Why I Love Rhetoric

Reading the recent posts of my friends, I find myself in a romantic mood. Though I find little pleasure in politics, I find myself on the cusp of ecstasy as I read, hear, and generally experience the impassioned debates between ideological foes. If I may be poetic for a brief moment, arguments between people are the breeding grounds of creative language. The passions of the opponents may appear hateful, but they become amorous for their munitions of words as the carefully crafted bullet points storm the gates of opposing minds and seduce the ethereal forms of counter points. When one reads the previous titles: "Why I Love Political Partisanship" and "Why I Hate Political Partisanship," one sees the fruit of such an erotic interview, allusion. In these debates, Rhetoric, the core of argumentative language, finds harbor and sows its seed amongst the ready population of ideological concepts, siring the sling-stones and arrows of argument.


Before exploring the fertile ports and landings of debate, one must first become acquainted with the hero of this romance, Rhetoric. As is the case with nigh every romantic hero, Rhetoric has been branded by some as a villain. Readers may remember cries from the mouths of pundits for the elimination of rhetoric and the implementation of action. These beings describe Rhetoric as a superfluous player in the playhouse of debate, wasting energy and time on argument instead of action. This is an understandable complaint since, like all beauty, Rhetoric isn't a primary character, but enables the primary characters to act with greater influence. However, the elimination of Rhetoric is akin to the elimination of Mercutio for without such a persuasive supporting character Romeo would sit among the rocks pining for Rosaline and opposing ideas would never mingle. Armed with the powerful pistols Ethos and Logos, the romantic rapier Mythos, and the mighty pen Pathos, Rhetoric is the animator of debate, the instigator of resolution, and the artist of argument.

The battlefields, antechambers, and boudoirs that host this hero's conquests are beyond number and span such diverse climes as government, tradition, and love. No day passes without the unconscious employment of Rhetoric's valiant arm. Yet, for an infatuated follower such as I, few days cause such stimulation as those of an election. The cornerstone of democracy is choice, the bedfellow of choice is persuasion, and the alias of persuasion is Rhetoric. For this reason, voters are constantly propositioned by Rhetoric in straightforward and subtle forms, and while neither can boast to own my whole heart, they both offer delectable reasons for their continual praise.

Rhetoric's most obvious influence is found in strategic uses of language. In the before mentioned titles of my dear friends' posts, one sees a purposeful parallel between the titles, resulting in an allusion to the original piece and allowing the counterargument to communicate its position and relation to the former post. Both titles' use of strong words, "love" and "hate," also communicates the degree of passion in favor of or against political partisanship. Without reading any more than the title and the format of the arguments, Rhetoric is already at work in the minds of readers. Yet, this example is hardly the cause of my romanticising, though it serves the purpose of introduction.

In the Oregon Voter's Pamphlet, the Progressive Party candidate for Treasurer, Walter F. Brown, lists a 1864 quote about the aggregation of money power in the hands of a few by Abraham Lincoln in the endorsements section of his candidate description. Upon reading this, I couldn't help but chortle, not out of resentment, but out of appreciation of Rhetoric's hand. While I sincerely doubt any voter will conclude Mr. Brown was personally endorsed by our long deceased president, the suggestion of such an endorsement is a Rhetorical coup upon the cheeks of every opposing candidate who did not construct a similarly bold play. Listing the quote at all suggests the candidate's alignment with its content, but Lincoln, as a president angelicised by most Americans, contains little powder for a backfire, unlike more controversial characters like Eisenhower and Kennedy. Again, one doesn't have to read the content of the quote to absorb the argument, Lincoln would like Mr. Brown. A raised glass to whomever proposed this use of language. It's manipulative, runs the precipice of honesty, and has no hard data for support, but such is the roguishness of Rhetoric. The employment of Rhetoric with such flourish demands that I must nod my head in assent of its beauty and remember why language is so enjoyable a partner.