I love spotting rhetorical concepts in the wild.
It’s a thrill to have the news on in the background and suddenly getting to shout “There – a Red-Throated Concessio*! Do you see it? Look how it struts!”
I figured yesterday would be a good day for rhetoric spotting. Pete Hegseth’s confirmation hearing was on, which means hours and hours of verbal plumage flashing and dominance displays. Nothing brings out rhetorical posturing more than political theatre, and hearings are among the most theatrical events of all.
My favourite sighting from the segments I watched** was a fine example of the Blatant Sophist. I’ve been diving back into classical rhetoric lately and am reading about the sophists at the moment, so I was primed to spot this one. It was quick, fleeting, but delightful. Before I share it with you, though, let’s take a quick look at sophism.
What is sophism?
The Sophists were a group of itinerant intellectuals were wandering around Athens and the surrounding area in the latter part of the 5th century BCE. They mostly taught argumentation and public speaking, and promised to make their clients – male citizens who could pay a hefty fee – better at…stuff. Cooler and smarter and more special than the people around them. YouTuber Lindybeige compares them to pick-up artists, which I think is hilarious.
Many sophists employed flashy rhetorical skills that would help them win debates even when they had neither insight nor understanding of the issue at hand (seriously, they advertised their services by promising to teach people how to do this). Their specialty was baffling with bullshit. Their arguments appeared dense, but had no substance, like a puffy bag of chips with only a few disappointing crumbs inside. They love making “gotcha” statements and rely on cleverness over rigor. A defining characteristic is scoring points by being pedantic, rather than arguing meaningfully. “Sophism” and “sophistry” refer to using this style of argumentation. If you want a primo example of sophism at work, look up Gorgias’ On Non-Existence. It’s dazzling and infuriating. You’ll be frustrated into submission by the second paragraph.
Thanks for the lesson, professor. When did the Blatant Sophist show up during the hearing?
The Blatant Sophist made frequent, fleeting appearances throughout the hearing. Actually, that should be Blatant Sophists, because there were several present among both Dems and GOP (they tend to flock at political events). But my favourite appearance was during an exchange between Elizabeth Warren and Pete Hegseth – click here to watch the clip.
Did you catch it?
“Senator, I’m not a general.”
There it is, the Blatant Sophist cawing it’s tune for all to hear! It garnered some admiration, too, with laughter rippling through the audience as they recognized it’s song.
The reason I point to this line as an example of sophism is because Hegseth is perfectly aware of what Warren’s question means. He knows what the spirit of the inquiry is – will he hold himself to the same standard as those under his watch. But he gets pedantic, he chooses to argue on technical points rather than meaning and merit. “I’m not a general” is factual, but it’s not an acceptable argument. It’s slippery, scoring points for being cheeky and funny, but it dodges the question. Warren makes her frustration clear and calls him out on his strategy (along with the fact that he is tacitly refusing to hold himself to the same standard out of the gate). But Hegseth’s sophistry will please his supporters, precisely because the “gotcha” nature of his reply gives them a little tickle.
Now, a single statement does not a sophist make. If I were to be picky, I’d say that specific sentence is an example of changing the premise of the question via your answer. But we don’t do rhetoric one sentence at a time. It exists throughout the larger conversation, and sophistry was used throughout the hearing. There was a lot of rhetorical dodging, lots of non-answers and slippery responses. It’s to be expected in political theatres like this. I just love, though, how obvious the Blatant Sophist made itself with this sentence.
See, kids, rhetoric can be fun!
*Concessio is a rhetorical maneuver where you concede that the other person has a point, and use that to strengthen your own argument.
**No, I did not watch the whole 4-plus hours. I’m not that kind of masochist.
