Site Update

I'm planning to take this site in a slightly different direction over the summer, so it may be down now and then over the next few weeks and when it re-emerges, it will likely be different than what you've seen up until now.

Feel free to check in periodically to see what's going on, and stay tuned!

Negative Ads – Mapping Arguments

Having looked at one of Governor Romney’s negative ads in our last entry, in the interest of fairness it’s time to review a negative ad produced by the Obama campaign targeting his presumed Republican rival. 

In this instance, we’re looking at this TV ad which is was designed to portray Romney, who served as the CEO of the large private equity firm Bain Capital, as being responsible for the closing of the century-old CST steel mill with the result of numerous lost jobs and ruined lives. 

Others have discussed the effectiveness of the ad, and we could certainly analyze it in terms of its use of pathos to lead viewers towards a specific conclusion (specifically, the ads use of moving emotional testimony from people affected by the plant shut down and powerful images of a ruined landscape where a thriving enterprise once stood – illustrating both the theme of devastation and hinting at what the American landscape might look like if the Republican candidate is elected).

But today we are continuing our look at argumentation and, as mentioned previously, negative ads – for all their manipulativeness – must be premised on some kind of logical argument (as opposed to positive ads that can rely just on warm and fuzzy pathos).  And if we can figure out what argument a negative ad is making, we can use that understanding to determine our next steps towards drawing our own informed conclusions.

This time, we are going to make use of the Toulin method for diagramming arguments that I mentioned in a previous post.  It’s worth reading that original piece over to understand how Toulmin breaks arguments down into Grounds (evidence) leading to a Claim (a conclusion) with a Warrant providing the support that links Grounds to Claims.  (We’re going to keep this example simple by skipping over Backing for now.)

The Bain ad actually starts with a simple argument that can be presented in Toulin fashion as:

By breaking the argument into these linked components, it becomes easier to determine which elements can be supported or challenged.  For example, the Grounds cannot be challenged on the basis of fact since Bain was indeed the owner of the firm during its slide towards bankruptcy. 

On one level, Mitt Romney’s role in the firm (the Warrant) also looks like a statement of fact, but this is deceptive.  Like many complex real-world situations, not all truths resemble “All Cats are Animals” with regard to judging truth or falsehood.  For example, one could look at the timing of decisions related to CST and map them to the timing of Governor Romney’s changing roles within the organization (which take into account his leaves of absence when running the Salt Lake City Olympics in 2002 or running for the Presidency in 2008).  One could also challenge whether Romney’s role in a large organization such as Bain was directly responsible for the mill being shut down.  In both cases, you would be challenging whether the Warrant is sufficient to support the Claim (that Romney is responsible for the shutdown of the mill) regardless of the accuracy of the Grounds.

It’s at this point that the Warrant ends up turning into a Claim to another argument which expands our Toulin diagram to look like this:

Again, one can challenge the Claim and/or Warrant of this new argument (digging further into the reasoning behind certain decisions, for example) or questioning the responsibility of the CEO for the consequences – expected or unexpected – of every decision.  But putting aside details of how such challenges might be made, you can begin to see how mapping the logical argument hidden within the original seemingly emotion-driven negative ad gives us something substantial to discuss when either supporting or challenging its fundamental call to action.

And what is that call to action?  Well if we expand our Toulin map to include the critical hidden argument that sits on top of the entire persuasive effort, it would look like this:

While it took a little work to tease out the argument underlying the Obama ad, now that we’ve done so we have a number of ways to explore or challenge the entire argument, with research from news sources like this one being useful to help us accept or reject certain Grounds, Claims and Warrants.

For those who feel negative ads to be unpleasant or manipulative, the effort needed to turn them into a coherent logical argument (leveraging tools like Toulmin to make sure such arguments take into account more than Aristotelian syllogisms can) helps us do something the makers of such ads would prefer we don’t do: think for ourselves.  

Negative Ads - Syllogism

We’re all supposed to loath the phenomena of negative campaigning, especially the dreaded “hit-and-run” 30-second TV spot - coming soon to every television commercial break near you (at least if you live in Ohio).

I’ll admit that there is a lot to dislike about negative ads, from their use of manipulative language, tone (including music) and imagery, to their reliance on out-of-context quotations or quotes from third parties (such as that ordinary guy on the street) to put a campaign’s talking points into the mouth of someone other than the candidate.

