Casey Witek and Lizzie Orswell
Diverse opinions are what make the political system of a republic function. In theory, everyone has their opinion heard and represented. In practice, though, the methods by which these opinions are expressed often invite polarization to the point of the system’s collapse. This has led to many people feeling pessimistic about the state of America. We sense some similarities between the modern United States and the Roman Republic as it fell into empire, given that both polities were built on the principle of representative government and experienced or are experiencing polarization within their political communities. While many people feel strongly about preserving what is great about this country, they also hesitate to make strides toward achieving this. Americans are experiencing a sort of bystander effect: nobody knows exactly what to do or how best to intervene, so many are doing nothing. Concerned Americans need to find direction. We encourage our readers to draw from historical examples, think critically, and form their own opinions. We believe that is the key to finding which political candidates truly represent our values, who are capable of using constructive criticism rather than accusation.
In order to do this, we investigate the rhetoric of both ancient and modern political figures. Our ancient evidence is the work of Roman Republic tribunes Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus, as well as consul Marcus Tullius Cicero. The modern orators we analyze are Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Tucker Carlson, and Governor Tim Walz. This essay does not seek to dictate whether the ideas of these orators are morally right or wrong, but rather if the methods they use to stake their opinions are compelling or not. From their work, we devise a line between oratory that aids polarization and oratory that pushes for unity. We argue that divisive oratory is that which is solely polarizing and inflammatory, and that uniting oratory is that which aims for equality, bridges gaps, and ultimately has the ability to make real change. Understanding the powers of rhetoric and defining more or less impactful ways of utilizing speech is necessary to effect change in a republic government system.
Knowing what divisive oratory looks like in an ancient context can help us to distinguish it and possibly avoid it in a modern context. One of the most famous orators throughout history was the ancient Roman consul Marcus Tullius Cicero. Known for his passionate speeches that influenced many laws within the Roman Republic, Cicero was a master of rhetoric and convincing his audience of whatever he wished. One example of his manipulative speech is his De Lege Agraria, in which he argued against the proposal of a land redistribution bill introduced by the tribune Publius Servillius Rullus. The land bill’s goal was for the Roman government to take back private property and assign it to members of the plebeian class. The problem was that Rullus was not very skilled in oratory to begin with. According to Andrew Dyck, translator of the Loeb De Lege Agraria, the law Rullus wrote was “poorly drafted and open to abuse” (Dyck 396). There were many gaps in Rullus’ plan, such as how he said that a council of decemviri would determine the distribution, but did not specify which men would be elected.
Cicero took hold of this minor gap and convinced the public that Rullus was plotting to elect a decemvir full of himself and other wealthy senators who would keep the land for themselves instead of giving it to the people who needed it. He claimed this in the De Lege Agraria when he said:
Quis legem tulit? Rullus. Quis maiorem partem populi suf ragiis prohibuit? Rullus. Quis comitiis praefuit, quis tribus quas voluit vocavit nullo custode sortitus, quis decemviros quos voluit creavit? Idem Rullus. Quem principem renuntiavit? Rullum.
[Who proposed the law? Rullus. Who kept the majority of the people from their votes? Rullus. Who presided over the elections? Who summoned the tribes he wanted, who drew lots for them, without any custodian being present? Who declared the election of the Decemvirs whom he wanted? The same Rullus. Whom did he declare chief of the Decemvirs? Rullus.] (Cicero, De Lege Agraria 2.22).
With his repetitive and accusatory rhetoric, Cicero turned the masses against Rullus, who claimed he only intended to help people and fell victim to Cicero’s manipulation. By focusing on Rullus himself more than the content of the law, Cicero inflamed the public to denounce Rullus, polarizing the Roman government by establishing distinct lines between those who supported the lower classes versus the upper classes. He also used specific words like praefuit (presided over) and renuntiavit (declared), which are very commanding, to paint Rullus as more of a dictator who was exercising unlawful power over the populace. Cicero’s words mangled Rullus’s attempt to craft a law that would give aid to the people into a grab at individual power. Cicero, on the other hand, was playing the lower classes from the start, mainly shutting down the agrarian bill in order to save the nobles of the Senate their money. Despite the great length of his De Lege Agraria speech, he never introduced or championed his own agrarian bill in place of the one he shot down. Though Cicero’s speeches were full of grandiose heroism, his opposition to other politicians trying to benefit the public is more representative of his siding with the oppressors (Morstein-Marx).
