This sort of argument was surprisingly common in the 18th and 19th century compared to today. The Federalist Papers, for example, lay out the problem as a set of premises leading inexorably to a conclusion. I find it hard to imagine a politician successfully using such a form of argument today.
At least that’s my impression; perhaps appeals to authority and emotion were just as common in the past as today but selection effects prevent me from seeing them.
The Federalist Papers, for example, lay out the problem as a set of premises leading inexorably to a conclusion. I find it hard to imagine a politician successfully using such a form of argument today.
Today’s politicians don’t use writing as their primary means of convincing other people. Airplane travel is cheap. It doesn’t cost much to get a bunch of people into a room behind closed doors and talk through an issue.
This sort of argument was surprisingly common in the 18th and 19th century compared to today. The Federalist Papers, for example, lay out the problem as a set of premises leading inexorably to a conclusion. I find it hard to imagine a politician successfully using such a form of argument today.
At least that’s my impression; perhaps appeals to authority and emotion were just as common in the past as today but selection effects prevent me from seeing them.
Also, in the past the people you were trying to convince were likely to be better educated.
Today’s politicians don’t use writing as their primary means of convincing other people. Airplane travel is cheap. It doesn’t cost much to get a bunch of people into a room behind closed doors and talk through an issue.