Redefining Rhetoric

If you ask Google to define the term “rhetoric,” two very different, very interesting definitions arise. The first meaning discusses rhetoric as the art of effective or persuasive speaking or writing. Right. This one makes sense. This is what rhetoric should be. This is the idea that the founders of such persuasive speaking wanted – rhetoric as an innovative way to convince the masses.  

The second though takes a starkly different approach, defining rhetoric as language designed to have a persuasive or impressive effect on its audience, but often regarded as lacking in sincerity or meaningful content. The last part strikes me the most…“lacking in sincerity or meaningful content,” as if being rhetorical is essentially the same thing as being dishonest.

That, to me, is what is wrong with speeches, and for that matter, all forms of debate, today.

Last night in Jacksonville, Florida, Republicans Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney debated over illegal immigration. In the debate Gingrich discussed a political ad that suggested an anti-immigrant label for Romney. To this Romney said, “I’m not anti-immigrant. My father was born in Mexico. My wife’s father was born in Wales. They came to this country. The idea that I’m anti-immigrant is repulsive. It’s simply the kind of over-the-top rhetoric that has characterized American politics for too long.”

I find it almost comical that Romney dislikes the way that American politics are being defined by rhetoric, today, when in reality American politics and other such conglomerates are what have redefined rhetoric in the first place.

Why is it that rhetoric today is becoming synonymous with a lack of sincerity or over-the-top tendencies? Those are not the principles in which rhetoric was based on. We, as a society, should move away from this and towards the effective art that is rhetoric. We must stop convincing ourselves that rhetoric means ridiculousness.

We must redefine the term.