But from a critical thinking perspective, I actually like negative ads much more than positive ones.  This may seem ironic, given all of the tricks these ads seem to play to short-circuit reason.  But if you look at a positive ad, one that usually extols the virtue of a candidate using warm-and-fuzzy images of the candidate surrounded by a loving family, or listening intently as voters share their concerns, all set to background music designed to create an emotional state (“He cares!”, “She’s strong!, etc.), you realize that these positive ads have avoided reason altogether by creating a presentation based solely on pathos (emotion).

In contrast, negative ads (for all their faults) actually try to present an argument. Yes, that argument may be truncated to fit the 30-second TV format.  And yes, this argument may be illogical or unfair.  But if we can tease out the argument an attack ad is trying to make, we might discover or construct a legitimate, logical and even substantial argument that can be used as the basis for some serious thinking.

As we did with stump speeches, we’ll use negative ads from each party to explore one of the critical thinking subjects we’ve talked about more generally elsewhere.  So let’s start by looking at a spot put out by the Republican National Committee (called “Doing Fine”) to explore how principles of classical logic can be applied to our consideration of the Presidential candidates.

To get a few obvious things out of the way, clearly this ad suffers from most of the abuses of the genre, from ominous background music to a clipped news image (repeated twice) that screams “out of context quotation” to even the untrained eye.  But rather than dismiss the content of the ad out of hand due to these abuses (something many people do – although only with ads put out by candidates they don’t like), let’s try to assemble the argument the ad is trying to make in more detail.

Like most of the messaging coming out of the Romney campaign (and its surrogates and supporters), this ad focuses on the US economy which Republicans claim is doing very poorly.  And the statement that anchors their “Doing Fine” ad was spoken by President Obama during a press conference in which he says “the Private sector is doing fine,” which the ad presents as indicating the President is out of touch with the genuine state of the private sector economy.

If we were to organize the key points of the ad into a classical syllogism, it might look something like this:

* The President says that the private sector is doing fine in the current US economy

* The private sector is, in fact, not doing well at all

* Therefore, the President is out of touch with the reality of the current economic situation

This syllogism is linked to a general argument that underlies the Romney campaign which says that someone who is out of touch with economic difficulties (and is responsible for many of those difficulties) should not be elected President.  But for purposes of this discussion, the three statements in the syllogism above give us a good starting point for doing further research (and thinking) about some important subjects.

The first thing we can do is to look at the original context in which the President made his “doing fine” statement which we can fortunately do easily using this newfangled Internet thingee.  Now, by definition, anything less than a full rebroadcast of the original press conference would constitute a partial presentation.  But abridged does not always translate to “out of context,” and if you read or watch President Obama’s press conference in its entirety, I think it’s fair to claim that he demonstrates a comfort level with the current state of the private sector economy.

It’s also clear that he understands the struggles the private sector has done through over the last 4-5 years.  And, more importantly, he is making a case that other economic issues (the crisis in Europe, challenges in the public sector) are more problematical (and thus need more attention) than problems in the private sector.  So if we look at the original first premise of the argument drawn from the “Doing Fine” ad, a more accurate revision might say “President Obama thinks the private sector is doing better than other parts of the economy and thus needs less attention from government.”

Moving onto the second premise, the TV ad provides just three pieces of evidence (shots of newspaper clips discussing fears associated with slow job growth).  But problems with these sources of evidence include: (1) they are just snippets from three newspapers (only two of which are identifiable); and (2) none of these stories clearly focus on the subject at hand, which is the current state of the private sector economy.

Further examination of these sources might show that they do support the RNC’s second premise of a struggling private economy.  But even if they do, they do not provide sufficient evidence to support the argument as a whole.  So in the case of the second premise, we have an obvious avenue (do some research ourselves on the state of the private sector economy) to confirm or deny the second premise in the argument.

We should also keep in mind that even if the first two premises prove absolutely true, that does not necessarily mean that the conclusion follows from those premises.  But they could help us develop a more reasonable conclusion (such as that the President feels that government support for the private sector is a lower priority than helping shore up the public sector or supporting Europe). 

Depending on your political point of view, this might be a good thing or a bad thing.  But at least it demonstrates how a limited or truncated argument derived from the lowly negative TV ad can be used as the starting point for constructing something that is actually worth thinking about.

