Thank You for Arguing: What Aristotle, Lincoln, and Homer Simpson Can Teach Us About the Art of Persuasion

Heinrichs uses Presidents Barack Obama and Donald Trump to illustrate how to use rhetorical tools and skills in modern day. Obama was best known for demonstrative rhetoric during times of crisis. During his first inaugural speech, he stated:

We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense, and for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you (316).

This excerpt illustrates all the key pieces of demonstrative rhetoric. Obama speaks in the present tense and distinguishes between good and evil, right and wrong. He talks about American values by contrasting them with the country’s enemies, which is one of the best ways to communicate values. He also pretends to speak to said enemies (i.e., “you cannot outlast us”). By utilizing these rhetorical tools, Obama unites the American people (or tribe).

Obama also follows Heinrichs’s advice to not rely on apologizing but instead expressing his feelings about not living up to his own standards. During Obama’s speech to the Democratic National Convention in 2008, he noted: “America, we are better than these last eight years. We are a better country than this” (317). In this excerpt, Obama addresses a collective mistake. He does not apologize for this mistake, but instead frames it as a country failing to live up to its high standards. Obama both flatters his audience and reminds them of their shared values. Heinrichs argues “this is the best kind of demonstrative rhetoric to segue into deliberative choice” (317). The choice here is whether people want to live up to their standards or not.

Trump showcases the power of the period, which delivers the emotional climax of a speech in the length of a human breath or 12 seconds. This tool allows an audience to cheer every 12 seconds, making them feel connected to something greater than them. To Heinrichs, this tool propelled Trump to the White House.

This chapter details how readers can apply rhetorical techniques to essays to make them persuasive. Michel de Montaigne, a French diplomat and businessman, invented the essay, “a genre of literature that has tortured students for many generations” (327). Heinrichs recommends using ethos, pathos, and logos when crafting an essay.

A personal essay establishes a relationship between writer and audience, making it “the most persuasive kind of essay” (328). It follows the central tenet of rhetoric: The essay is not about the author, it is about the audience. The tactical flaw is one of the best tools to use in a personal essay. By showing their own imperfections, the writer gains sympathy from the audience. Self-deprecating humor can endear an audience and make them think the writer is one of them. Heinrichs includes several pointers: note an essay’s purpose at the start to avoid frustrating one’s audience; give the essay’s central point a twist to ensure reader engagement; and ultimately, lead the reader on a journey.

Essays can also use a hero’s arc to tell a story—in which “the character meets a series of obstacles, commits to his goal, and in the climax wins the day” (332). Storytelling is a pathos tool that can help elicit sympathy.

Personal essays also employ logos tools to influence their audience. Similar to speech, writers need to work off their audience’s expectations and values to change minds. The hook is one of the best ways to do so.

Heinrichs strongly believes that “the persuasive personal essay turns ethos, pathos, and logos into a song for our common humanity, by sparking recognition in the read for another’s foibles, trials, and shared beliefs” (336). He provides examples—including his own essays and his son George’s college admission essay—to illustrate this point. 

Heinrichs summarizes the “whole arsenal of rhetorical weapons” (354):

For offense, think of your goal, set the tense, and know your audience’s values and commonplaces. Then use ethos, logos, and pathos, usually in that order.

For defense, when you don’t know what to say, try conceding, then redefining your concession. (“You could say it’s spinach, yes. Others would say it’s broccoli.”) Finally, switch the tense to the future (“But the question is, how are we going to get that vegetable down you?”) (354).

To help readers know which “rhetorical weapons” to use, Heinrichs walks through several scenarios, including how to sell oneself. In this scenario, the agent’s supervisor quits, and they want to make a bid for the open position. The goal is simple: to convince the head supervisor to promote them. Since this goal involves choice, it is a deliberative argument. As such, the agent will want to use the future tense and focus on how they can advance the organization’s goals and mission.

Heinrichs recommends using ethos, as the supervisor will be evaluating the agent’s character. Specifically, he recommends that the agent write a memo highlighting the three ethos traits: cause, caring, and craft. The memo should outline their alignment with the organization (cause), how they can help the organization save money (craft), and ask what the supervisor needs (caring). The agent then needs to decide how to present their memo (slide deck, email, etc.). Once they decide on a medium, they should quickly deliver their memo without errors; this illustrates kairos. While the supervisor reviews the memo, the agent should dress for the job and use appropriate language (decorum). During their interview, the agent should include storytelling in their responses and end the interview with emotion.

In the final chapter, Heinrichs laments the absence of rhetorical studies in most of the US education system. Rhetoric once formed the core of collegiate education. The Founding Fathers were all well-versed in rhetoric. They even credit John Locke (the “Father of Liberalism”), Cicero, Aristotle, and Montaigne with inspiring them to write the Declaration of Independence. The country’s founders also established a system of checks and balances in the federal government to combat factionalism, which destroyed both Athens and the Roman Republic. They believed rhetoric was the key to a healthy and functioning government. Unfortunately, these same leaders laid the groundwork for modern factionalism by founding political parties who try to prevent the other from gaining power. While the country’s current division in values is not as severe as the Civil War era, Heinrichs still credits it to the loss of rhetoric in the higher education system.