I cannot imagine a circumstance in which he would get my vote. (Well, maybe I can -- if for instance he were running against Ted Cruz.) But there are things about the man himself that I greatly admire.
"Reform" is a word we have lost and conservatives have taken over. Reform has become a code word for decreasing Social Security and Medicare benefits, for commodifying, marketizing, and privatizing public education, de-funding public higher education and insuring that no rich child is left behind.
If you want to learn from the world's great orators and become a more compelling, memorable writer and speaker, Joe Romm's "Language Intelligence: Lessons on Persuasion From Jesus, Shakesphere, Lincoln, and Lady Gaga" is the place to start.
In college I double majored in Media Studies and Rhetoric. When the word "rhetoric" is mentioned, somebody inevitably says, "Oh, so you majored in bullshit."
I reject the premise that rational argument on gay rights has outlived its usefulness. Watching the rapid shift in public support lately -- a recent poll suggests that 58% of Americans favor marriage equality -- it's easy to forget that plenty aren't there yet.
Most writers, including myself, present a preferred reality to their readers. It is only natural for a writer to selectively choose or cherry pick outcomes in order to portray a certain image.
Perhaps the most obvious -- and most troubling -- example of contradiction in our universe is the constant tension between creation and destruction.
The way we talk about rape in the media often illustrates the crime as a violent crime that occurs in dark alleys (which it is) but this neglects the idea it can happen at a party, or a date, or at a friend's house. Our words affect how people perceive issues.
In recent years, a host of new logical systems have emerged which allow us to do things Aristotle's system cannot.
Proving that an argument is invalid (ideally by showing that it ends in a logical contradiction) is one of the most effective ways to destroy an opponent's case.
I actually like negative ads. I know this might seem counterintuitive, given that negative ads suffer from so many shortcomings critical thinking-wise. But negative ads at least present an argument.
No one in his or her right mind would spend over a billion to win an election unless the value of victory was much higher than that, which in the case of winning the presidency includes influence over trillions in spending (not to mention the other extraordinary powers and perks of office).
Far from being some form of esoteric knowledge, critical thinking turns out to be one of the more easy-to-learn and pragmatic skills available to all. Or at least all those willing to put in the reasonable amount of work needed to achieve success.
Why would members of a political party repeatedly antagonize potential voters? One reason: in their hearts they really do not believe that members of these groups are, or have any right to be, included as active participants in the political conversation of this country.
Occasionally, candidates for electoral office seem even less aware than the rest of the populace about what "democracy" means or ought to mean. Once in a while -- not often enough -- they pay a price at the polls for their obtuseness. This election was one such time.
While Turner benefited from both the storytelling and singing to help shape his oratory, it was primarily the oratorical style of black preaching that gave his rhetoric its power.
In order to understand the substance of the prepared responses we are likely to hear tonight, you need to keep in mind the true audience the candidates are appealing to, which includes their own base and undecided voters (especially in swing states), as well as the media.
Before deciding that a campaign based on accusations of dishonesty must work, it might be worth checking your own biases at the door, at least long enough to ensure they are not leading you, your cause and your candidate over another cliff.
The pundits have declared Mitt Romney the victor. The only remaining question is: was his victory overwhelming, or did Romney only win because Obama didn't?
I may have been rather critical of President Obama's rather uninspiring (for him) acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention, but was rather more impressed by his performance on the David Letterman Show.
The constant and increasing use of Nazi and Holocaust imagery and associations that have been occurring in what is passing for political discourse in the USA has to stop.
Aside from the undeniable merit of his views, consider the actual language used. Serious. Intelligent. Thought-provoking. Wouldn't it be something if a sizable number of our politicians would actually talk like that today? Imagine how different the national debate might be.
Sure, you lost the debate. Life is bleak. The soundtrack wails with mournful violins. I have one word for you: rematch.
After more than a decade of deceptive rhetoric, followed by brief periods of self-serving silence, public discontent with the TSA is about to boil over.
Excerpted with permission from Words Like Loaded Pistols: Rhetoric from Aristotle to Obama by Sam Leith (Basic Books, $26.99). Available from Basic Bo...
