Lemley 1

ARTIFACT:
Meta Commentary: This is my final paper from the capstone seminar class that completed my
undergraduate degree. The classs focus was an examination of the uses of rhetoric in past
and contemporary setting commercials, propaganda, political rhetoric, dialectics, film,
literature, etc. Sue Hum, the professor who taught the class at UTSA, said the assignment
could cover any subject matter and could be in a non-traditional format. I chose the Socratic
dialectic as my model. The paper is an imagined symposium in the hereafter; the rhetors are
Hitler, Jefferson, Plato, and Aristotle; the topic, what makes a good state. In the paper, I
advance or express none of my own thoughts, instead I juxtapose the actual words and ideas
of these four men, drawing comparisons of their particular views about what makes a thriving
state. I included this piece of my writing for two reasons: One, Sue Hum taught the class and
graded this particular assignment, and since she was mentioned in one of the readings for this
class, Ive thought about that class a fair amount. That undergraduate class is one of the first
places where I began to see my academic self in terms of my assertionsbefore this, my
writing assignments werent a means for self-expression. I didnt develop a thesis on what I
thought would be an interesting topic for discussion or consider where this potential essay
might fit into my critical philosophy or point-of-view; I developed a thesis based on what most
of the critics said about a particular subject, so that I would have plenty of source material to
draw from. I now know that this is not why one chooses a topic to cover in a paper. Sadly, this
was one of the last classes I took in the English program at UTSA. Looking back, I realize it
would have helped me consider the impact of my writing had I learned its lessons earlier in my
college career. The second reason for its inclusion is the nature of the subject this assignment
covers. We covered the power of rhetoric in this course, and here, in this paper, thats exactly
what I was doing, despite my ignorance of it. This paper appears exactly as it was submitted
for a grad in 2009, warts and all, less this intro youre reading now.
Just in case youre wondering, I got an A on the assignment and in the course.

William Lemley
Dr. Sue Hum
English 4973 Senior Seminar: Classical Rhetoric
May 3, 2009
Rhetoric and the State: A dialogue between Aristotle, Hitler, Jefferson and Plato about
government and the function of politic rhetoric
PERSONS OF THE DIALOGUE: Aristotle, Adolf Hitler, Thomas Jefferson, Plato,
and a moderator named Steve.

Lemley 2
SCENE: A rhetorical/philosophical symposium in the ethereal unknown. The
featured speakers (Aristotle, Hitler, Jefferson, and Plato) are seated at the table on a
stage. Steve the moderator is facing the speakers at another table which in not on the
stage.
STEVE THE MODERATOR: [to the speakers] Good afternoon gentlemen.
Today, were here to discuss political rhetoric and how it effects the state and the
masses. We are trying to explore how one would implement, maintain, and insure the
stability of a fledgling state through oral and written rhetoricthat is speeches and legal
documents. [to the audience] Weve gathered this panel today due to the expertise of
the individuals on the subject of rhetoric as an art or techne (skill or craft) or their direct
knowledge of what it takes to build a thriving nation. The goal is to examine whats
effective and whats ineffective in various incarnations of political rhetoric. So that there
is some starting ground, lets first discuss the ideal nation-state. Why do we need
nations? And what would the perfect or best government look like? Plato.
PLATO: Nations are necessary because a single man isnt self sufficient enough
to survive alone. Man has natural limitations and therefore needs to live collectively to
overcome these. Because man is easily corruptible, there needs to be a powerful
leader. The ideal state would be the state of the form. That is to say that the perfect
state has not existed as of yet. The states that have existed are impure or imperfect
versions of the form state. The form state should be ruled by a Philosopher King, who
is a man who regards justice as the greatest and most necessary of all things (Plato
The Republic). Meaning, he will be incorruptible; he should be above beauty, wealth,
strength, and rankthough no such man has ever lived. He would have total rule. He

