The first distinguishing characteristic of rhetoric is that it must be planned. Rhetorical speech does not just occur, instead it must be prepared and thought out. Homer Simpson said it best, in an episode entitled ``A Tale of Two Springfields.'' When the phone company uses a video full of rhetoric in support of dividing Springfield into two area codes, Homer jumps up and addresses the crowd. ``The phone company is bamboozling you,'' he says. ``I accuse the phone company of making that film on purpose.'' The crowd is shocked, yet this element of rhetoric is something we take for granted. This editorial exhibits purpose in its straight forward ideology. The author does not sit down and mull over the issues, part-way through deciding which course he is going to take. Instead, the piece exhibits a focused clarity; the author knows where he wants it to go and makes sure that no portions of the piece would weaken his goal or cause the audience to have mixed feelings on his case.
The audience is indeed important to rhetoric, and in fact is the focus of its second distinguishing characteristic. Rhetoric is not a static affair, with the same claims used to persuade every audience. Instead, the message must be adapted to the audience. As James Herrick writes, ``Rhetoric is planned with some audience in mind'' (Herrick 8). The Lott editorial makes definite assumptions about its audience. To start with, it assumes that all readers will agree that Lott's comments were wrong. The author does not attempt to convince the reader of this fact, instead he simply states that Lott made a ``repugnant suggestion'' that fateful night. The author also does not waste any time trying to convince the audience that as a result of Lott's statement he should be removed from his position of leadership. He clearly assumes that the audience will share his opinion, and that only some Senate Republicans could be ``under the illusion that Mr. Lott commands sufficient respect to hold the post'' (``Trent Lott on the Ropes''). Were the author expecting an audience that would resist these claims, he would have to spend more time on them in order to make his rhetoric effective. The absence of such support shows that the author expects the audience to have a common understanding of the problem and its necessary solution. Aristotle termed such commonality an enthymeme. Herrick defines the term as ``an argument built from values, beliefs, or knowledge held in common by a speaker and an audience'' (Herrick 9). In this case the author assumes a common knowledge of Lott's statements, a common value that segregation is wrong, and a common belief that those who support such practices should not hold positions of power.
The editorial under examination also exhibits a motive, the third of rhetoric's distinguishing characteristics. As established in the discussion of audience, the author is not trying to use his piece in order to convince his readership of Lott's need for sanction. Instead he spends the bulk of his piece addressing the issue of the Republican leadership and their lack of consensus on the issue of what to do with Lott. He lambastes those who would allow Lott to remain in office, and then accuses the Republican leadership of using their slow action action on the issue to play political games. Though the author does not admit his motive outright, it's clear that he is trying to stir up anger at the Republican leadership. His goal is to convince readers that the Republicans failure to act is wrong, since he already assumes the reader to hold that action is required.
The author's attack on the Republicans is in fact a response to what he feels is the motive of the rhetoric they are presenting. Herrick says that ``rhetorical discourse typically is a response either to a situation or to a previous rhetorical statement'' (Herrick 11). In some ways the author's rhetoric is in response to the event itself, but more directly it is a response to the resulting rhetoric issued about the event. The author of this editorial specifically responds to rhetoric issued by President Bush in response to the incident. The author takes issue with the way Bush criticizes Lott's comments while refusing to actually take a public stand on the issue of whether or not he should be forced to resign. By issuing statements about the incident, the Republicans have made their own rhetoric on the issue, and as part of that included their own attempts at persuasion. The editorial counters that rhetoric, pointing out its weakness and attempting to persuade the readers in the opposite direction.
Persuasion is the fifth and most prominent characteristic of rhetoric, and this editorial clearly shows its presence. The desire to persuade is fundamental to rhetoric. Without it, you have no argument. Herrick says that ``it is important to recognize the centrality of this particular goal throughout rhetoric's long history'' (12). There are various types of persuasion that can be used in rhetoric, depending on the audience and the case being presented. In ``Trent Lott on the Ropes'' the persuasive case is presented via an appeal. The author makes a conscious choice to target the audience members' hearts rather than their minds. According to Harrick, ``An argument is more clearly directed to reason, an appeal to something more visceral such as an emotion or a conviction'' (13). Looking back to the Simpsons episode quoted earlier, in the video that causes Homer such consternation we find a case of persuasion via appeal. The video asks the audience, ``Well, scientists have discovered that even monkeys can memorize ten numbers. Are you stupider than a monkey?'' By asserting that even a lowly monkey could perform the task in question, the video appeals to the audience's emotional reaction that they must indeed be smarter than that. Therefore they must also be capable of memorizing more numbers. The emotional appeal has done nothing to change the facts of the case - that residents would have to remember more numbers - but has instead attempted to subvert that logic and play directly on the audience's psyche. The Lott editorial does the same, using poignant wording in order to arouse emotional response. Lott's statement was ``repugnant,'' his apologies ``abject,'' and his job clearly in ``grave peril.'' The author sarcastically ridicules Bush's soft words, saying that the President used ``what for him was very powerful language'' (``Trent Lott on the Ropes''). The author trusts that his harsh words will resonate with the emotion of his readers, persuading them despite his lack of logical argument. This type of emotional appeal was detested by Aristotle, who called it ``the same as if someone made a straightedge rule crooked before using it'' (Aristotle 30). For him the only appeal was to logic, all else he said should be avoided. Aristotle disagreed with the art of rhetoric, and with fostering the ability to argue on both sides of the issue. For him the facts in a case were clear-cut, and should be presented as such.
Editorials are written in order to convey opinion, so it is not at all unusual to find one making use of rhetorical speech and emotional appeals. The Lott editorial is a perfect example of the art of rhetoric as applied to such a medium. It clearly exhibits all five of the distinguishing characteristics of rhetorical speech: the planning results in a clear focus, the audience is planned for, there is a clear motive for its writing, it is responsive to other rhetoric, and it seeks to persuade the audience to with a clearly, though not explicitly, defined position.