That dirty word, "eloquence"

One of a zillion interesting and distinctive features of the current Presidential race came into focus during the last "debate" (joint appearance, really) between McCain and Obama. And the lesson here is that anything can be turned on its head; all things, good and bad, are sort of a two-sided coin. It's the sort of thing for which we "Sophists" are notorious: finding what Aristotle would call topoi, the possible lines of argument. It's the kind of argument that can help O.J. beat a murder rap, the kind of argument that says "work will set you free," the kind of argument that morphs into "sophistry," in the pejorative sense of that word.

This week's "morphing" involves the word "eloquent." We haven't had a President or Presidential candidate who's been called "eloquent" since probably JFK. Even Ronald Reagan, often considered a capable speaker and "The Great Communicator," wasn't really "eloquent." But Barack Obama is so regarded.

Now, you'd think that being eloquent was an inherently "good" thing. You'd think that eloquence is to be admired. However, in the case of Obama, eloquence--according to McCain--is essentially a way to "sweet talk" and to mislead an audience. He essentially made that point two or three times in their last meeting. This is all very clever, I must admit: suddenly eloquence is a bad thing. You've got to give those types of spins a tip of the cap. That little bulldog, John McCain, probably managed to make some people re-think his opponent's ability to, of all things, capture the imagination of an audience. I didn't think I'd see the day when eloquence could become a dirty word.