Cicero is not the only orator to have defamed the ideas of his opponents as his primary method of persuasion. Modern times have revealed that the practice of accusatory speech has not died, and has in fact become even more polarizing. These times have also shown that one does not need to be a politician to influence government systems with their rhetoric. The political news host Tucker Carlson has used similar rhetorical devices of repetition and blame like Cicero often. On his own YouTube channel, Tucker Carlson opens one video saying: “40 years ago, the Democratic party was the party of what? Peace and human rights, and, you know, against big business. And since the Clinton years, of course, it’s been the opposite of those things. The Democratic Party has been the defender of oligarchy and the main driver of war. And of course, the sort of great proponents of censorship, the opponent of human rights,” (Carlson 2:06 – 2:27). In this monologue, Carlson juxtaposes different aspects and ambitions of the Democratic party, saying they are both “defender” and “driver of war,” both “proponents” and “opponent.” In this way, he argues that the Democratic Party itself is confusing and has no linear path of progress. He also uses contradictory speech to muddle any argument in defense of the Democrats, providing so many topics that it becomes far easier to simply dislike the party rather than try to research each point. Carlson’s rhetoric encourages watchers to become enraged at the Democratic Party for being so disorganized and enables them to oppose the Democrats without considering both sides, dividing American politics exponentially. In the ensuing video, Carlson mentions nothing of the successes of the Republican party nor suggestions for how the Democratic party might remedy its faults. In fact, the video is centered on his dissatisfaction with certain Republicans’ inability to fight the Democrats, thus promoting division within his own party, along with aggression towards the opposing side. Compared to Cicero’s accusatory speeches, Carlson’s rhetoric follows a longstanding pattern of defamation in place of real progress.
Tucker Carlson is not the only modern political figure to use this criticizing oratory, nor is it reserved for just Conservative leaders in America. Democratic Governor Tim Walz, in his address to the South Carolina Democratic Convention, advises the Democrats in attendance to be “meaner” and “more ferocious” to the Republicans in government, and “bully them back” to defend themselves (Walz 0:50-1:17). He does not promote any attempts to persuade the Republicans to their side, rather encourages fighting fire with fire. This type of rhetoric pushes polarization onto a nation, fueling aggression and distrust towards political opponents rather than respectable discourse. We see stark similarities between the divided sides in American politics today and the violent words of the ancient Romans that led to the collapse of their Republic, words that seek out condemnation rather than collaboration.
In contrast to the divisive oratory described previously, Rome had champions of unity in the Gracchi brothers, Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus, tribunes of the plebeians roughly 100 years before Cicero’s time. The Gracchi were no less aggressive in their oratory, often expressing their disdain for the unbalanced political hierarchy within the Republic. However, they differed from Cicero and, for that matter, many modern American politicians in that the Gracchi were largely successful in creating positive change for the public. Tiberius Gracchus, the elder brother, was a huge proponent of land redistribution, not dissimilar to Rullus’ plan, but he was much more skilled at enacting his Lex Sempronia Agraria. Plutarch has recounted in his Lives of the Gracchi that the public was deeply loyal to Tiberius and that he was able to push his laws through the Senate due to the support of his followers (Plutarch, Lives of the Gracchi, Ti. 9-10). His oratory consistently pushed towards better living conditions for the poorer classes of Rome and was backed up by laws that were passed and protected the citizens. Along the way, he made many compromises between the elite members of the Senate and the needs of the masses, and was able to effect real change for the Republic.
Tiberius still had his enemies, and he and a number of his supporters were murdered by the Senate illegally. Gaius Gracchus stepped into politics then, enraged by his brother’s untimely death but dedicated to making sure it wasn’t in vain. Rather than moping in his grief and simply pinning the blame on the Senate, Gaius worked tirelessly to introduce reforms that would stop the same tragedies from occurring again. When speaking to the people, he coupled his sadness at his brother’s death with the laws that Romans were supposed to follow, championing the proper process as Plutarch recounts:
καίτοι πάτριόν ἐστιν ἡμῖν, εἴ τις ἔχων δίκην θανατικὴν μὴ ὑπακούει, τούτου πρὸς τὰς θύρας ἕωθεν ἐλθόντα σαλπιγκτὴν ἀνακαλεῖσθαι τῇ σάλπιγγι, καὶ μὴ πρότερον ἐπιφέρειν ψῆφον αὐτῷ τοὺς δικαστάς. οὕτως εὐλαβεῖς καὶ πεφυλαγμένοι περὶ τὰς κρίσεις ἦσαν.
