Rhetoric and virtue

I'm a bibliophile. I love books for the knowledge they impart, for the way they stimulate my imagination, for making my life immeasurably richer since the time I picked up Fun with Dick and Jane as an over-active first-grader. There's also a tactile pleasure to be had with books. Nothing in my experience compares to the scent and the texture of an elegantly leather-bound volume. For that reason alone, the I-Pod and Microsoft Reader will never replace the traditional form of reading at my house.

To illustrate just how much I love reading, how many people do you know who would become engrossed in a book entitled The Folio Book of Historic Speeches? Sounds duller than dirt doesn't it? I promise, it isn't. Spanning the millenniums that separate Moses and Richard Nixon, the book contains excerpts and entire speeches in some of the most eloquent words ever spoken in any language, and reading one last night which is familiar to many students of American history gave me much to consider. Here's the peroration. You'll probably recognize the speaker rather quickly.

"It is vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry peace, peace -- but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"

That, of course, was Patrick Henry, speaking on March 23, 1775, to the Virginia Convention of Delegates in Richmond.

In a world accustomed to sound bite, poll-watching politicians, Henry's rhetoric seems quaint, even archaic. Some no doubt would point out the inherent contradiction in a speech that calls for liberty in a slave-holding country. Others would pounce on the fact that Henry addressed only the "gentlemen" -- there were no women voters, let alone delegates or officeholders.

But those criticisms are misplaced. Looking for 21st century ideals in an 18th century mind is anachronistic thinking. Henry was a product of his age, no less than we are today.

More to the point is a consideration of the words themselves, the passion and the truth behind the rhetoric. This was not idle talk. These were words spoken in the shadow of the gallows, for to lose the battle ahead was to be branded with treason. Henry well understood this, as did every colonist who took up arms or the pen against the British crown.

Place "give me liberty or give me death" next to Dubya's infamous "Bring it on" for a moment. More than just a skilled orator is lacking in Bush's idiotic challenge. Henry's words can still inspire today because they were laden with virtue. There was valor in his utterance, and a belief that some causes are worth personally sacrificing life.

It would take far more credulity than I can muster to imagine Bush, Cheney or their confederates sacrificing themselves for a cause. I believe that perhaps Martin Luther King, Jr. possessed that level of resolve, but if Hillary Clinton was inspired by anything other than self-aggrandizing as she sprinted under a hail of "sniper fire" (for shame, Ms. Clinton) I'd be astonished, were the story not a blatant lie.

Rhetoric, clumsy or elegant, is one thing. Rhetoric inspired by real virtue is quite another. We could all use a little Patrick Henry these days.