Lemley 3
would be raised with the knowledge and intention of taking this office and be taught
benevolence and justice. He would need this education so that he does not become a
tyrant. There would also be Guardians to help with the states business. These men
would also be above worldly things. To ensure that they would be just, they would live
communally, sharing everything. The Philosopher King would decide the states course
of action and the Guardians will ensure that that course is taken.
The ideal state would have harmonious people and therefore be harmonious.
Each person must practice one of the functions in the city, that one for which his
nature made him naturally most fit(Plato The Republic). The populace would be
educated to ensure the intellect of the state. The more educated the masses are the
more likely they are to understand the need for order.
STEVE THE MODERATOR: Thank you, Plato. Now well hear from Adolf Hitler.
ADOLF HITLER: I agree with my fellow speaker. A nation needs a powerful
leader, and education is an absolute necessity.
A nation exists to empower a people. The National Socialist government of
Germany existed to preserve and empower the Aryan people. Its aim was to eliminate
all threats to the German people and rebuild the state after it was crippled at the end of
the war in 1918. The ideal government is one in which there is no dissent. A
government needs strong leadership. The masses are susceptible only to a
manifestation of strength which comes definitely . . . from the positive or negative side,
but they are never susceptible to any half-hearted attitude that wavers between one
pole and the other(Hitler Mein Kempf). Therefore, a leader should be direct,
decisive, and resolute. He should have a defined goal for the nationin Germany in

Lemley 4
1933, the National Socialist goal was to create a strong state where an Aryan nation
could thrive, the Third Reich.
The state should have one strong governmental body to limit excesses and
legislative delay. The ideal state would need intellectuals that are indoctrinated with the
states ideals to educate the masses with the knowledge that is acceptable. It would
have to be a leader in creating new technologies so that it maintains its global status,
and maintain a strong armed force to quell any civil unrest or an external threat. A
nations laws should serve the state. The Ideal state would be concerned with its own
long term preservation.
STEVE THE MODERATOR: Yes, thank you. Aristotle.
ARISTOTLE: My work isnt concerned with the ideal state but more the ability
and effectiveness of rhetoric within a states courts and forums. I have written about
negative or detrimental forms of government. I described the end goal of each form of
government, [t]he end of democracy is freedom; of oligarchy, wealth; of aristocracy,
the maintenance of education and national institutions; of tyranny, the protection of the
tyrant(Aristotle Rhetoric). Each has its failings, but democracy allows each man his
say. We should place value on the speech of others and judge them by the ability to
speak publically.
In regards to a state leader, we must remember that men choose their means
with reference to their ends(Rhetoric). So, one should be wary of forfeiting all power to
anyone.
STEVE THE MIDERATOR: Hmm, interesting. Mr. Jefferson.
THOMAS JEFFERSON: I have to agree with Aristotle that one should be wary of

Lemley 5
handing all governing power over to a single individualthat might lead to tyranny. And
I cant help but disagree with Plato and Hitler. The strength of a nation comes from the
will of its people and not from an ideal or strong leader, I consider the people who
constitute a society or nation as the source of all authority in that nation(Jefferson 133).
The ideal nation would allow every citizen a voice and ensure that that voice is
protected as a natural right. Unlike Mr. Hitler, I believe that laws should serve the
peopleto protect ones person and property should be the ends of any legislative writ.
The state needs a defined constitution enumerating the governments powers
and limits. The ideal state would need several governmental branches to ensure that all
stay within their predetermined parametersthese various branches would act as a
safeguard against any one branch becoming too powerful and taking the rule away from
the people because it is their government after all. In an ideal state, it should be the
will of the majority is the law, and ought to be the law(Jefferson 410). This means
that in a ideal state the people would be self governing.
STEVE THE MODERATOR: Well thank you gentlemen. Aristotle, since your
work is primarily concerned with the function of rhetoric within a state, can you discuss
the function of rhetoric, and then Ill have the other three on the panel respond to how
that definition or analysis of the function rhetoric would work within their ideal states.
ARISTOTLE: Yes, rhetoric is an art, a skill that is learnedthough there are
some who have a natural disposition towards it. All rhetoric appeals to one of three
invented modes of persuasion: Ethos, Pathos, and Logos. Ethos is concerned with the
creditability of the speakeris he trustworthy? Pathos is the emotional appeal of what
the speaker is saying. Because emotions are all those feelings that so change men