[And yet it is ancient usage among us that if anyone who is arraigned on a capital charge does not answer to his summons, a trumpeter shall go to the door of this man’s house in the morning and summon him forth by sound of trumpet, and until this has been done the judges shall not vote on his case. So careful and guarded were the men of old in capital cases.] (Plutarch, Lives of the Gracchi, C. 3).
Gaius called to mind with his oratory the tradition of the πάτριον, what would be known in Latin as the mos maiorum, the ancient fathers and principles of Roman government. Something interesting in Gaius’ rhetoric is his use of the phrase δίκην θανατικὴν. θανατικὴν is the word for death, and δίκην is the word for justice, and together the phrase is translated by the Loeb as capital charge/punishment. While all of this is Plutarch’s rendition of Gaius’ Latin and person, interpreting the quote as Gaius’ words shows that the use of δίκην θανατικὴν is intentional, as it unites two realms of justice in one word. First, and most integral to this passage, is the meaning of legal justice or penalty, as supported by the many court words present (δικαστάς, κρίσεις). The second and more ancient meaning is custom or tradition, which Gaius values as perhaps more important, placing this phrase right after his use of πάτριον (custom of ancestors). The juxtaposition of δίκην and θανατικὴν calls to mind the stakes of both aspects of δίκην – death is on the line, and it is not being distributed in accordance with Roman tradition.
Gaius unified the public, regardless of their different opinions on whether Tiberius should have died or not, under the fact that the proper custom of punishment was not fulfilled. The method by which the idea to kill him was carried out was unlawful and thus disrespectful to the ancestors, whom the Romans held in the highest regard. By calling attention to the tradition of the ancestors, Gaius not only attempted to unify his current political rivals to his purpose but also to unify generations of Romans before and after him. Gathering the public to his cause in this way, he committed himself to reinstating the traditions of the Republic by following the due process of law. To do so, “he proposed a law forbidding the execution of a citizen without the People’s approval,” (DiLuzio 166). The main goal of the law was protection for differing political ideologies, promoting more discourse rather than violence within the Republic to draw away from polarization. This law had the added benefit of putting judicial power back in the hands of the public, ensuring due process, and that every citizen had a right to vote on who was put to death or not. Unlike Cicero, Gaius aimed to protect the rights of the lower classes as well as the upper classes, promoting unity between the two halves of Rome.
Like his brother, Gaius was able to introduce constructive laws to the Republic by using his speech to convince the people of Rome to support his ideas, rather than aimlessly accusing the Senate of corruption. When he did assign blame, he also presented his plan to eliminate the problem and work to move forward as a whole, instead of seeking never-ending aggression against the other side. Also, like his brother, enough dissenters remained that he died for his actions. Yet he died having given more power back to the public, showing there was still hope for unity in the Republic. Though neither fixed the polarization of Rome, the Gracchi brothers constantly pushed for more equal laws and used their oratory to unite people under their causes, an example followed by more known orators later in history.
One such later orator, famous for bringing two polarized groups together, is Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., the leader of the American Civil Rights Movement. To evaluate his oratory, we examine “The Role of the Church in Facing the Nation’s Chief Moral Dilemma.” In this speech, Dr. King exhorted his many diverse listeners to come together to create peace and unity. He opened his speech with a number of great achievements made by Americans throughout history, ending on the note: “In the midst of all of our scientific and technological advances, we still suffer the plague of racial conflict. We have not learned the simple art of loving our neighbors, and respecting the dignity and worth of all human personality,” (King). He called all Americans to learn how to show love, rather than accusing one group of people of being hateful. King then moved into constructive criticism about the state of American law, saying:
In 1896, the Supreme Court of this Nation, through the famous Plessy V. Ferguson decision, established the doctrine of separate-but-equal as the law of the land. The enforcement of this Plessy doctrine ended up making for tragic inequality and ungodly exploitation. There was a strict enforcement of the ‘separate’ with not the slightest intention to abide by the “equal.” (King)
In the same way Gaius Gracchus addressed the faults of the legal system through the example of the murder of his brother without due process, Dr. King enlightened his audience on the more fair wording of the written law passed by a generation prior, which the current lawmakers were not enforcing adequately. He, too, united polarized groups with their rivals, current generations with their ancestors, and law with process. He followed this argument with step-by-step reasoning for both why it was imperative to act and how each person could best help his cause.
