John Batchezer conversing with Professor Luke Foster at Hillsdale College in Washington

about a new book praising the parliamentary skill of rhetoric to persuade their colleagues

for acts for decisions for passion in the 18th and 19th century.

And why is that not reproduced in the U.S. Congress? Why do we not have

persuasion on the floor rather than this dividing line that cannot be crossed with no conversation,

just blame and finger-pointing, hot words directed to raise money or to contest in some fashion your loyalty.

Why not rhetoric is Luke to explain what isn't here and perhaps why America is reluctant about special language.

Luke Foster, more tonight.

Thank you. It's a very good question. I have. I'm not sure I have simple or easy answers.

Because as you say, one of the things that's very moving about this book and the speeches quoted extensively therein is

there was prestige associated with and power associated with

being able to speak beautifully.

And our government is certainly powerful, right?

Part of what I think remains very noble and wonderful about America in this 20th year

is that we are a self-governed republic.

Unlike even our European friends and allies, we have to take decisions of great consequence because

there's nobody to fund our defense or to subsidize our budget if we don't do it ourselves.

So that makes American citizenship matter, but the form in which our collective decision-making

matters is not really Congress, although it's supposed to be.

Congress is it supposed to be a coming together.

Parliament is supposed to be a place where you talk.

And yet, most congressmen and senators no longer go to the chamber.

...