Is rhetoric good or a bad? In his newest op-ed, Justin Collings— academic vice president of Brigham Young University and Wheatley Affiliated Scholar— argues that it's a noble tool. America just isn't using it.
"For decades now, rhetoric has been given a bad name," Collings writes. "'Rhetoric' is leveled as a term of abuse, denoting something tinseled and showy, insubstantial or downright deceptive. But rhetoric has a noble tradition and a lofty aim. Aristotle defined it as discovering “the available means of persuasion” in any given case. Much of today’s discourse, by contrast, does not aim to persuade. It vilifies and denounces, flatters and incites — but it doesn’t persuade."
Collings points to Abraham Lincoln as the ultimate example of rhetoric done correctly. The "great national teacher of persuasion" used reason, friendship, and example to influence those around him in genuine and profound ways. Collings explains, "He [Lincoln] was championing real friendship and gentle persuasion as the only path toward “convincing (another’s) judgment” — the very opposite of manipulation. Lincoln acknowledged but never manipulated the passions of his hearers. He labored instead to convince their reason. And that was possible only through friendship and persuasion."
Contrast this attitude about engaging with differences to our political landscape today. "Too many see differences of opinion on deeply felt matters as cause for denunciation and avoidance, not for engagement and persuasion," Collings laments. He then points to a potential solution: "One of today’s wisest civic thinkers, Yuval Levin, has suggested that being a moderate does not mean holding middle-of-the-road positions. It means treating with moderation those you disagree with, regarding them as reasonable people worth trying to persuade, not as moral monsters to be demonized and dismissed."