Based on the definition of a fine political orator, I think Barack Obama participates in pandering oratory. Barack Obama's speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention was by far filled with several of the components that Socrates suggests are in line with beneficial oratory. On pg. 98, Socrates suggests qualities such as someone who has an "eye to what is best," with an "aim for their speeches to improve their fellow citizens" and "always striving to say what is best." During a time of rumor slinging and cheaply coined elementary name calling such as "flip-flopping," it was refreshing to see someone rise to the occasion of addressing the wounds of polarization and critical political, philosophical and other drawn-out divisions among our nation at a time when we have enough people fighting us externally on top of the wars internally.

A public figure that fits the category of 'philosopher expert' is the Dali Lama. He is all for the good of the people and the good of the world. He is someone who "aims at making the souls of the citizens as good as possible”.

A public figure that fits the pandering category would be (as everyone else has stated) President Bush. I believe Bush went to war so quickly so he wouldn't appear weak or vulnerable to the rest of the world. Whether or not that was necessary however, is another story.

I'm having some trouble deciding between "good orator" and "bad orator". most modern politicians, if not all, are a combination of both depending on what day it is. therefore, I will stay away from that realm and choose Howard Stern as my example of a "bad orator" because he only sets out to "merely gratify the citizens"(p98) without caring whether he betters them or not and the Dali Lama as my example of a "good orator" because his goal is to enlighten people and open channels of communication between the masses.

Much like some of the other postings, I'm having some trouble thinking of a "truth-seeking" orator. Most orators probably see themselves in a kind of "truth-seeking" light, when they may be viewed as pandering by others. In my opinion, most orators probably exhibit a little bit of both qualities. For myself, truth-seeking isn't as black and white as Socrates makes it out to be and sometimes truth is a matter of opinion... what appears to one person as an orator's attempt to sway an audience for personal gain, may appear to a different audience as the truth. So I suppose it all ultimately hinges upon a personal definition of truth.
amy_lee

Despite their common fundamentalist tendencies, Bush and Socrates part ways when it comes to their approaches. We spent a long time today in 368C talking about the difference between argument and persuasion (this is apparently the first thing they're supposed to teach you in RHE 306), which is primarily that argument simply seeks to uncover the truth while persuasion presupposes a truth and attempts to convey it to others. Or argument seeks conviction whereas persuasion seeks action. Socrates seems dogmatically persuasive enough, but the key difference between him and Bush here is that Socrates doesn't make claims about what, exactly, is good or right. Bush, on the other hand, seems to have very defined views about not only there being a good but also what that good is. And he has no qualms about running the country based on that which he perceives to be the good, or the right. So I wouldn't call him a panderer; I'd say he's fundamentalist to a fault.

On the Bush thing and Socrates: If we think of the cat pill analogy - which is kind of Socrates analogy - whereby what is good for the cat is not pleasant, then Bush comes out pretty bad. Sure it's all perspective, but he never really stands up to his crowd - the Republican led legistlature. He never says, "We cannot afford tax cuts at this moment, but as soon as it seems feasible I will do that." He did not say, "Well a Supreme Court Justice nomination is an important decision. I think we should take our time in considering this. In addition I think that it would serve the public best for a moderate with a strong civil rights background. I know you would like a strong conservative." Socrates would not consider him an expert, but he would fall into the pandering category. There's more to it, though. Really, Socrates kind of envisions everything in black and white when it comes to matters of justice and laws, when in reality it is not so. Someone could easily see a different side to my assessment. Hell I can: Tax cuts hurt social programs but ultimately help the economy. Taking us to war even though it requires grave economic and human sacrifice predominantly on the part of our country's poor will help our country by making Iraq a new market. Giving the American people a good Supreme Court justice would only make us all accustomed to a government branch with some semblence of integrity which would make the executive and legislative branch look bad in comparison, which is bound to be confusing and painful to all.

Of course, Clinton was way worse than Bush in the whole pandering department. Bill Clinton, I shake my fist in your general direction. That's all I will say about that.

Lloyd Doggett is my hero. He has held minority views - enough to piss off Tom DeLay at least - but does so consistently because he believes in them. At least that is what I think he does. I'm on his email list, and he sends periodic copies of his speeches. It must not be easy to make statements that he knows the Republicans will despise. I'm proud of him. Maybe he panders to his liberal constituents, but I don't believe he does so.

Is Jon Stewart considered an orator? I don't think he really panders - not like that shameful O'Reilly. I'm just not sure if he can be considered an orator because he doesn't just make speeches. He actually engages people in dialogue.

Since Bush seems to be the popular choice tonight, I'll talk about him. I think it's interesting to see what people have to say about Bush and if he is a bad orator or a good orator. Supporters of Bush would most likely say that Bush is a good orator because he and his team are supposed to be experts and probably would say that the speeches he gives to the American public are for good reasons. However, those against Bush would probably say that he "likely had numerous personal and business interests at stake" and is not an expert. I think it's probably a mixture of both ideas. I seriously doubt that Bush believes that what he is doing is not for the good, but he probably uses oratory for his own interests as well. Every time I think of someone who might be an example of a good orator, I also think of reasons why they are also pursuing their own self-interest at the same time. I'm not sure that there are actually "good orators" and "bad orators". I think people are a combination of the two.

