As we were all taught in our freshman writing course, rhetoric is composed of ethos, logos, and pathos. For the purpose of this article, let us consider the meaning of the Aristotelian Tripartition found in The Art of Rhetoric:
Ethos – Appeals to the authority, character, or perceived ethical nature of the speaker.
Logos – Appeals to reason, logic, and well-founded arguments.
Pathos – Appeals to emotions like anger, fear, distrust, or desire.
Now that we are all caught up on freshman level rhetoric, let us consider another word defined by Plato, in his Republic:
Sophistry – “Shallow and irresponsible theories”, and the “shameless exploitation of the techniques of mass persuasion.” (Lawson-Tancred, Rhetoric, 11-12)
In her article, “‘To Moderate and Unify’ The Role That Latter-day Saint Citizen-Rhetors Can Play in Healing American Political Discourse”, Kristine Hansen quotes Arthur Brooks and teaches us that manipulative rhetoric (aka sophistry) is a combination of rhetorical and “ideological meth.” Sophistry can simply be the absence of ethos and manipulative use of pathos. It can also be the overuse of sloganeering, derisive nicknames, and deceptive wordplay. Hansen argues that extensive use of sophistry has created a rhetorical environment where the truth becomes nearly impossible to discern, or worse, it becomes irrelevant. Hansen further argues that America is becoming addicted to sophistry, and that it is the duty of Latter-day Saints to identify sophistry and eschew its use.
To that end, let’s consider what Joseph Smith Jr. had to say about sophistry. When trying to decide which church was the true church of God, Joseph carefully listened to the preachers of each faith, and he described some of what he heard this way:
“In the midst of this war of words” (JSH 1:10) “[They] used all the powers of both reason and sophistry, to prove their errors, or, at least, to make the people think they were in error.” (JSH 1:9) (See also: II Peter 2:3, Romans 16:18)
Joseph aptly describes this as a “war” and it can be argued that, rhetorically, “all is fair” in a “war of words.” To reinforce this idea, we should remember that ethics is often one of the first casualties of any war, perhaps even in a “war of words.” Joseph is incredibly insightful when he clarifies “sophistry” by pointing out that preachers did not need to “prove their errors”, they merely needed to “make the people think they were in error” (added emphasis). The objective was to get the audience to feel doubt in themselves (pathos) and thereby convince the audience to place their trust in an external authority (ethos), the preachers. This is considered sophistry precisely because it is manipulative.
Now, let us observe the use of sophistry by comparing the following quotes. When confronted with the baseless accusation that Barack Obama was not a citizen, there is a stark contrast between the straightforward, ethos-driven response of John McCain and the manipulative use of sophistry by Donald Trump.
McCain, when confronted by a misinformed citizen:
Citizen: "I can't trust Obama. I have read about him and he's not, he's ... he's an Arab," the woman said of the Democratic presidential nominee.
McCain: "No ma'am, he's a decent family man, citizen, that I just happen to have disagreements with on fundamental issues, and that's what this campaign is all about. He's not."
McCain leaves zero doubt. Members of his audience booed him, and speaking the truth caused him political harm. However, McCain’s ethos required that he speak up and reaffirm an indisputable truth, regardless of the consequences.
Contrast that with Donald Trump on the “Today” show:
“I have people that have been studying [Obama’s birth certificate] and they cannot believe what they’re finding … if he wasn’t born in this country, which is a real possibility … then he has pulled one of the great cons in the history of politics.”
The phrases “cannot believe what they’re finding” and “a real possibility” are not statements of fact proving the non-existence or inauthenticity of Obama’s birth certificate. Instead, Trump uses sophistry by employing a “shallow and irresponsible [theory],” encouraging the audience to question the facts and to feel that it’s possible they are “in error.” Like Joseph’s preachers, Trump's sophistry encourages his audience to trust him (ethos), an external authority, and to doubt themselves. More importantly, it encourages the audience to doubt an irrefutable truth during a contentious election cycle, a truth Trump ultimately confesses in 2016.
All politicians use sophistry. Are they misstating a fact, embellishing a truth, or telling a baldfaced lie—until it sticks? When sophistry is detected, ask yourself: “Does my ethos allow me to accept sophistry in place of logos?” “Does a politician’s complete lack of ethos, and total reliance on pathos tell me something about their character?” “Is the authority over what is and isn’t true, held within myself or held externally, by a charismatic politician perhaps?” With the support of no less than Aristotle, Joseph Smith Jr., and Kristine Hansen, I exhort my fellow Cougars, here at BYU, to not only educate yourself, but to educate your friends and family about the use of “rhetorical meth” and the deleterious effect it has on our democracy. Let us be warned, and, having been warned, let us warn our neighbors and fulfill our obligations as Citizen-Rhetors.
