of the opposition that conservatives collectively despise. The first of these beliefs is the idea of stronger government control. This is found in quotes such as, "They don't care if their laws work or not - they just want to get more laws to get more control over the people..." and "...they care about control - more of it. Their goal is to eliminate the Second Amendment and our firearm freedom so they can eradicate all individual freedoms." Having a limited government is one of the most basic fundamentals of conservatism, LaPierre taking a stand against it is an effective tactic in rallying support from this audience.
The second ideology that LaPierre attacked was socialism. The idea of socialism is used repeatedly in this speech. Again, LaPierre uses this to gain support by ranting against something his audience collectively dislikes. In the speech, LaPierre said, "...the wave of these new European-Style socialists have seized control of the Democratic Party." This speech is filled with similar statements that attack the [failed] socialist ideology, and those who believe in it, saying that they, "don't believe in capitalism, don't believe in the Constitution, don't believe in our freedom and don't believe in America as we know it." Although this tactic was effective in the beginning, he drew this point out for way too long, making it lose its effectiveness over time.
One of the tremendous shortcomings of this speech is LaPierre's ethos. Wayne LaPierre is by no means a prominent public figure, meaning not many people are likely to know who he is. However, he does have some automatic ethos from his position in the NRA, but this can go either way for him. Anyone who supports the NRA would respect him by knowing his position, while those who oppose it would scorn him for it. He does add to this by stating that he has led the NRA for three decades, but again, this can go either way. Sadly, he does not seem to make up for the ones who don't support the NRA, as he attacks their side so frequently throughout the speech.
LaPierre's use of logos was better than his ethos, but not by much. The speech stated many points that were meant to be taken as fact, that he failed to include any proper sources for. One of the most apparent examples of this is in the first video he used, he used the video to support one of his claims, but the video fails to give any sources either, forcing many listeners to disregard them as facts. However, his use of logos wasn't all bad throughout the speech. He did use a great deal co common sense to defend his points, stating how people on the "No-Fly" list shouldn't be able to buy firearms, and how we protect banks, government buildings, and celebrities more than our children, just to name a few. Although LaPierre's use of common sense did help make many of his points more concrete, they alone were not enough to save his speech.
Like many other political speeches, the most heavily relied on rhetorical device is pathos. We also see another appearance from our good friend, the moral high ground political strategy, seen in quotes such as this one, "The shameful politicizing of tragedy is a classic strategy right out of the playbook of a poisonous movement." This point was made multiple times to make LaPierre seem more sympathetic to those who were lost in the shooting in Parkland Florida. There were also many short phrases tossed around in the speech that made LaPierre seem more charismatic than the opposing side, the most used one being, "they don't care." This phrase was used quite often to list off all of the alleged things the other side simply doesn't care about, including individual rights, the constitution, and the safety of American children. This, of course, was meant to imply that LaPierre and the NRA do care about all of these things.
This speech suffers from the same issue all too many political speeches do, an imbalance of ethos, logos, and pathos. LaPierre overly relied on pathos, barely used any logos (besides common sense), and did nothing to build his ethos for anyone who wasn't a conservative. Although this speech wasn't directed to non-conservatives, it could've been so much more effective in recruiting new members for the NRA and conservative movement if it had not attacked the opposition to such a great extent. This speech was almost only effective for conservatives, which is perhaps its greatest downfall.
I would give you a high band four under knowledge and understanding. Your comments on the rhetorical elements of logos, ethos, pathos were clearly touched on and given appropriate explanations, you didn't comment on the overall structure and style of the speech. Also, in order to reach a higher band, I would develop ideas such as tone further, like how the different rhetorical devices added to the tone. As for your structure, you definitely reached a low band two for me. It was highly coherent and organized, but each paragraph didn't feel connected enough to "flow naturally within your argument" to gain you a band 1. As for you analysis of language and effects, you have a middle band three. You correctly identified ethos, pathos, and logos, but more should have been commented on diction and the overall effect as a whole. I loved the title, and the Bernie sign picture made me laugh, so thanks for keeping it interesting while still staying to the prompt.