In response to Nick's post, I have to wonder if Bush's actions in Iraq can be labeled as a clear pursuit for the public good. You later state that Bush justified the war "in which he likely had numerous personal and business interests at stake" by lying to the public. Under Socrates' definition of a good orator, one must attempt to "bring justice and moderation and every other virtue to birth in the souls of his fellow-citizens" (p. 100). Lying to the American public clearly is not an attempt to purify and better our souls; it seems that Bush is telling the public what they would rather hear so that Bush&co can do as they please.

With that said, I had a hard time thinking of someone who represented a ‘good orator’ in today’s world. I believe that Andrew Sullivan fits Socrates’ definition of a good orator. He is a journalist who attempts to look at everything at face value and then evaluate it based on what he believes to be good. He is a conservative who does not attach himself to the Republican Party; instead he “strives to say what’s best” (p. 98) without worrying if it will upset the public, because his focus is on speaking the truth rather than appeasing large crowds.

There are so many public figures that could fit the role of a bad orator in my opinion. Furthermore there are only a few who closely fit the description of a good orator. Obviously, this is an unfortunate. The person who sticks out the most in my mind for a bad orator is Ann Coulter. Ann is quite the panderer, and she uses the media to stir up debate through her words. I think she takes an extremist view on politics with regard to the conservative agenda. She seems to enjoy making a mockery of the Democratic Party. If she was to “aim at making the souls of the citizens as good as possible”, why must she insist upon making fun of her opponents? Watching her interviews, I wonder (A.) why she insists upon making the loudest argument, (B.) why she constantly berates and mocks whatever opponent she is facing, (C.) how she claims the liberals only recite their agenda when she does the same and (D.) thinks she has support and a place in the Republican Party. She meddles in bitterness. I have never seen her in a pursuit of knowledge. What knowledge could she possibly be trying to discover when she cannot seem to overcome her own obsession with negativity? Even if Ann was in a pursuit of truth and the good in public life, she would never attain her goal because she only focuses on her view of “badness” in this world. She is completely involved in a pursuit of power, which she unfortunately attains through her colourful news interviews.
Socrates says that the good orator has a goal to “aim at making the souls of the citizens as good as possible.” My initial thoughts think of famous evangelists like Billy Graham and more recently, Joel Osteen. Although they definitely have an aim to make the souls of citizens good and godly, the art of their oratory is based upon scripture, which is a belief, not scientific fact. They exercise some sort of faith when they preach about God because, even though they claim things about God, they themselves are exercising faith in their assumptions. I cannot think of a person who accurately and actively pursues the good of citizens, because I do not know if they are being oratory for knowledge’s sake or personal power. I think the description of a news journalist would be a good example, although most likely a small percentage of the media actually pursue knowledge for the good of mankind. I am a journalism major, and I am taught to be objective and use my five senses as an honest spectator of the world, and then report on what I encounter. I want to strive to be the best journalist I can be, and I think being an honest witness to the things of this world and giving an honest report of what happened is an effort to make the world good. A journalist is responsible for helping the citizens understand this world a little better. If there could be trust and a real relationship between the citizens and the journalists, then there could be positive results for making the world as good as possible.

To give Socrates’ distinction a fuller look in a modern context, I want to apply both his definitions to the same political figure, to see if either rings true or if perhaps the label “panderer” or “truth-seeker” only depends on your attitude toward that figure and his positions. Simply because he is the most important and accessible figure in modern politics, I’ll use our current president.

One side: President Bush fits Socrates’ conception of an expert statesman, and his speech and public actions demonstrate a clear pursuit of truth and public good. Reflection on the nature of government and of the duties great powers have in regards to the world have led Bush to invade Iraq and topple its authoritarian power structure. He takes a wide view of the public good, and thus taken action to replace a government which abused human rights and exploited its resources greedily with what he has determined is the truest and most necessary regime, representative rule by the people. In public speech he is not afraid to criticize his opponents and detractors, for he seeks only the course of right action, not a false consensus based on rhetorical appeal. The President also works toward the protection of the good through his judgment and influence, by appointing those of sound reason and moral clarity to our nation’s Supreme Court. And although we cannot know entirely his personal search for truth (as he is a public figure and cannot engage in individual dialectic with us), the recent advisory meeting on the Iraq war, which included many officials of previous administrations with great wisdom and expertise, seems indicative of the correct attitude.

Other side: President Bush is a rhetor, with all the negative connotations Socrates attaches to this. His actions appear alternately motivated by a need to appease (to stay in power) and by his personal agendas. In justifying the Iraq war, in which he likely had numerous personal and business interests at stake, he unabashedly lied to the public in his speech, using persuasion toward the end he found convenient at the time. While in power he seeks to spread his influence, by appointing like-minded and/or subservient individuals to positions of power spanning from the Executive to the Judiciary. Of course, he embeds these actions in a rhetoric of conservative ideology, which allows him manipulative powers through appeals to particular majority values and concerns. The promotion of a “marriage amendment” during his reelection campaign, which he later clearly had no intention of acting upon, further reinforces the notion that he uses any persuasive means necessary (rather than applicable and well-considered truth) to gain his own ends. The President’s speeches consist mostly of loaded words and catchphrases, and he succeeds in part because our culture emphasizes presentation over content, and seems to no longer have the time to sit down and argue dialectically (even on political matters of the utmost importance).

The existence of these two opposing points of view on the same political figure, which I believe are both fairly common among the public, hint that even if we assume this distinction which Socrates puts forth, finding out which category an individual falls into requires knowledge of motivation (something we can’t usually know). In absence of this, we tend to attribute motives to people based on our own beliefs and biases, which can often be made to look reasonable through rhetorical spin and selective use of evidence.