Stump Speech - Rhetoric

Just as we used the stump speech of the presumed Republican Presidential candidate, Mitt Romney, to illustrate the concepts of logos and pathos, we can now use a speech of his likely rival, President Obama (in this case, his 2012 campaign kickoff speech – which you should read through before continuing) to look at another critical thinking concept: the use of persuasive language (referred to earlier as “rhetoric”).

Most commentators would agree that President Obama is a highly skilled orator, which means his use of a number of rhetorical devices comes off more naturally than they would if used by a less talented speaker.  While such ability comes with some perils (notably, a tendency to talk too long or pack too many rhetorical schemes and tropes into a single speech), audiences tend to become more uplifted and transported when listening to a speaker who brings a skilled use of rhetoric to his or her presentations.

Let’s start by looking at some of the linguistic devices that tend to make the President’s speech “easy on the ear.”  First, you can find many instances of alliteration (the repeating of initial consonant sounds).  Thus we are reclaiming a “basic bargain that built” (B-B-B) and dealing with “a house of cards that collapsed in the most destructive crisis” (C-C-C), which is why we are at a “make-or-break moment for the middle class” (M-M-M).

Similarly, the President makes extensive use of anaphora, the repetition of the same word at the start of multiple linked sentences or phrases, which is why your children should get the chance to do better “no matter who you are, or where you come from, or what you look like, or what your last name is.”  On the written page, all those extra “or’s” would be superfluous.  But when spoken, they add life to an otherwise flat sentence, which is why we need to “make sure we aren’t taken advantage of by credit card companies and mortgage lenders and financial institutions” (as opposed to credit card companies, mortgage lenders and financial institutions – a less threatening group without that extra “and” replacing the comma).

Triplets abound within his speech, signifying how much we like examples, concepts and phrases to be grouped into threes (such as those aforementioned credit card companies, mortgage lenders and financial institutions).  Or take a look at this paragraph, in which the anaphoric phrase “Why else” is repeated at the beginning of three sentences to pull us through a particularly damning set of accusations:

"Why else would he [Governor Romney] want to spend trillions more on tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans? Why else would he propose cutting his own taxes while raising them on 18 million working families? Why else would he want to slash the investments that have always helped the economy grow, but at the same time, stop regulating the reckless behavior on Wall Street that helped the economy crash?”

Before moving on, keep in mind that the use of these types of rhetoric flourishes by a skilled speaker is not necessarily manipulative, or even a conscience choice by a speechwriter or speaker.  Every speaker wants to both convince and move an audience and devices like alliteration and anaphora are often what turn a dry speech into engaging oratory.  And a skilled writer or speaker has likely internalized these techniques to the point of using them without even knowing they represent named devices (much like my frequent use of this parentheses device became second nature before I even realized it had a name).

Elsewhere in the speech, President Obama’s points become more sophisticated and nuanced, allowing him to avoid one of the biggest problems in a stump speech: how to attack one’s political enemies without sounding shrill or small-minded (a particularly problem for an incumbent President who must not be seen as damaging the dignity of his office).

Which is why he spends half a paragraph heaping praise on his likely adversary as a “patriotic American who has raised a wonderful family…” who has a lot to be proud of, including having “run a large financial firm” as well as a state (my own state of Massachusetts, as it happens).  But (the President asserts), Governor Romney has learned the wrong lessons from these experiences (assigning to him the belief that wealth flows from the top down).

Now, one can argue that he misrepresents his opponent’s actual positions, but as a rhetorical structure, Obama’s praise for his opponent followed by harsh criticism presented more in sorrow than anger is an masterful way of condemning his opponent’s beliefs (while also defining those beliefs in a way that fits the President’s own campaign themes) without coming off as insincere or sarcastic (as in “my opponent deserves the billions he earned by ripping off the public for years”).

The speech actually climaxes eight paragraphs from the end with a series of rhetorical questions: "Will we [be] better off if more Americans get a better education?”, “Will we better off if we depend less on foreign oil and more on our own ingenuity?”, etc. (each of which is punctuated by the repeated phrase: “That is the question.” – an unnecessary add-on in an otherwise economical speech).  Given that he is likely to be speaking to a friendly audience, the anticipated answer to each question is likely a resounding “Yes” shouted from the crowed, creating a dramatic bonding moment between speaker and audience, leaving the remainder of the speech as a relaxing cigarette and promises of more to follow.

Regardless of your political persuasion, watching an artist perform his or her craft well is something we should all be ready to appreciate.  Especially since mastery of these devices can help us learn to effectively persuade others to do what we know is best for them (or at least help us identify when someone is trying to persuade us to do what they feel is best for us).

