 |
| Mike Pence, White House photo |
Conservative Republican Vice President
Michael Pence spoke at the Law Enforcement Roundtable in
Indiana yesterday and he more or less, quite hesitantly, endorsed modest
gun-control proposals. Why? Does anyone care? Why did he give the speech at
all? Why did the right-wing gun rights crowd not erupt in fury? Because
of credibility, that’s why.
The speaker’s credibility is what persuades people. Of the three ancient modes of persuasion, logic, emotional appeals, and credibility, credibility has always stood foremost. Credibility, however, is not simple. That’s because credibility is a matter of the audience’s perception. It’s not really whether the speaker really is trustworthy, but whether the audience thinks he or she is trustworthy. Different audiences will trust different speakers. Conservative Republicans find Pence credible. They trust him not only to tell the truth, but to share their views.
Look at it this way: when Barack Obama proposed background checks for gun owners, conservatives accused him of trying to confiscate America’s guns to disarm us and enslave us. National Rifle Association Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre protested Obama’s 2013 background check proposal in these words: “A background check. A check that will always be far from universal, will never make our schools or streets safer, and will only serve as universal registration of lawful gun owners — the real goal they’ve been pushing for decades.” LaPierre continued: “In the end, there are only two reasons for government to create that federal registry of gun owners — to tax them and to take them.”
Now, let’s look at what Pence said during his speech, without eliciting a breath of complaint from the gun-rights crowd:
“I’m pleased to report that our administration worked on a bipartisan basis in the wake of recent events to strengthen background checks. We made a historic investment in school safety. We directed the Department of Justice to ban bump stocks. And we also have made historic investments in state and local law enforcement.”
Strengthen background checks? Ban bump stocks? Those should be trigger points for gun-rights people. The National Rifle Association insists that they will not tolerate any expansion of background checks. Yet they are not complaining at all about what Pence said. So, what’s going on?
First, the National Rifle Association, which was once bipartisan, has transformed itself into a surrogate for Republican politicians. The NRA contributed to the campaigns of only four congressional Democrats in the 2016 election. No longer is the NRA primarily an advocate of hunting and self-defense. They are, instead, a partisan political force.
Second, Pence, as a Republican, can support background checks and not face the NRA’s ire, just because he’s a Republican: he’s one of their own. The gun-rights voters fear Democrats, no matter how much reassurance Democrats offer them. Elect a Democrat, and people start stockpiling guns for fear of confiscation. But gun rights people don’t fear Republicans. So, Pence can say the same things the Democrats say without inviting a backlash. That’s credibility’s power.
Third, people care less about what the Vice President says. President President Trump came out in favor of gun control and faced instant backlash. Donald Trump has power. People care what he says. The Vice President does not have power. One of the Vice President’s functions is to send up trial balloons. Pence can talk about background checks and Trump can wait to see what the response might be. If background checks never become a formal proposal, well, that’s okay, because nobody cares what the Vice President says.
The speaker’s credibility is what persuades people. Of the three ancient modes of persuasion, logic, emotional appeals, and credibility, credibility has always stood foremost. Credibility, however, is not simple. That’s because credibility is a matter of the audience’s perception. It’s not really whether the speaker really is trustworthy, but whether the audience thinks he or she is trustworthy. Different audiences will trust different speakers. Conservative Republicans find Pence credible. They trust him not only to tell the truth, but to share their views.
Look at it this way: when Barack Obama proposed background checks for gun owners, conservatives accused him of trying to confiscate America’s guns to disarm us and enslave us. National Rifle Association Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre protested Obama’s 2013 background check proposal in these words: “A background check. A check that will always be far from universal, will never make our schools or streets safer, and will only serve as universal registration of lawful gun owners — the real goal they’ve been pushing for decades.” LaPierre continued: “In the end, there are only two reasons for government to create that federal registry of gun owners — to tax them and to take them.”
Now, let’s look at what Pence said during his speech, without eliciting a breath of complaint from the gun-rights crowd:
“I’m pleased to report that our administration worked on a bipartisan basis in the wake of recent events to strengthen background checks. We made a historic investment in school safety. We directed the Department of Justice to ban bump stocks. And we also have made historic investments in state and local law enforcement.”
Strengthen background checks? Ban bump stocks? Those should be trigger points for gun-rights people. The National Rifle Association insists that they will not tolerate any expansion of background checks. Yet they are not complaining at all about what Pence said. So, what’s going on?
First, the National Rifle Association, which was once bipartisan, has transformed itself into a surrogate for Republican politicians. The NRA contributed to the campaigns of only four congressional Democrats in the 2016 election. No longer is the NRA primarily an advocate of hunting and self-defense. They are, instead, a partisan political force.
Second, Pence, as a Republican, can support background checks and not face the NRA’s ire, just because he’s a Republican: he’s one of their own. The gun-rights voters fear Democrats, no matter how much reassurance Democrats offer them. Elect a Democrat, and people start stockpiling guns for fear of confiscation. But gun rights people don’t fear Republicans. So, Pence can say the same things the Democrats say without inviting a backlash. That’s credibility’s power.
Third, people care less about what the Vice President says. President President Trump came out in favor of gun control and faced instant backlash. Donald Trump has power. People care what he says. The Vice President does not have power. One of the Vice President’s functions is to send up trial balloons. Pence can talk about background checks and Trump can wait to see what the response might be. If background checks never become a formal proposal, well, that’s okay, because nobody cares what the Vice President says.
My former professor Kenneth Andersen and his colleague Theodore Clevenger, Jr. wrote an important article, "A Summary of Experimental Research in Ethos." They found that credibility is the combination of the speaker’s expertise, trustworthiness, and dynamism. What we saw with Pence’s gun control speech is that people more often trust the speaker when the speaker belongs to their own group. Conservatives don’t trust Democrats. But Pence is one of their own. A Republican like Pence can say the same things that a Democrat might say, and yet Republicans will trust him. They don’t fear that he will confiscate their guns and lock them in FEMA concentration camps.
Is Pence reliable on any topic? Not in my opinion. PolitiFact.com rates only 22% of his statements as true or mostly true. That’s awful. But he belongs to the conservative crowd, and that is why they trust him. So, that’s why Pence gave the speech. That's why he didn’t create an uproar, and that’s why no one should particularly care what he said. Paradoxical, no?
P.S. If you're interested in Mike Pence, here's my post about a 2017 Mike Pence speech.
No comments:
Post a Comment