Reason D’etre

We have six primary debates behind us and more to come. With all the bloviating, making an informed decision about which candidate you should support becomes even more difficult. We believe it helps to examine what people in the public sphere say (or refuse to say). Let’s first define terms.

Public Sphere [puhb-lik sfeer] “A place where listeners and readers access, discuss and critique the ideas of others, especially those urging a course of action.”

Gadfly [gad-fli] “A person who consistently provokes others with questions and criticism.”

Rhetoric [Rhet-er-ik] “an ability, in each particular case, to discover the available means of persuasion.”  Aristotle, The Rhetoric, Bk.1, Ch.2

In Aristotle’s treatment, those available means include credibility, emotion and logic. Those of us who study rhetoric cringe each time we witness its use in the pejorative sense. “Mere rhetoric, only rhetoric or empty rhetoric,” are some of the charges others who can’t or won’t think critically use to damn their opponents’ positions. Most often, these expressions simply verbalize disagreement rather than articulate the weaknesses in their opponents’ logic. When we focus on disagreement rather than an analysis of the argument, muddled thinking is sure to follow. Where muddled thinking exists, sophistry flourishes. Rhetoric serves as a bulwark against oppression and as the mortal enemy of demagoguery.  It is the very lifeblood of a vibrant democracy. In any given election, a host of factors determine who will eventually become the nominee. For example, how much money a candidate has available, how much weight the candidate’s name carries and how well a candidate can “perform,” are just a few of the factors decision-makers consider, but his site isn’t about general discussions concerning campaign finance reform, political dynasties or personal charisma unless they manifest themselves in specific arguments. This site exists solely to analyze discourse in the public sphere from a rhetorical perspective.

Independent and Proud of It

We examine political persuasion, but don’t advocate a particular political agenda. We do advocate sound political argument. Poor reasoning from any perspective receives equal scrutiny. To paraphrase Harry S. Truman, We don’t give them Hell. We just tell the truth about them and they think it’s Hell.