Stump Speech – Logos and Pathos

It’s time to take a look at an actual campaign artifact and see what critical thinking lessons can be drawn from it. 

As the campaign heats up, we’ll be spoiled for choice on what to analyze, but for the next few postings, I’d like to take a look at some familiar political devices, starting with the “stump speech.”

This is the standard speech a candidate gives on the campaign trail, sometimes more than a dozen times a day.  Candidate speeches are interesting in that, unlike TV commercials, they allow a candidate to fully flesh out the ideas and themes behind their candidacy.  They also allow a candidate to play the high-minded Dr. Jeckyl (allowing TV ads and surrogates to act as Mr. Hyde by delivering accusations and condemnations that would sound terrible coming out of the mouth of the candidate him or herself).

Because public speeches are the direct descendent of the type of political oratory around which the rules of rhetoric developed, they still utilize techniques and devices that have been analyzed and categorized for more than two millennia. 

But forces of modernity (especially with regard to media) influence this classic form in a number of significant ways.  Most importantly, because a candidate can count on every word in their speech being dissected and rebroadcast (both in and out of context), public speeches today must be carefully constructed to minimize internal phrases or sentences that would sound terrible separated from the whole (and broadcast to the world).  They must also strive for consistency with previous speeches, as well as the candidate’s overall track record, in order to not provide ammunition to those ready to make accusations of hypocrisy (one of the worst curses in our political lexicon).

We’ll start by looking at this stump speech by presumed Republican Presidential contender Mitt Romney.   Now this speech was actually given in January when Romney was still running in a heated primary.  But because most of his speech focuses on his presumed future Democratic rival (rather than present Republican ones), it’s likely that these will be his words of choice during the actual Presidential campaign.  I also like the fact that the newspaper in which this speech was reproduced used the occasion to dissect some of the language for rhetorical themes (indicating recognition of public interest in some of the things we’re discussing here).

In addition to the general requirements of stump speeches described above, candidates bring their own strengths and challenges to this rhetorical form.  Former Governor Romney, for example, is known to be an average public speaker, which means he is less likely to use some of the rhetorical flourishes a more polished speaker would use to avoid having his words sound artificial and written.  Because the candidate is known to be extremely wealthy (and because this year’s Presidential campaign is likely to include themes pitting the wealthy “1%” against “the rest of us”), Romney has an additional requirement to avoiding sounding too patrician, while also avoiding sounding as though he’s posing as a pleb.

Like most speeches, this one blends logos (an appeal to logic) and pathos (an appeal to emotion), with Romney’s focus primarily on the state of the US economy.  The logic behind his appeal is fairly straightforward and can be broken down into a relatively simple syllogism:

* The economy has gotten worse since Barak Obama became President

* A candidate who presided over the worsening of the economy should not be re-elected

* Therefore: You should vote for a candidate other than Barak Obama

Obviously, his presentation is more sophisticated than the three statements above, and he does make additional linked arguments that indicate Obama’s current economic policies are ingrained in the President’s political philosophy (which Romney claims are statist – implying Obama seeks governmental solutions to every problem).  But the simple logic noted above provides a way of either appreciating or attacking the Republican’s argument.  If one were to do the latter, one could (for example):

* “Attack” the first premise by asking questions regarding what he means by “worse,” and do some research regarding how the economy has done as a whole during the last four years (rather than just focus on a few negative – or positive – elements within the economy)

* Presuming you accept the first premise to be true (and even if you don’t), finding historical precedent whereby a candidate who managed a struggling economy during his first term presided over a much more robust economy in the second (indicating that his first four years might have been spent delivering necessary medicine that paid off during the next four).  Since this description could apply to Ronald Reagan, this approach offers Romney’s rivals the chance to “turn the tables” on him by utilizing the experience of a Republican hero to counter the current Republican candidate’s claims.

* Not accept that the two premises lead to the conclusion by pointing out that factors outside of the economy (such as foreign policy) should also go into the decision of whom to vote for

In any speech about the economy, pathos is invoked by translating economic trends into direct negative consequences for Americans (a lost job, foreclosed home, loss of retirement savings, etc.).  It’s interesting to note that Romney does not use a typical device of naming specific people (sometimes pointing them out in the audience) who have suffered these negative consequences.  While he may have simply not chosen to do so on this particular campaign stop, it may be that this particular device (which can be effective in skilled hands) can come off contrived if the chemistry between candidate and audience is not there.