Dr. King recognized that the power of the individual lies in their ability to inspire others to act with them. He united his audience by reminding them that the goal was love for all their neighbors and respect for all humans, regardless of race. Just like the Gracchi and Cicero, Dr. King was assassinated for his speech. Nevertheless, Americans continued his legacy. Dr. King’s rhetoric, along with that of many other activists of the movement, supports our argument that uniting oratory inspires long-lasting impact. His entire goal was to heal the broken relationship between white and black Americans and to bring peace and equality to our nation, and this eventually did lead to unification after a long period of division. Instead of tearing his oppressors apart rhetorically, he compelled people from both sides to change their way of thinking and to create long-lasting bonds that would benefit themselves and their posterity.
From the ancient tribune to the modern activist, the role of rhetoric in a republic’s politics is undeniable: rhetoric provides the framework for governments to be destroyed or strengthened, able to foster animosity or promote positive change. It is crucial to interpret both divisive and uniting speech in modern American politics through the lens of the Roman Republic. Though our two republics are separable by time, they are inseparable in tradition and the pursuit of fair and representative government. Our Founding Fathers looked towards the future of their new nation by examining the successes and failures of their ancient role model. We argue just as they did that the history of Rome illustrates a way to work towards a more perfect union: by understanding the words and ideas that shape republics versus empires, a skill we must exercise in this uncertain time of worldwide political turmoil. We believe that the United States has the strength to live on. We wish to alert readers to pay attention and think critically, so that we all may rise above divisive, accusatory rhetoric and move toward a more positive and respectful manner of speech. We are not yet at the breaking point: America has not crossed her Rubicon. But noticing the trends, we believe it is more important than ever to fight against unjust systems, crucially using the uniting words of past and present to approach the goal of peace.
Bibliography
Carlson, Tucker. “Tucker on the MAGA Movement’s Future and the Snakes in Washington Trying to Change Its True Meaning.” YouTube, Tucker Carlson Show, 22 October 2025, Video, 1 hour, 32 min., 24 sec, https://youtu.be/DPPla5e_fRU?si=Dm7jN4O07B1M-_zm.
“Cicero, de Lege Agraria.” Translated by Andrew Dyck, Loeb Classical Library 240, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 24 June 2025, DOI: 10.4159/DLCL.marcus_tullius_cicero-de_lege_agraria.2025
DiLuzio, Joseph. “Rhetoric and popular power in Cicero’s early speeches.” Boston University. 2013.
King, Martin Luther, Jr. “The Role of the Church in Facing the Nation’s Chief Moral Dilemma.” The Martin Luther King, Jr. Research and Education Institute, Speech, Nashville, Tennessee, Stanford University, 25 April 1957, https://kinginstitute.stanford.edu/king-papers/documents/role-church-facing-nation-s-chief-moral-dilemma-address-delivered-25-april#fn1
Morstein-Marx, Robert. “Mass Oratory and Political Power in the Late Roman Republic.” Cambridge Core, Cambridge University Press, Feb. 2004, http://www.cambridge.org/core/books/mass-oratory-and-political-power-in-the-late-roman-republic/D4B4E6B32FF6D6674A83E86CD568CC68.
“Plutarch, Lives of Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus.” Translated by Bernadotte Perrin, Loeb Classical Library 102, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1921, DOI: 10.4159/DLCL.plutarch-lives_tiberius_gaius_gracchus.1921
Walz, Tim. “Gov. Walz Calls on Democrats to Be ‘Meaner.’” C-SPAN, South Carolina Democratic Convention, 31 May 2025, Video, 2 min., 46 sec.