ReplyDeleteHi Anthony, I thought that you did a really good job on this. I would give you a band 4 for the knowledge/understanding and the analysis of language effects because you did talk a lot about logos, ethos, and pathos which was very good. Your organization I would probably put in Band 3 since you weren't talking about the speech line-by-line. However, the reason I put you in Band 4 for the other parts is because you didn't go in-depth about the tone and the diction of this speech. You said his tone was "irritated" but in my opinion, I don't think "irritated" matches the quote that you used. I think he sounds more bitter and resentful, especially since later on he called his opponents "liars" and used other personal attacks (like you mentioned.) You could have provided more quotes/a better quote to back up your irritated tone idea. Overall, I really liked how you talked about how his pathos was effective for his audience, but that if you actually analyze his speech, you would find that it isn't extremely effective without an equal balance of the logos, ethos, and pathos.
ReplyDeleteDear child of Wood this is Brenden speaking. Overall I would say you did a pretty good job at rhetorically analyzing this speech. I would probably either give you a band 4 mark 7 or a band 3 mark 8. I personally think your organization is done pretty well and it is true that you didn't go line to line addressing points which is a plus and everything about your essay seemed to move along fine so your organization proved to be a high band three or a low band two. I like that fact that you addressed LaPierre's uses of logos, ethos, and pathos, and how effective each were. However that being said I believe you still could have gone more in depth and talked about why you chose the irritated tone more. I believe you're language use was decent and appropriate. Overall it is difficult for me to determine whether this was a band 3 or band 4 to be honest. However that being said you're blogs are getting better and are heading in the right direction.
ReplyDeleteYou did good son. I thought it was helpful that you spent your first paragraph on backround of the speaker and the setting that the speach was given in. It is important to note why he gave his speach when he did and usefull to know that he gave it to people with a similar mindest as too his. That being said, it was good that you mentioned this in your analysis of his ethos. I think that you touched on his logos but you could have given more examples after your "The speech stated many points that were meant to be taken as fact, that he failed to include any proper sources for" statement. Overall, band 4.
ReplyDeleteI love your title, and that you state immediately who the audience was. I agree that his speech started out effective but as he drug out the trash talk it became less effective. However, when you say, " One of the most apparent examples of this is in the first video he used, he used the video to support one of his claims, but the video fails to give any sources either, forcing many listeners to disregard them as facts." You also fail to mention what he's discussing, therefore your point also has no credibility. That's like a police officer asking a witness for a description and they say, "Oh yeah it was that one guy who did the thing that one time." This would've been stronger if you had mentioned tone. I'd give this a band 4, because it is "line-by-line" but it did show understanding and engagement in the content.
ReplyDeleteHey buddy,
ReplyDeleteI would have to give you a band 4 because you understood and had knowledge about the topic. I liked how you mentioned his tone as it is important to mention. I would have to disagree with Nicole as you mentioned tone at the beginning of your blog. I liked how you talked about ethos, logos, and pathos in your blog. One thing I disagree with in the band 4 is the "Line-by-line" because I felt like your blog is not that, but the organization is the only thing I would have to say is a band 3. One thing you could have done which was left out was the structure and style of the speech. I think you had some good examples. Just a few changes and you could have gotten a higher band. Overall good job!!
dear mr. trump,
ReplyDeletei would give you a band 3, because you interacted with this speech really well. I think that you put more of your knowledge of the topic into your blog, which made it stronger than others I have read. You addressed the tone almost right away, which was good. I would have to disagree with Teagan, because I liked the way your blog flowed and it seemed natural. You address ethos, logos, and pathos, which was very important to do. I think that your blog lacked with comments about the diction in the speech. You could have gone more in depth and talked about how it effected the speech as a whole. Overall, very good job. I LOVE LOVE LOVE the title of this too!!
-hamburger
Really, really liked. Easy band 3, throughout the whole thing you were completely on topic and brought up really good points with thorough explanations. Bringing up things like the videos as well as bringing a perspective into it. The fact that it was aimed at conservatives and was super effective against them specifically but then falls flat outside of that audience. And along with that the whole thing flowed really well, and I know that's pretty vague, but it was put together didn't seem to stutter-step between thoughts. Again, really well done.
ReplyDelete