That it is or isn't stronger than violence doesn't require us to ponder the moral content of the rhetoric when describing the political world. Or, rather, the content is only important politically insofar as we can wonder how well it will mobilize. And indeed, as we have seen with immigration recently, the moral argument from fellow-feel…
That it is or isn't stronger than violence doesn't require us to ponder the moral content of the rhetoric when describing the political world. Or, rather, the content is only important politically insofar as we can wonder how well it will mobilize. And indeed, as we have seen with immigration recently, the moral argument from fellow-feeling for human beings has fallen flat on its face all across the West.
In any case, rhetoric is not always stronger. And as Machiavelli teaches, violence is not just a sledgehammer, and manipulation and coercion — also the realm of rhetoric — take many forms.
That it is or isn't stronger than violence doesn't require us to ponder the moral content of the rhetoric when describing the political world. Or, rather, the content is only important politically insofar as we can wonder how well it will mobilize. And indeed, as we have seen with immigration recently, the moral argument from fellow-feeling for human beings has fallen flat on its face all across the West.
In any case, rhetoric is not always stronger. And as Machiavelli teaches, violence is not just a sledgehammer, and manipulation and coercion — also the realm of rhetoric — take many forms.
Yes, I agree.