When Crassus mentions his friend that would dismiss school children if they didn't excell in rhetoric, he doesn't defend him. This makes me think that he would not rain on a school boy's dream of one day being a skilled orator even if at first he struggles with the subject. I also don't think he would flat out tell someone they were not virtuous because they could not excel in rhetoric. It's questionable what he would say of Luntz, considering Luntz is technically proficient, but subtly deceives the public.

I totally disagree with Crassus in his claim that "there is no art in rhetoric" or if there is it's a "thin one."

He even goes as far as to say "an art is defined as consisting in things thoroughly examined and clearly apprehended, and which are also outside the control of mere opinion, and within the grasp of exact knowledge, then to me there seems to be no such thing as an art of oratory" (304).

But in actuality according to definitions defnining rhetoric, it is "the art or science of all specialized literary uses of language in prose or verse, including the figures of speech." It is also "the art of prose in general as opposed to verse" as well as
"the art of making persuasive speeches; oratory." And rhetoric is and has been thoroughly examined and apprehended for centuries now. I rest my case.

I would argue that Crassus would most likely not consider the young man schooled in the arts of argumentation to be a true orator. For one, how can you argue anything if you don't know what you are talking about? All of us have to write papers, and the only way to really write an effective paper (beyond high school BS writing) is to do copious amounts of research and grow familiar with your topic. Only then can you make a serious argument and speak with confidence (because you realize how little you know about your topic). But it's not how much you know, but what you can do with how little you know, and the best orators can work wonders (and disasters) with a little bit of knowledge when they speak with confidence.
Of course, the young man can have predisposed techniques and answers to arguments on hand from his training, but I doubt that he would be considered "virtuous"; the knowledge and self-discovery of what encompasses a real argument is lacking on the inside. A predetermined answer is simply a hollow solution with no real input from the speaker. To argue this way is to cheat yourself and your listeners, and is not virtuous. Experience and self-discovery is the best way to become a better writer and orator; not techniques.
So is Frank Luntz a good orator? He may be an effective one, but he is certainly not virtuous. Although he clearly may believe in the morality of his work, he is aware that the style of his language is dishonest; the audience connects with buzzwords. In a sense, he is lying about crucial details by omission...using euphamisms. Though in his eyes the ends may justify the means, his ends are unjust and therefore not virtuous.

My initial reaction is to say that Cicero would indeed say Luntz is not a true orator, and I think ultimately I'll stick to that decision, but it bears mentioning that by virtue of being completely opposite him in political (and likely ethical/moral) beliefs, I might be a bit biased. Regardless, I do think his absolute partiality to one side of the story probably disqualifies him as a true orator, since you can't possibly be all that wise while dogmatically standing up for one party. It seems to me that Cicero would certainly require a "true orator" or a "virtuous" orator to be a bit more moderate in his/her/hir claims, and also to have a better understanding of why the opposition believes what they do. I'm not sure I'm putting this coherently, but essentially, I think Cicero would likely refuse Luntz or the liberal Michael Moore (who I happen to detest as well) membership in the group of true or virtuous orators. As others have said, the level of dogmatism required to write books or make films in the way they do probably disqualifies you from a group of people possessing "general wisdom and decorum."

It would seem that one cannot "good" orator, irrespective of virtue, without the requisite complete training: a training that includes experience in all subject matter. Cicero does not seem to concern himself with the possibility that an effective orator will lack virtue (and is thus not a true orator), rather he deems it simply an impossibilty that an orator can exist as such learning only the the 'tricks of the trade': "These are the things which in good orators produce applause and admiration, and no man will attain these except by long and large practice in writing, however ardently he may have trained himself in those off-hand declamations..."

Crassus would indeed deride the young man schooled in the tricks of argumentation but lacking the general wisdom and decorum that he attributes to the mature orator. Whether or not he would say a young man is virtuous would depend on the definition of virtuous we are using. I think that we did not have a clear definition of what being “virtuous” meant in that context created problems for our class discussion last Friday. Whether or not a young man is virtuous, I would say, would depend on his usage of rhetoric. If the young man were speaking on a topic that was serious, and employed some of the “tricks” referred to, then he would not be virtuous. Crassus demands, “that we must speak…in a manner befitting the dignity of our topics and with a certain grace” (308-309). This is also why Crassus would contend that Frank Luntz is not a true orator, because most of the strategies he uses are not used in a manner befitting the dignity of the topic, namely politics.

I think Crassus has a certain degree of respect for these "tricks of the trade" or as he may refer to them maxims that every orator can use as a guide. He even admits that he learned these teachings as a youth. One of the pitfalls of using a maxim is that it doesn't necessarily prove the eloquence of the orator, instead it proves the eloquence and wisdom of previous orators from where the information was first collected (309). Crassus admits to making this same mistake as a youth when he would try to emulate the rules, he realized that to "employ the same expressions profited me nothing, while to employ others was a positive hindrance" (310). From that point on, he used previous knowledge but also began creating is how own analogies and rhetoric. For this reason, I think that Crassus would not necessarily mock or the young man who practices the rhetorical maxims. Instead, he might encourage them to create their own maxims and become orators in their own right instead of relying on the knowledge of those who came before him.

Even so, Crassus states "natural talent is the chief contributor to the virtue of oratory" (305). If this is the case, and one of the best paths to oratorical efficiency is through writing, then I think Frank Luntz could be a good candidate for the virtuous orator depending on his abilities. His partiality to the Republican party could be his moral calling.

I agree that Luntz is not a true, or at least mature, orator in the eyes of Cicero's Crassus. Although he is using manipulative diction, he does so without knowledge of his topic or decorum. Moreover, Luntz's tricks are transparent, if only because he has made them so.

