Bringing Philosophy to Life
Two Kinds of Rhetoric
BRINGING PHILOSOPHY TO LIFE
#29: Two Kinds of Rhetoric
The current election campaigns for the U.S. presidency, the senate, and the house of representatives have reached the point where most of us are burned out, unable to read or hear what the candidates and their supporters and opponents are saying. Perhaps even worse are the words of the pundits who pretend to interpret and evaluate the political process as it unfolds. As a contrast to much of this political rhetoric, my goal in this series of blogs that began last January on Martin Luther King, Jr. Day has been to look beyond the daily news and select some fundamental philosophical principles that might help us understand what is causing the shadows projected on the wall of Plato’s Cave. To do that, I have used rhetoric, but (as I pointed out at the end of #22: Democracy and Rhetoric) it is important to distinguish two different kinds of rhetoric. Plato’s character Socrates put it this way: “Rhetoric, then, is of two kinds, one which is mere flattery and shameful rubbish; and the other which is noble, aiming at the education and improvement of the souls of the citizens” (Plato, Gorgias, Agora Publications, Kindle Edition, Greek pages 502-503).
As we struggle through these tedious final days of this bizarre election year, I will try to clarify what I think is the nature of this “noble rhetoric” and how it might help as we cast our ballots in whatever election we are participating—the U.S. is not alone but about half of the world’s population is voting in major elections this year.
First, and perhaps most important, is to point out that “noble rhetoric,” unlike what Socrates calls “flattery and shameful rubbish,” is not designed to manipulate and control other people through persuasion alone. On the contrary, it is intended to help every individual think through the concepts, decisions, and actions that nurture and foster our soul, which has two aspects. One aspect is that which is unique to each of us, what makes us who we are and distinguishes us from other people and from the rest of nature. The other aspect is the qualities and values we share with others that bind us together as citizens and as part of the cosmos. This second kind of rhetoric is best exemplified in Plato’s dialogues and is called “dialectic.” Its purpose is to help us think through the ideas, decisions, and actions that nurture both personal and shared aspects of soul.
I find this distinction helpful as I try to evaluate which candidates for public office would benefit the human community rather than simply promoting their own power, fame, and wealth. Given the fire hose that currently sprays propaganda throughout the media, it is tempting to conclude that all rhetoric is “mere flattery and shameful rubbish.” We can find ample evidence for that claim in the political ads that come from all parties for which they are paying hundreds of millions of dollars. No candidate leaves the debate stage without being embarrassed by the people who check the facts. Political ads are generally designed to persuade, not to educate. The pundits have their own axe to grind. Editorials and opinions that pervade the media are biased and are shaped by economic, political, religious, and cultural traditions that do little more than foster the prejudice the members of their audience bring to the experience.
If we are looking for examples of media that display such bias, Fox News first comes to mind, but it is easy to find blatant examples representing the entire political spectrum from the far right to the progressive left. Indeed, it is just this glut of perspectives that is currently tempting us to turn off and tune out all so-called news sources and simply listen to some good music.
I will share just one example from a member of the progressive left wing of U.S. media who has left the mainstream and seeks refuge on Substack, You Tube, and other alternative sites. Chris Hedges at first seemed to exemplify the kind of noble rhetoric that Socrates favors. Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia that shows his mainstream credentials from earlier in his career:
Hedges worked as a freelance war correspondent in Central America for The Christian Science Monitor, NPR, and Dallas Morning News. Hedges reported for The New York Times from 1990 to 2005, and served as the Times Middle East Bureau Chief and Balkan Bureau Chief during the wars in the former Yugoslavia. In 2001, Hedges contributed to The New York Times staff entry that received the 2002 Pulitzer Prize for Explanatory Reporting for the paper's coverage of global terrorism.
Hedges’ employment at the New York Times came to an end after “The New York Times criticized Hedges' statements and issued him a formal reprimand for "public remarks that could undermine public trust in the paper's impartiality.” Hedges cited this reprimand as a motivation for resigning from the Times in 2005.[43] This account seems to support the idea that Hedges is not a partisan but an independent voice in the service of “noble rhetoric,” a courageous advocate who “tells truth to power.” Alas, Hedges’ recent writing leads me to doubt that heroic vision. His purpose is unclear, but he currently seems to be aiding those who prefer the power tactics of fascism rather than the genuine power of fundamental principles. Rather than Harris, Hedges’ rhetoric supports Cornell West, who will attract votes away from Harris, as will Jill Stein, who continues to remain in the presidential race. This stance recalls Ralph Nader’s campaign prior to the 2000 presidential election when George W. Bush lost the popular vote but won the presidency.
In a recent Substack post, Hedges links Harris to corporate capitalism and ignores her appeal to fundamental values that apply to all.
The choice in the elections is between corporate and oligarchic power. Corporate power needs stability and a technocratic government. Oligarchic power thrives on chaos and, as Steve Bannon says, the “deconstruction of the administrative state.” Neither are democratic. They have each bought up the political class, the academy and the press. Both are forms of exploitation that impoverish and disempower the public. Both funnel money upwards into the hands of the billionaire class. Both dismantle regulations, destroy labor unions, gut government services in the name of austerity, privatize every aspect of American society, from utilities to schools, perpetuate permanent wars, including the genocide in Gaza, and neuter a media that should, if it was not controlled by corporations and the rich, investigate their pillage and corruption. Both forms of capitalism disembowel the country, but they do it with different tools and have different goals.