Lemley 6
as to affect their judgments(Aristotle Rhetoric) they are necessary to consider when
speaking publicallysometimes, the emotional appeal connects with the audience in a
way the Ethos cannot. And last, Logos, the words of the speech itself. Logos is what
the speaker is saying, the content. The man who is to be in command of [these] must . .
. be able . . . to reason logically, [and] to understand human character and goodness in
their various forms, and [be able] to understand the emotionsthat is, to name them and
describe them, to know their causes and the way in which they are excited(Aristotle
Rhetoric). A rhetor must also be aware of his audience and the venue. He must
consider his audiences intellect and the scope of what they can understandone
wouldnt talk medicine to a group of bakers. The venue is the rhetors other
consideration. In a court of law, he must speak in the language befitting a court. When
in the streets, he might use a different mode of language
STEVE THE MODERATOR: Yes, thank you Aristotle I believe that will suffice.
Plato a response.
PLATO: Speech is a powerful lord that with the smallest and most invisible body
accomplished most godlike works. It can banish fear and remove grief and instill
pleasure and enhance pity. The power of speech has the same of on [a persons
mind] as the application of drugs to the state of [the body](Plato Gorgias, A Synoptic
History265). Speech can be dangerous. It can be practiced by deceptive people who
intend to misdirect the populace. Because it is always better to be just, it is not wise to
allow everyone the podium to address the masses.
In the context of the state, we want only just speeches to be giventhat is
speech that is beneficial and true. The need for the Philosopher King is best illustrated

Lemley 7
by rhetoric and the public forum because there are professors of rhetoric who teach the
art of persuading courts and assemblies; and so, partly by persuasion and partly by
force, [they] shall make unlawful gains and not be punished(Plato The Republic)he
alone is totally honest and virtuous. So, his should be the rhetoric that is celebrated in
public forums.
STEVE THE MODERATOR: A response, Hitler.
ADOLF HITLER: Emotional appeal is all when speaking to the populace.
Whoever wishes to win over the masses must know the key that will open the door to
their hearts. It is not objectivity, which is a feckless attitude, but a determined will,
backed up by force, when necessary(Hitler Mein Kampf). A leader has to direct the
people to follow the will of the state, since The broad masses of a nation are not
made up of professors and diplomats. . . [and] since these masses have only a poor
acquaintance with abstract ideas, their reactions lie more in the domain of the
feelings(Hitler Mein Kempf) which a public speaker has to dominate.
When considering creditability, it is not the creditability of the speaker but the
creditability of the state one should consider. The state wouldnt allow an inferior or
unjust man to ascend to a position where he is addressing the masses. Only speeches
that are intellectually accessible should be given to the masseseveryone in a nation
should be aptly educated to understand when a speaker lauds the state or sings the
praise of her actions. Venue should not be an issue when addressing the public.
If a person is employing rhetoric in, say, a legal caselets say a defense lawyer,
his intention should be the same as everyone elses in that court which is to finds the
truth, weighs the evidence, and indict the accused accordingly. If he is guilty, sentence

Lemley 8
him. He should need no defense if he is innocent.
When considering legislative matters, there should be no public forum. The
matters of the state are just that, matters for the state to sort out. The average citizen
has no comprehension of political or diplomatic language. In the ideal society, we
would have appointed officials to handle matters of legislation and there would be
nothing to debate because only laws that benefit the state would be enacted. This is
why there is only the executive branch of government. It limits the amount time and
effort when a measure needs to be taken.
STEVE THE MODERATOR: Now, well hear from Thomas Jefferson on the
function and implementation of rhetoric in his ideal state.
THOMAS JEFFERSON: Rhetoric is the means of communication in a nation. It
should be utilized when an issue is problematic or divisive. I believe that Aristotle is
absolutely right when he said that democracy allows every man his say. I before
mentioned that a state should have separate branches. I will expound on that notion
while explaining the importance of rhetoric in a state. My fellow founders of the
American Constitution and I wrote into the Constitution a branch of government that has
rhetorical exchange and consideration before passing any law. The Senate and
Congress consider every issue before it is denied or passed. Rhetoric is highly valued
in societies like The United States of America, and this is because the value of
individual freedom is so highits that voice that every single citizen is given. In the
ideal state, there would be debate and careful consideration about everything the
government does. In this way, I believe that the Logos is the most important mode of
persuasion because it is the literal content of the speech. This should outweigh the

Lemley 9
creditability of the speaker and the emotion of the speech. That is, not to say, that
those two things shouldnt carry some weight. Every free man should follow his own
mind, so if he is swayed by an emotional appeal then so be it. But, again, this is why, in
an ideal society, there would be several branches of government to limit what any one
person or branch could do. An individual or single governmental branch shouldnt be
able to start a war simply due to a heated emotional appeal.
I also agree with Aristotle that venue and audience should play a large part in the
type of speech given. Legalese should be the language of the courtroom, and a more
common place tongue should be used when speaking in a tavern.
STEVE THE MODERATOR: Now that weve established what the ideal state
would look like and how rhetoric fits into that state, lets consider how might one
maintain the stability of the government? Consider the question in terms of rhetoric.
Aristotle, well let you begin since your theories arent primarily concerned with the
establishment and running of a state.
ARISTOTLE: Sure. If I was going to consider the stability of a state, my first
thought would concern legal education. Education is an issue that has been brought to
the floor, but let us examine it for a moment. Every man must understand the
subject of legislation; for it is on a country's laws that its whole welfare
depends(Aristotle Rhetoric). By understanding a few well conceived laws, every free
man in a state would be equal because of the legal representation that could acquire
under those legal previsions. If the laws are not widely known, they may be misapplied
or interpreted by an unjust person. This would lead to the eventual downfall and
destruction of the state. When I speak of destruction through internal developments I

