As we approach another round of presidential debates, it's hard not to feel a sense of dread. The quality of these debates has steadily declined over the years, devolving into spectacles of infantilism and insolence. Reflecting on the state of modern political discourse, it becomes clear that we've lost touch with the art of reasoned, articulate debate—a skill that once defined our leaders.
In his book, "Farnsworth's Classical English Argument," Ward Farnsworth, a professor known for his expertise in rhetoric, metaphor, and style, offers a window into the past, showcasing the eloquence and intellectual rigor that characterized debates from the 18th to the early 20th centuries. Through hundreds of quotations from American and British statesmen, Farnsworth illustrates how skilled debaters used irony, humility, legitimate ad hominem arguments, and a variety of rhetorical techniques to present their cases compellingly.
One particularly striking example comes from an 1893 debate in the U.S. House of Representatives. When pressed for a simple yes or no answer, Congressman Leonidas Livingston cleverly retorted, "You cannot frame a question and then frame my answer." This response underscores the importance of nuance and thoughtfulness in debate—a far cry from today's expectation for quick, soundbite-ready answers.
Farnsworth's exploration of historical debates also highlights the use of emotion and foresight. He discusses how debaters have appealed to their audience's desire to be on the "right side of history," a tactic employed by both supporters and opponents of the 1938 Munich Agreement. While one side was ultimately right, both arguments were persuasive at the time, demonstrating the power of well-crafted emotional appeals.
In contrast, today's political debates are often marred by name-calling, slander, and superficial arguments. This degradation not only diminishes the quality of our political discourse but also undermines the very purpose of debate: to enlighten, persuade, and foster a deeper understanding of complex issues.
A Fresh Perspective: Reimagining Modern Debates
As we reflect on the past, we should consider how we can revive the art of debate in contemporary settings. Imagine debates where candidates are evaluated not just on their policies, but on their ability to articulate complex ideas, engage with their opponents respectfully, and appeal to the public's reason and emotions without resorting to base tactics.
Questions for Students:
How can we incorporate the rhetorical techniques of past statesmen into modern political debates to improve their quality and substance?
What role should emotional appeals play in debates, and how can debaters balance these with logical and factual arguments to persuade their audience effectively?
By contemplating these questions, we can begin to envision a future where political debates are once again arenas for thoughtful and meaningful discourse, elevating both the participants and the public.
(Disclaimer: This Article was written as a review piece on the Wall Street Journal's recent Article, views expressed are our own)
Written by Tatsam Lamba, Founder
Comentarios