Kamala Harris, anointed by the richest Democratic Party donors without receiving a single primary vote, is the face of corporate power. Donald Trump is the buffoonish mascot for the oligarchs. This is the split within the ruling class. It is a civil war within capitalism played out on the political stage. The public is little more than a prop in an election where neither party will advance their interests or protect their rights (Chris Hedges, Substack, October 18, 2024).
I apologize for adding yet one more dose of the kind of rhetoric that has so many of us yearning for an end to this dismal ordeal that pretends to promote democracy but instead seems likely to sink it. Rather than seeking the kind of unity and harmony that are needed for the common good, Hedges exacerbates the fragmentation of the body politic. His analysis is simplistic at best, adding little to our understanding of how we might preserve democracy at a time it is under serious threat.
My primary hope is that the negative examples of divisive rhetoric we encounter daily are not our only alternative and that we can participate in the current political process and find people who might lead us on a better path to democracy through “noble rhetoric.” I suggest that Kamala Harris is one such person. Rather than exploring the historic opportunity created for Vice president Harris by President Biden’s unexpected withdrawal from the 2024 presidential race, Hedges considers her to be a clone of Biden and just another soldier in the fight for corporate capitalism in a civil war within the ruling class. This approach simply repeats the supposed antipathy between progressives and neo-liberals that was openly debated prior to and during the 2016 presidential election that resulted in Trump winning against Hilary Clinton. I think Hedges may be ignoring a remarkable development that few people expected but which opens the way by which we might slip through the horns of our current political dilemma and create a future in which the rhetoric that spawns capitalism, socialism, fascism, communism, and a host of other terms ending in “ism” is replaced by a better understanding of what really matters in human life. The present generation of human beings must be considered from the perspective of future generations that will benefit or suffer from our decisions and actions. Political and economic values, as I have argued in previous episodes, are important, but other values such as justice, goodness, beauty, love, and compassion must also be considered. Those values employ different forms of rhetoric that must be employed along with political rhetoric. The more I listen to and watch Vice President Harris the more convinced I become that she is dedicated to that kind of rhetoric.
I do not think she is simply “preaching to the choir” but is willing and able to broaden her audience and include diverse perspectives. Let’s return to the very end of the quote I selected from Plato’s Gorgias when I treated the topic of rhetoric and democracy. Socrates concludes: “This second kind of rhetoric strives to say what is best, whether welcome or unwelcome to the audience (Plato, Gorgias, Agora Publications, Kindle Edition, Greek page 503). Recently, Kamala Harris agreed to appear on Fox News in an interview with Bret Baier with an audience that she knew would not welcome her rhetoric. Why would she do such a thing? I do not pretend to read her mind (or that of her campaign staff), but whatever her motive, the outcome offers a good example of “noble rhetoric.” Just at Plato frequently placed his characters in direct opposition to others who held contradictory ideas, Harris knew that the questions she would have to answer would be based on talking points from the Trump campaign. I believe Plato’s purpose in using that format was to allow his readers and listeners to hear the strongest version of the contradictory positions so that they could analyze them, evaluate them, and come to their own conclusion about the truth of the matter. Whatever her intention, when she was interviewed by Bret Baier, Vice President Harris was in a context in which both sides of the question could be presented. Let’s assume that her goal was “to say what is best,” even though the political context of the current campaign places constraints that severely limit her freedom to create and follow her own agenda.
On the other hand, what stands out is her appeal to what she calls “fundamental principles.” At an event on October 16, 2024, in Bucks County, Pennsylvania, she put it this way:
Our campaign is not a fight against something—it is a fight for something. It’s a fight for the fundamental principles upon which we were founded [my emphasis]. It is a fight for a new generation of leadership that is optimistic about what we can achieve together—Republicans, Democrats and independents who want to move past the politics of division and blame and get things done on behalf of the American people (Erica L. Green, The New York Times, October 16, 2024).
Harris is clearly referring to the fundamental principles on which the U.S. Constitution was founded. From the beginning of this series, I have tried to present, explain, and justify some of the fundamental philosophical principles on which those political principles are grounded. These include, but are not limited to, justice, truth, and freedom (which means autonomy for both individuals and for republics). It is especially important to emphasize that these principles are universal, not limited to specific nations, races, religions, genders, or species. Not only human beings but other animals, plants, trees, and even nature as a whole all have intrinsic value. Such lofty ideals do not fit the rhetoric of political campaigns, but they are the essential groundwork on which our political decisions and actions are founded.
Fundamental principles are, by nature, goals, not actions or behavior that we can directly perceive. They are not facts to be checked but guiding principles that can be inferred from what we do and what we say. They are essential to noble rhetoric and are antithetical to the flattery and shameful rubbish of which we have all become weary in recent months. Rather than using logical fallacies to deceive and persuade people for the sole purpose of gaining power for a specific person, party, or interest group, noble rhetoric seeks the common good. Reasoning, as presented so eloquently in Plato’s dialogues, is an excellent guide to achieving that common goal.