Lemley 10
refer to the fact that all constitutions, except the best one of all [that has never been
realized and implemented], are destroyed both by not being pushed far enough and by
being pushed too far. Thus, democracy loses its vigour, and finally passes into
oligarchy(Aristotle Rhetoric). It becomes an oligarchy because those few who know
and utilize the laws rule the state. The remedy is: know the laws, study the past
history of one's own country, in order to understand which constitution is desirable for it
now, but also to have a knowledge of the constitutions of other nations, and so to learn
for what kinds of nation the various kinds of constitution are suited(Aristotle Rhetoric),
and then consider and debate the policies.
STEVE THE MODERATOR: Plato.
PLATO: A stable state is a just city. It is one that is run by the Philosopher King.
Because he has had the education needed to become the Philosopher King the city will
not be unstableever. It is the form city, the ideal of perfection and therefore eternal.
STEVE THE MODERATOR: Okay, thank you. Hitler.
ADOLF HITLER: To maintain stability the ideal nation would need a strong hand
by its leader. [A] monarchical form of government guarantees stability in the direction
of public affairs and safeguards public offices from the speculative turmoil of ambitious
politicians(Hitler Mein Kempf). Secondly, it insure that political uprising amongst the
populace is unlikely because a single branch government could quell any unrest
decisively and with impunity. Because the ideal nation would value national stability, to
stand in opposition to the state would be treason and a capital offense. Therefore, as
Aristotle said, education is important. To indoctrinate the young early will insure the
national pride the ideal state will require. This education is necessary if you are to

Lemley 11
produce the future soldiers and workers.
Because conquering external enemies is always a fear, a strong central military
is an absolute necessitythis industrial military machine will also insure economic
stability. The key to stability is a strong forceful government that is centrally located in
the nation.
STEVE THE MODERATOR: Mr. Jefferson your thoughts on national stability.
THOMAS JEFFERSON: Yes, thank you. I couldnt disagree with Hitler more. I
firmly believe that a strong central government would be the downfall of any nation,
Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people
alone(Jefferson). A strong central government leads to tyrants because power
corrupts. If the ideal nation is one where people live free to choose their own way, their
own destiny, they are in control of the government and will insure its continual survival.
If the constitution allows for the evolution of the legal system, the government is more
adaptable when confronted with new challenges. These two things, freedom of the
masses and plastic/malleable political documents, will do a great deal in insuring the
stability of a nation because these two concepts allow the future citizens to decide what
their path will be. Aristotle is right about education. Though youve misinterpreted
Hitler, education, not indoctrination, is key. If one wants to remain stable, it is
necessary to keep rearing literate, politically conscious children. Consider this, If a
nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never
was and never will be(Jefferson 344).
STEVE THE MODERATOR: Id like to thank our panel of speakers this
afternoon. Gentlemen [Steve the moderator nods to the panels table]. [to the

Lemley 12
audience] Ladies and Gentlemen, thank you all.

Works Cited
Aristotle. Rhetoric Translated by W. Rhys Roberts Philosophy on the EServer.
University of Iowa. 27 April 2009
<http://philosophy.eserver.org/aristotle/rhetoric.txt>
Evans, Richard. The Third Reich in Power. New York: Penguin Publishing, 2006.
Hitler, Adolf. Mein Kempf. Project Gutenberg Australia. Project Gutenberg. 27 April
2009 <http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks02/0200601.txt>
Jefferson, Thomas. The Paper of Thomas Jefferson Vol 1: 1760-1776. Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 1952.
Plato. The Gorgias. A Synoptic History of Classical Rhetoric. James J. Murphy and
Richard Katula. London: Hermagoras Press, 2003. 263-267.
Plato. The Republic. Classics at MIT. Ed. Daniel Stevenson. Massachusetts Institute
of Technology. 27 April 2009 < http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/republic.html>