Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Understanding ‘logos’: The power of words

Martin Luther King Jr.

From Abraham Lincoln's soaring Gettysburg Address to Martin Luther King Jr.'s impassioned "I Have a Dream" speech, logos has been the engine of social and political change throughout history.

PhotoQuest/Getty Images

Johnson is a United Methodist pastor, the author of "Holding Up Your Corner: Talking About Race in Your Community" and program director for the Bridge Alliance, which houses The Fulcrum.

As the dust settles on another contentious election cycle, Americans are left to ponder the lasting impact of the countless speeches delivered by those vying for our votes. These orations, often derided as mere "campaign rhetoric," are, in fact, far more profound. They represent a timeless exercise of the ancient concept of "logos" — the art of using words to paint vivid pictures, conjure entire worlds and shape the very course of our nation.


Logos, derived from the Greek word for reason or discourse, uses logical, rational arguments to persuade and convince others. It has been a driving force in American politics since the republic's earliest days, with leaders continually harnessing its power to inspire, educate and call their fellow citizens to action. From Abraham Lincoln's soaring Gettysburg Address to Martin Luther King Jr.'s impassioned "I Have a Dream" speech, logos has been the engine of social and political change throughout history.

The power of logos have been on full display in the political speeches delivered by this cycle's presidential candidates, Kamala Harris and Donald Trump, in the campaign's final days. Standing on the hallowed grounds of the National Mall, Harris summoned the spirits of suffragists and civil rights activists who once fought for a greater cause. Her words wove a tapestry of struggle and progress, culminating in a call to action that felt deeply personal and universally relevant. She reminded her listeners that the story of America is one of constant striving, of a nation forever reaching for its highest ideals. And she issued a challenge — to continue that journey, to push forward even when the path ahead proved challenging.

Contrast this with Trump's discourse, which conjures a world of grievance, division, and nostalgia for a bygone era. His words often seek to stoke fear and anger, to create a sense of us versus them and to position himself as the champion of those feeling left behind. He speaks of a declining nation, threats lurking around every corner and enemies at the gate. Trump's is a rhetoric of resentment, a call to arms against the forces of other than himself. Where Harris' words were inclusive, Trump's are exclusive. Where she sought to heal, he sought to divide. In his vision, America is a fortress under siege, not a beacon of hope for the world.

These two oratorical approaches represent fundamentally different visions of what America is and what it can be. They demonstrate logos' power to unite, divide, inspire or inflame. This dual nature of political speech will only become more critical in the days and years ahead. On one hand, it can be a force for unity and uplift, bridging divides and inspiring collective action towards a common purpose. Through the power of words, leaders can tap into our shared values and aspirations, reminding us of the ties that bind us together as a people. They can paint a vision of an inclusive and just future where every voice is heard and every story is valued. In this way, political speech can heal wounds, mend fractures and rebuild a sense of common purpose.

On the other hand, it can be a weapon of polarization, a tool for sowing discord and an entrenching of existing fault lines. With divisive and inflammatory rhetoric, leaders can exploit our fears and deepen our divisions. They can create an "us versus them" mentality, where those who disagree are not just opponents but enemies. This kind of speech poisons our public discourse, making it impossible to find common ground or work toward the common good.

Moving forward from this election, the question of how we will wield the power of logos will shape the course of history for generations to come. Will the choice of our words be to lift each other or to tear each other down? Will we seek to heal and unite or to divide and conquer? The answer to that question will determine whether America remains a source of hope and symbol of freedom for the world. Or will we succumb to the forces of fear, anger and resentment. We are remembering the profound power of words to shape our collective destiny. As the ancient Greeks knew well, logos is not just a tool of persuasion — it is the force that gives meaning and direction to our lives.


Read More

The exterior of a home.

While en route to surrender his Army of Northern Virginia to General Ulysses S. Grant on April 9, 1865, General Robert E. Lee rode past Appomattox Courthouse in rural Virginia.

visionsofmaine / Getty Images

The Civil War Never Really Ended, But an American Union Could Finally Help America Truly Heal

In previous essays, I argued that the United States should seriously consider a new governing structure — an “American Union” — in which red and blue America peacefully separate into two sovereign nations while preserving a common military alliance, shared currency, and freedom of movement, with each new nation having its own constitution reflecting its own political consensus.

Simply put, the United States is too politically, culturally, and geographically divided to function effectively under the existing highly centralized, winner-take-all system in which every election determines how more than 330 million people must live.

Keep ReadingShow less
 Constitution of the United States

A look at America's growing crisis of trust, rising inequality, technology's impact, and how founding principles can help renew democracy.

Tetra Images / Getty Images

People Are Hurting: The U.S. Needs to Return to Our Founding Principles

There are many ways in which our country is currently struggling, both from a government perspective and from the people's perspective. There is no shortage of articles or studies detailing the ways in which the country and its leaders are failing us.

A recent article by Nicholas Kristof in The New York Times discussed the report of the State of the Nation Project—written by a bipartisan group of experts—that assessed the state of our country on 31 measures. Bottom line, it found that too many people do not feel good about their lives, about other people, or our institutions. This is a nationwide phenomenon; the worst performers may be red states in the South, but liberal states in the North and West have the same problems. And it's not a function of prosperous versus less-prosperous states.

Keep ReadingShow less
Democrats Don’t Get Why They’ve Lost Most Working Class Voters

Graham Platner, Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate, speaks at an event hosted by U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders in Orono, Maine, on May 24, 2026.

Democrats Don’t Get Why They’ve Lost Most Working Class Voters

Since 2016, when Donald Trump shattered the Democrats’ blue wall by winning working-class voters across the Midwest, a cottage industry has sprung up on the left dedicated to answering a single question: How can Democrats win back the working class?

The answers come in different forms. Sometimes it is veteran Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders – barnstorming red districts, railing against oligarchy and corporate greed.

Keep ReadingShow less
​The Edmund Pettus Bridge, in Selma, Alabama, was the scene of violent clashes as Martin Luther King led a march from Selma to Montgomery.

Following the Supreme Court's Louisiana v. Callais ruling, MBA students explore Selma's civil rights history and the urgent lessons of democratic leadership.

Getty Images, Kirkikis

What We Owe Democracy

The day before we flew to Alabama to lead a civil rights and leadership trek with 30 MBA students, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Louisiana v. Callais, a case we were watching closely in light of our upcoming trip. Writing for the majority, Justice Alito substantially narrowed Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, ruling that states may draw congressional district lines on partisan grounds even when the practical effect, and many argue the intention, is to dilute Black voting power. Justice Kagan, in dissent, called it the completion of the majority’s “demolition” of the Act.

It was with this backdrop that our students stood with us on the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Alabama—the very place that birthed the Voting Rights Act, where the courageous actions of a small group of people helped, as Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. so famously put it, “bend the arc of the moral universe towards justice.”

Keep ReadingShow less