Aristotle, in his Rhetoric, tends to give the ‘grand’ style the edge over the more ‘forensic’ approach in deliberate communication. Cicero’s genius was that he could use both styles effectively. He knew when and where to change his style, and as a result he was just as successful in the political arena as he was in the law courts.
Originally deliberative rhetoric had a political orientation; it was designed as a form of political speaking suitable to a parliamentary situation and, consequently, concerns the future. It concerns the benefits or harm of a proposal; the advantages or non-advantages of a proposal. It exhorts or dissuade. Aristotle tells us in his Rhetoric that deliberative rhetoric “always advises about things to come”. It is usually about the future and persuasion.
Deliberative rhetoric is about persuading an audience. It is about what we should choose or what we should avoid; the possible and the impossible.
“The political orator aims at establishing the expediency or the harmfulness of a proposal course of action; if he urges its acceptance, he does so on the ground that it will do good; if he urges its rejection, he does so on the grounds that it will do harm; and all the other points, such as whether the proposal is just or not, honorable or dishonorable, he brings in as subsidiary and relative to this main considerations” .
DNC 2012 – Bill Clinton – Full Speech – Democratic National Convention 2012