Overall, Romney’s appeal to emotion is evenly distributed between fear (the economy’s going south and it’s going to take you with it!) and hope (a different path can lead us out of the current quagmire).  And his appeal to hope links to more fundamental “good emotions,” notably an appeal to American founding principles and values.  So while pathos is in the ascendant in this speech, it would be a stretch to call it a simple appeal to fear designed to bypass reason by appealing to the worst in us.

Because Romney’s presumed rival is a more gifted public speaker, we’ll use President Obama’s stump speech (actually the announcement of his candidacy) to look at some important examples of political rhetoric 

Application

Now that it looks like we know who the two candidates/contenders/interlocutors will be for this November’s election, it’s time to start applying some of the ideas that have appeared on this blog over the last several months to actual political content (speeches, advertisements and the like).  So next up will be a bit of critical thinking analysis of one of the candidate’s stump speeches.

But before we go there I should point out that, unlike last election’s Undecidedman blog, this exercise is purely about using something we all have in common (a national election) to teach, learn about and apply various critical thinking skills.  The goal is not to come to a conclusion on which candidate to vote for, but to use one of the few experiences we all share as Americans to study a topic that struggles to find a home in traditional educational settings.

I mention this because one of the most important things you need to do to engage in this kind of activity is to embrace a Principle of Charity which requires you to actually take both sides in a political contest seriously. 

This is far easier said than done in a poll-tested and media-driven political age when political campaigns are informed far more by advertising and marketing techniques (branding – both positive and negative, targeted communications, demographic-driven decision-making) than by analysis of actual people or issues. 

As noted previously, most of us have pre-sorted ourselves into communities where genuine political disagreement is considered peculiar or profoundly uncomfortable.  And within these communities, we carefully filter our input, leveraging new technologies (notably cable or satellite TV and the Internet) to stream ourselves a steady diet of opinions we already agree with, coupled with pre-digested invective against those we don’t like.  Even the current affairs shelf of the bookstore (if you’re lucky enough to live near one) groan under the weight of ghost-written tomes by professional partisans who treat voters as market segments to be sold into.

More sinisterly, this same type of targeted marketing is the cornerstone of most professional campaigns.  To take one example, because I signed up on one of the candidate web sites during the last election, I ended up on the mailing list for one of the party’s congressional campaign committees who send me a steady stream of e-mails declaring that only I can stop the unceasing evil of the opposing party by writing an ongoing series of requested checks.  The notion that I would be appalled by such a transparent (and pathos-driven) appeal is irrelevant to the e-mail marketers sending out this spam since, as far as they’re concerned, I’m simply one of the millions of people who sit outside their anticipated 1.5% “hit rate.”

But to actually immerse yourself in a genuine political debate requires you to start with the Principle of Charity assumption that both candidates are reasonable and dedicated men who have things to say, arguments to present, and a genuine dedication to doing the right thing for the country.  Now even with this assumption as a starting point, we will likely find one candidate’s vision more compelling or their argument better presented than the other.  And since we need to make some decision as November rolls around, we will eventually need to choose a side in order to place our vote.

The alternative (especially if you knew years or decades ago how you would vote in this election, regardless of who the candidates are) is to spend the next 6-7 months creating justifications for a decision that’s already been made and calling that political deliberation.  This is actually the easiest option which both candidates (and their scientifically managed campaigns) fully support, so long as you do your thing in a state they can take for granted, allowing them to focus their resources and attention elsewhere (i.e., ignore you). 

The downside of such an approach is that it leaves you totally irrelevant as a political actor, letting you hole up in a sorted community, trading news about your preferred candidate’s virtues (or, more frequently, the vices and weirdness of his opponent) with the like-minded and awaiting orders from on high regarding where to send your money (since your vote is already taken for granted). 

The Principle of Charity offers an alternative (but equally simple) filtering mechanism.  For example, would Romney supporters be freaked out if their candidate spent his childhood abroad and was the product of elite American universities (as was Obama)?  If not, then this is not a genuine issue.  Similarly, are Obama supporters as curious about the hijinks their candidates participated in during his youth as they are regarding Romney’s high school behavior?  If not, this too can be put aside as we treat both candidates (and ourselves) as adults ready to use our full freedom (including freedom of thought) to make an informed decision – the most important one we will all make this year.

