Serious v. Rhetorical

To be honest, I'm not finished reading the book selection yet. I got about halfway through when I had to put it down for the great headache I received when considering the difference between Serious People and Rhetorical People and definition of Rhetoric in general. Although others here have said Ramage is writing an arguement against Rhetorical People, I got the impression that he must prefer their abstract ways of thinking rather than to belong to the Serious People group, who seem to need an answer for everything.

I have to disagree. Serious People do need answers, as do I, yet I also consider the range of answers that could be given in a given situation, as a Rhetorical Person. Almost like politics (which is funny, considering the average politician's attachment to rhetoric), it seems rare for a person to be set into one particular ideology. Of course it could be done, but for those with both characteristics, the practice is an unfair judgement.

Reading the eReserves packet, I was interested in reading about the attempts of persuasive arguements in popular debates, such as capital punishment, even though topics like the death penalty and abortion and whatnot have been done to death (oh the horrible puns!), I like the idea of rhetoric thinking of a new way to present an old problem. Guess who has a new problem? George Ryan, the former governor of Illinois mentioned in the article. If you're a member of New York Times online, which is free, you could click on his name to read about how he was just sentenced to 6 and 1/2 years in prison for corruption and fraud. Although some anti-capital punishment activists might have cheered Ryan when he gave clemency to death row inmates the second before he left office, perhaps they might be singing a different tune now that he did something illegal. Then again, people make mistakes, and sometimes, people pay for it. Or the taxpayers, but I would argue this with Ryan himself or another corrupt politician. I'm sure you'd have your pick.

I seriously believe all situations need to be judged based on their individual attributes. Just because George Ryan made a mistake doesn't mean all politicans make mistakes, based on a rhetorical view. However, the popularity of rich white men publicly bashing either other in campaign ads, committing fraud and money laundering, and basically fighting to get into office so they could either vote for their own pay raise or vote against raising minimum wage is just the way society sees their government leaders. Is this the way things really are or the way they are perceived? Ramage's Serious People might give a straight yes/no answer, Rhetorical People might be a little more socially sensitive, saying it could be either depending on an individual's personal beliefs.

And now I'm done thinking about rhetoric for the night...