Judging by the way Cicero’s Crassus speaks about the mature and virtuous orator, I think he would deride the young man schooled in the tricks of argumentation but lacking the general wisdom and decorum attributed to the so-called mature orator. Crassus is wholeheartedly invested in the orator’s ideal and full development, and he expects for the virtuous orator to be “an orator from whom every blemish has been taken away, and one who moreover is rich in every merit” (305). That is to say, the mature orator, according to Cicero, must be without blemish—he must be perfect. He goes further and states that because this orator is perfect, he must also be “rich in every merit.” So he must be knowledgeable in as many areas of discourse as possible. This includes the distinction Cicero makes between true knowledge and rhetoric. Both assets exist, but they must work in cooperation in order to make one a mature orator.

That said, Crassus probably would contend that the young man lacking the “general wisdom and decorum” reserved for mature orators would be un-virtuous. Crassus makes it very clear that the mature orator must be all-knowing, or at least as all-knowing as possible: “The orator must be accomplished in every kind of discourse and in every department of culture” (298). It is only through garnering knowledge that one can be virtuous. This certainly seems plausible; one would need to have an awareness of philosophy, for example, to build one’s notion of morality. One must also need to know what is immoral in order to distinguish it (whatever it may be) from the moral aspect of things. In this line of thinking, sure, knowledge leads to the attainment of virtue and thus makes one a virtuous and mature orator.

This idea also speaks to the potential dangers of oratory and rhetoric in general, that rhetoric can be manipulative. An awareness of morality will also lead one to good will. Again, it is knowing what is good will and what is bad will in order for one to be able to select the virtuous option (good will). So we would assume that a virtuous orator is one who engages in rhetoric with good will, to persuade for the betterment of something or someone.

So what would Crassus think about Frank Luntz? A prima facie glance would lead me to say that Crassus would consider Frank Luntz to be a true orator. Luntz shows himself to be knowledgeable. Indeed, the extensive research he puts into his work and his attention to detail certainly give him credibility. The fact that he works closely with politicians also helps. And concerning his work with words (as in, what terms he says should or shouldn’t be used to reach the American audience) speaks to two things: 1) it shows that he has an awareness of his audience, thus showing that he strives to reach his audience in the most effective way, and 2) it shows the attention to diction that Luntz has, something that, according to Cicero, is essential to the mature orator.

However, on second thought, I would argue that Crassus would ultimately not consider Luntz a true orator for the simple reason that Luntz is not being virtuous. His work with words is arguably based on an ill will. Luntz is essentially manipulating the American people by calling (to cite an example) “oil drilling” a euphemism like “energy exploration.” Sure, his arguments are effective, but they are only manipulative at the core, dissuading some people from their true beliefs.

Crassus defines the ideal Orator as one who has a natural talent for “the art” of speaking, (for he can go no further if there is no “inborn capacity”), has no faults and makes no mistakes, who can satisfy an audience, who has a wide knowledge of the world, and who has completed “certain practical training.”
Crassus states that even if a schoolboy has mastered the technical components of good oratory, he is in no way close to the ideal. For even after his practical training, a student must become intimately familiar with many subjects so he will be able to argue any topic given to him. Crassus does give a little credit to the practical training given by professors, for he says they “contain certain reminders” which can aid in keeping the orator on track during a speech.
There is “no rarer thing [which] can be discovered among the sons of men” than Crassus’ ideal orator; after natural talent and practical training, years of practice are required, not just in good speaking, but also in writing. So I think Crassus would view anyone who merely has technical proficiency as severely lacking the main components of a great orator.

Crassus seems to have a very negative opinion of those who do not heed basic tenets of oratory like practice, knowledge, and virtue, but instead simply apply ‘tricks of the trade.’ During his discourse with Antonius, Cotta, and Sulpicius, he lists a number of gifts or talents which are expected by the orator. To have an ability to “preserve in memory” what has been taught, to essentially command the language through the “subtlety of the logician,” and the ability to use poetic diction are just a few talents that Crassus says are necessary.

A speaker without those skills, applying “tricks” to his speech without a strong knowledge of the subject would also be derided by Crassus as the audience will discredit him for want of better ability. “For the man who is without ability, who makes mistakes, whose claim – in a word – does him discredit, should… be thrust down to such work as he can perform” (218). Oration is certainly not for everyone, it seems.

Also, an orator, as Crassus sees it, should “carefully see to it, that he not only contents those whom it is necessary to satisfy, but is wonderful as well in the eyes of such have the right to judge freely” (216). As an orator, one should strive to speak in a satisfying matter for everyone, not just those whom you are trying to persuade. The unashamed orator, one who is not uncertain of his use of the rhetoric or frightened by the difficulty of speaking, is held by Crassus as “deserving not merely of reprimand, but of punishment as well” (217). Basically, even if an orator has had much practice in his rhetoric, he should still respect its use. This trait in an orator is one that could be considered as virtuous.

Practice and training are essential for the virtuous orator, but the act of speaking is not enough. Crassus points out an adage that “it is by speaking that men as a rule become speakers,” and quickly contrasts that with, “The other adage is just as true – that by speaking badly men very easily succeed in becoming bad speakers” (220). Writing is another method by which one can enhance their ability to attain eloquence. An oratory well prepared in advance will surpass one spoken casually.

Finally, a most important part of good oratory is knowledge of your audience. “It is the part of a good orator, to have heard and seen much, and to have run over much in thought and reflection, as well as in his reading, not acquiring all this as his own possession, but tasting what belongs to others” (223).

In the eyes of Crassus, an orator trained only in tricks of speaking, without an actual knowledge of his subjects and his audience is not only un-virtuous and worthy of punishment but also a failure as an orator. Without that strong mix of talent, practice, and experience in the world, one cannot really be considered a true orator.