Orwellian Wisdom

Certain texts repeatedly come up in any discussion of persuasive communications.

Aristotle’s works on logic and rhetoric top the list for obvious reasons, as do historic speeches by great writers and orators such as Winston Churchill and Martin Luther King.

But an essay by George Orwell, called Politics and the English Language, also tends to be discussed frequently when critical thinking, rhetoric (or whatever else you want to call the subject under discussion at this site) turns to political matters. 

Orwell’s brilliance as a political and literary thinker provides enough reason for his work to show up in so many different areas of learning.  And his accessibility (particularly through his fictional works such as Animal Farm and 1984, which many of us were introduced to in High School) also accounts for his name being so frequently invoked in political discussion.

I also suspect that as an anti-totalitarian Socialist, Orwell is hard to claim exclusively by either Left or Right, both of which utilize his name and work (often to condemn what they perceive to be the ultimate end point of the other side’s political trajectory).  And given how much these two poles have come to define the boundaries and dynamics of political debate for the last century, it’s at least good to know that a writer who transcends such a dichotomy still resonates with today’s readers (and thinkers).

A quote from Politics and the English Language that frequently makes an appearance is Orwell’s translation of an honest (if hideous) political sentiment into contemporary, immoral double-speak:

Consider for instance some comfortable English professor defending Russian totalitarianism.  He cannot say outright, “I believe in killing off your opponents when you can get good results by doing so.”  Probably, therefore, he will say something like this:

“While freely conceding that the Soviet regime exhibits certain features which the humanitarian may be inclined to deplore, we must, I think, agree that certain curtailment of the rights to political opposition is an unavoidable concomitant of transitional periods, and that the rigors which the Russian people have been called upon to undergo have been amply justified in the sphere of concrete achievement.”

This excerpt alone is enough to demonstrate the decrepitude of language Orwell was warning about, but reading through his essay from start to finish, you realize that he is not just discussing the symptoms but also the cause of this disease.  And this cause is the understandable desire to make ones writing seem more informed and well thought through than it is by stringing together “strips” of pre-fabricated or pre-digested words or groups of words (which might be clichés, but may also be acceptable but overused phrases or metaphors), rather than actually knowing what you want to say and putting the time, effort and thought into figuring out how to say it well.

One doesn’t need to tune into the latest presidential speech or candidate debate to see this stringing together of reasonable-sounding but utterly vacuous language as a substitute for serious thought and honest communication.  Anyone who has worked in an office setting will immediately recognize it in the language of the corporate memo whose writer can’t bring him or herself to simply say: “The strategy we decided to follow last year was a failure, so we’re going to abandon it and try something else.”  (As opposed to the much more familiar “Market conditions have changed over the last 12-18 months, which require us to review all initiatives underway within the organization.  And while not diminishing our commitment to key market opportunities and methods of achieving them with which stakeholders are already aware, current plans are to broaden our existing strategies to encompass new alternatives that will help us maximize value for our customers, employees and shareholders.”)

But modern politics adds a new twist to the subject of Orwell’s warnings: the use of science (or more specifically, scientific polling and statistical analysis) designed to determine exactly which points and what phraseology will get the biggest rise (and produce the fewest “negatives”) within a well-honed and audience-tested speech.  In other words, science – which helps us reach precision and accuracy in so many other endeavors – in politics is being used to ensure that meaningless or deceptive language will still sound correct and honest to certain audiences. 

A way out of this trap for ourselves is to follow Orwell’s suggestion and begin our thinking about an argument not by selecting language that seems convincing, but by truly thinking through what we are trying to achieve.  And once that’s been accomplished, we should choose the fewest, clearest and shortest words needed to communicate our message, ornamenting language (if necessary) with vivid and original images and metaphors, rather than tired clichés. 

And as consumers of persuasive communication, we should stay on high alert for dying metaphors (play into the hands of, grist for the mill, anytime soon…), verbal false limbs (render inoperative, be subjected to, exhibit a tendency towards…), pretentious diction (categorical, virtual, ameliorate, extraneous), and meaningless words (or at least words that clearly mean more than one thing being used definitively, such as democracy and patriotism). 

While it might be a challenge to tap into the wisdom of thinkers who wrote in the 400s BCE in an age when we think we have all the answers, it’s worth listening to someone speaking to use from a “mere” 66 years ago who clearly understands us better than we understand ourselves.