Quora Answer: How Do Politicians Use Ethos, Pathos, & Logos during Political Debates?

The following is my answer to a Quora question: “How do politicians use ethos, pathos, and logos, during political debates?” 

When politicians engage in political debates, the sort that is public, it is for two reasons: to differentiate themselves from their opponents, and to be associated with a cause or policy that can gain traction.  A secondary objective is to diminish the credibility of their opponents, and tie them to an unpopular position.  In the course of this, they avail themselves to the constituent parts of rhetoric. 

Ethos is the characteristic values of the audience.  The speaker undertakes the speaker persona, and channels the crowd, but subtly influences their positions by appealing to their perceived values, their ethics, their jingoism.  This is also the appeal to their prejudices, and fear of the stranger.  As such, it can go both ways.  A classic trope, for example, would be Nigel Paul Farage, of the Brexit Party, claiming that Turks will join the European Union, flood the UK through the EU’s freedom of movement, and challenge “British” values.  This may also be found in Adolf Hitler’s attack on the Jews, and how they are subverting the German state. 

On the other hand, it has a positive side.  An example would be Winston Leonard Spencer-Churchill’s famous “Never Surrender” speech, which galvanised the UK, and the Commonwealth, in opposing Nazi Germany.  It is found in Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, which appealed to common values, after the Union victory during the American Civil War, among the first steps to heal a divided nation. 

Ethos works with pathos, their appeal to emotion.  It is literally an appeal to their sense of injustice, their perceived injustices, and their rage.  This is the tool of demagoguery, and has a long history.  This is also the best means to move the masses, since the larger the crowd, the lower their intelligence quotient.  People, in large numbers, are easily moved by emotions.  This works in tandem with kairos, which is an appeal to timelessness, the weight of history, and the appeal to the divine.  Religion moves people to great works, and to great violence. 

An example of pathos would be found in Malcolm X’s “House Negro” speech, where he contrasts the “house negro”, who is complicit in the disenfranchisement and oppression of the African-Americans, as accomplices with their White masters; versus the “field negro”, who is barely held in check, ever ready to rise up against their subjugation, and ready to fight for their emancipation. 

A modern, negative example of pathos would be Donald John Trump’s first major campaign speech, where he said that Mexico was sending murders, and rapists, across the borders, and appealed to the fear of the disenfranchised White underclass, and blaming Hispanic immigrants for their plight.  It is illogical, and contrary to facts, but it got him the Presidency of the United States, and disunited the states. 

Logos is, essentially, an appeal to logic.  Whilst there is a need for an underlying, seemingly coherent, and cogent, argument, it is not often necessary.  These types of speeches are used to explain policy, from a position of strength, not to gain votes, or move the masses.  People are often impervious to logic.  A classic example of logos, in a major speech, would be Marcus Porcius Cato’s speech to preserve the Roman Republic against the imperial designs of Gaius Julius Caesar.  Marcus Porcius Cato is better known as Cato the Younger.  His speech ultimately moved the Senate against Caesar, and succeeded.  Rome became an empire after his, and Caesar’s death. 

Within the context of debates, they are seldom about great speeches, or the rules of rhetoric.  They are sniping contests, and glorified roasts.  No one actually has the time to articulate a proper policy positions, and appeal to the better parts of the audience.  Debates are appeals to emotions, and the lesser parts of us, for immediate action.  The media are looking for sound bites, not cogent arguments.