Simple Times

 In this week’s reading, I viewed the three types of style as three types of separate languages.  If “Grand” is Latin, “Middle” is English, and “Simple” is Gaelic, then the grand can understand all, the middle can understand a little from each, and the simple are left scratching their heads.  This model holds true in a lot of areas, but in this class my mind goes to political speeches.  

“The Simple type is brought down even to the most current idiom of standard speech.” (248 top right)   Despite our era of complex technology, unending access to information, and a bounty of insight into human emotions due to over sharing on social networks, we live in extremely simple times, rhetorically speaking.  Or, simply put, we sort of like, prefer to have the world catered to our immediate way of talking and like, existing, or whatever?  Like…our ears will only perk up for information if the speaker talks like one of our peers?  Like even if none of these sentences are questions, the implied vocal inflection conveys a type of social affinity that might unfortunately lend credibility to even the worst types of spokespeople? (okay, enough cynicism.)

I hate to admit it, but if the President (any president) addressed the American people with the common vocal inflection that I illustrated above, with equal simplicity, I’d probably listen more intently than if it were given in a “Grand” or “Middle” format.  Obviously, part of the reason would be the oddity of the situation, but the main reason would be more along the lines of me realizing, “Oh, I’m about to understand what the President is saying, for once.”  I’m politically underdeveloped, so laymans terms from a leader’s mouth could go a long way.  I love a good metaphor, even if it is slightly “clumsy” (251 top left) to illustrate a point in an applicable way.  The only issue is if I don’t understand the concept, it’s likely that I also will not understand the metaphor.  I’m not at all saying that I want the entire country to shift to pure simplicity, because without Grand and Middle forms we may never lay the foundation for further rhetorical discovery, as Plato/Socrates/Anon have done for us.  But I am saying that when a large part of the population takes a turn towards the simplistic, a good leader and speaker should cater to all three forms, instead of leaving the simple to fend for themselves.