Recent polling shows that younger generations are increasingly distrustful of democracy. That lack of trust stems from real issues: The government can seem slow, corrupt, polarized, and unable to effectively respond to problems. Due to this, support for alternative forms of government can begin to grow. A strong leader promises quick solutions, fewer obstacles, and less chaos, while defenders of democracy seem to be losing the debate over governance.
One primary driver of this distrust in democracy is the breakdown of ethical rhetoric. Modern speakers have lost touch with a productive use of rhetoric itself. When rhetoric loses this foundation, persuasion turns to manipulation, and democracy loses the basic conditions necessary for effective public debate.
In its most simplistic form, rhetoric is the study of persuasion. The discipline analyzes the speaker, audience, message, and background situation to assess how people are convinced. Democracy relies on rhetoric to effectively function, focusing on persuasion rather than force.
This role of rhetoric has been part of the tradition of U.S. democracy since its founding. Deliberation grounded in ethical rhetoric provides the lifeblood for how elected members of Congress create new legislation. The First Amendment specifically safeguards the right of all Americans to argue about laws, rights, leaders, and values — something that can only happen in a society built upon the ethical use of rhetoric.
One of the most basic rhetorical tools democracy uses is audience analysis. When debating an issue, it is important for the speaker to know who their audience is. Different people care about different things, and no single argument will persuade everyone. Therefore, rhetoric teaches speakers to shape their arguments around the values and concerns of the people they are trying to persuade. Audience analysis, however, can be a double-edged sword. Ethical audience analysis means respecting the audience and caring for their needs. Unethical audience analysis uses the public’s fears, anger, or confusion and exploits them.
When applied to the broader debate over government, a defender of democracy might respond by pointing out that democracy limits the power of any one official, taking their audience’s concern seriously rather than dismissing it. It does not require lying to or manipulating them. Instead, it responds directly to something they already value and helps explain why their side best supports their views.
To start developing an ethical argument, the speaker must use “ethos,” or establish credibility, to best persuade their audience. Before giving the speaker a fair listen, the audience needs to trust the arguer before they are likely to accept the argument. Yet, there are a plethora of reasons that the public may not immediately trust pro-democracy advocates. They may sound fake, act as if democracy has no flaws, or ignore people’s real frustrations with the system. To develop the proper ethos, ethical arguers must acknowledge their side’s flaws. By admitting that democracy can have corruption, inequality, or polarization, advocates can better explain how democracy can be used to solve these problems. Credibility comes from honesty, and by admitting the possible flaws of democracy, speakers can explain how democracy allows for these problems to be challenged and corrected.
Once ethos is established, speakers must employ “logos,” or logical reasoning, to carefully construct a proper argument. Democracy has clear upsides, but when explaining them, the arguments must be made carefully. For example, democracy does not automatically produce freedom but instead creates the conditions in which freedom can flourish by establishing a system for accountability and limits on power. To ensure proper ethical rhetoric, arguments should be constructed using real, unbiased evidence. It should not cherry-pick facts, ignore uncertainty, or pretend that complicated problems have simple answers. Logical persuasion requires making an argument that can withstand heavy scrutiny.
To go alongside the logical approach, speakers must also make the audience “feel” why democracy matters. Pro-democracy advocates should tap into “pathos,” or emotional appeal, to explain the real-world impacts of democracy. Democracy can be connected to having a voice and hoping for change, something that may not be found in other forms of governance.
However, pulling at the audience’s emotions can sometimes do more harm than good. Emotions should support the truth rather than replace it. While ethical emotional rhetoric can help people understand why democracy matters, using it unethically can undermine democracy and freedom. Fearmongering, scapegoating, and dehumanizing opponents are common ways modern-day politicians unethically use real, widely shared American values to manipulate their audience. The key to avoiding improper manipulation is for these emotional appeals to enhance or reinforce logical appeals, rather than displace them.
Although proper rhetoric provides a platform to ethically express your opinion, it can also be used to create enormous harm. Many anti-democratic movements use rhetoric to attempt to persuade their audience. The Nazis used rhetoric. Dictatorships use rhetoric. Even in the modern day, we see similar problems in some of the rhetoric surrounding Dr. Anthony Fauci.
Following his July 2026 Senate hearing, many different conservative media outlets portrayed Fauci as a fundamentally dishonest and malicious person, deeming him a “fame-hungry narcissist” and malicious person. Regardless of whether someone supports or disagrees with the doctor’s decisions during the COVID-19 pandemic, this type of hurtful rhetoric moves the debate away from ethically questioning his policies to creating more anger and distrust for public health agencies.
In light of these risks, defenders of democracy need to do more than just become better persuaders; they need to make sure that rhetoric remains truthful and ethical. Ethical rhetoric must allow for disagreement rather than threatening opponents and controlling populations. The end goal should be proper persuasion, not absolute control and fearmongering.
In order to reconstruct our democracy back to its proper place, we need broader buy-in from the American public. Many people are focusing on reforms to the government, but a policy agenda will not be enough. The pro-democracy movement must also convince the majority of Americans that democracy is worth saving. A renewed commitment to the ethical use of rhetoric offers a pathway to success.
