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

A Party That Seeks to Nationalize and Control Elections Has Entered Fascist Territory

Donald Trump’s call to “nationalize” elections raises constitutional alarms. A deep dive into federalism, authoritarian warning signs, and 2026 implications.

Getty Images, Boris Zhitkov

A Party That Seeks to Nationalize and Control Elections Has Entered Fascist Territory

I’m well aware that using the word fascist in the headline of an article about Donald Trump invites a predictably negative response from some folks. But before we argue about words (and which labels are accurate and which aren’t), let’s look at the most recent escalation that led me to use it.

In Trump’s latest entry in his ongoing distraction-and-intimidation saga, he publicly suggested that elections should be “nationalized,” yanking control away from the states and concentrating it at the federal level. The remarks came after yet another interview in which Trump again claimed, without evidence, that certain states are “crooked” and incapable of running fair elections, a familiar complaint from the guy who only trusts ballots after they’ve gone his way.

Keep ReadingShow less
Building Power to Advance Inclusive Democracy: The Pro-Democracy Narrative Playbook
Picture provided

Building Power to Advance Inclusive Democracy: The Pro-Democracy Narrative Playbook

Around the world, including here in the United States, evidence shows that authoritarians are dominating the information ecosystem. Orchestrated, well-resourced, and weaponized narratives are being used to justify repression and delegitimize democratic principles and institutions. At the same time, the word “democracy” has been appropriated and redefined to protect certain freedoms granted only to certain people and to legitimize unchecked power. These actors have learned from each other. They borrow from a shared authoritarian playbook to blend traditional propaganda with digital-age disinformation techniques to reshape public perception. The result is an environment in which democratic norms, institutions, and basic freedoms are under a coordinated, sustained attack.

Yet even as these threats grow, democracy advocates, journalists, election workers, civil society organizations, and everyday citizens are stepping up—often at great personal risk—to protect democratic rights and expose repression. They have been doing all of this without the benefit of a research-based narrative or the infrastructure to deploy it.

Keep ReadingShow less
As America Turns 250, It’s Time to Begin Again
selective focus photo of U.S.A. flag
Photo by Andrew Ruiz on Unsplash

As America Turns 250, It’s Time to Begin Again

I know so many people are approaching America’s 250th anniversary with a sense of trepidation, even dread. Is there really anything to celebrate given the recent chaos and uncertainty we’ve been experiencing? Is productively reckoning with our history a possibility these days? And how hopeful will we allow ourselves to be about the future of the nation, its ideals, and our sense of belonging to something larger than ourselves?

Amid the chaos and uncertainty of 2026, I find myself returning to the words of the writer and civil rights activist James Baldwin. Just as things looked darkest to Baldwin amid the struggle for civil rights, he refused to give up or submit or wallow in despair.

Keep ReadingShow less
Hotels Have a Constitutional Right Not To House ICE Agents

The Third Amendment protects against being forced to house the military. It may also apply to ICE.

Cage Rivera/Rewire News Group

Hotels Have a Constitutional Right Not To House ICE Agents

Hotels across the country are housing ICE agents as they carry out violent raids, detention operations, and street abductions.

Of course people are pushing back. Activists have been calling for boycotts of hotel chains like Marriott and Hilton that cooperate with ICE, arguing that businesses should not be providing material support for an enforcement regime built on mass detention, deportation, and brutality.

Keep ReadingShow less