Nib #040 — Pete Rose and Rhetorical Charity

There are good reasons for people to disagree with you.

This seems obvious in the abstract. But it’s one of the hardest lessons for young writers to learn — especially amidst today’s toxic national discourse. The good news is, rhetorical charity is not just a more virtuous approach to writing — it’s much more effective.

Consider the case of Pete Rose and the Baseball Hall of Fame.

Rose was the Cincinnati Reds legend banned for life from Major League Baseball for gambling on games (including Reds games) as a player and manager. The ban left Rose ineligible for Cooperstown.

Ever since, Rose’s Hall of Fame candidacy has been the source of endless, often heated, debate. Rose’s death last week (RIP) revived the argument — and the passion it elicits from both sides.

The arguments boil down to:

“Rose is the all-time hits leader. Put him in.”

And…

“He disgraced the game (and lied about it for decades). Keep him out.”

Neither argument is crazy, however many rants they inspire. But each is also a bit superficial.

To people who care about the integrity of sports, Rose’s gambling on games is really bad. Rose advocates chanting “Hit King! Hit King!” does not answer that legitimate concern.

In the same way, that gambling businesses are now MLB corporate partners undermines of League’s moral authority.

The closer you look, the more interesting and persuasive potential arguments become.

Shouldn’t Rose’s death open the door to a reassessment of his “lifetime” ban?

What does Rose’s pattern of not betting on the Reds when a certain mediocre pitcher was on the mound do to the pro-Rose talking point that he only ever bet on his team to win?

Grappling with these kinds of questions would help either side break through the “Tastes Great! Less Filling!” monotony.

To really change readers’ minds, writers need to answer the other side’s best arguments. Learning how to do so — with empathy, justice, and generosity — will make you a better advocate, a better writer, and ultimately a better person.

Until next week… Keep writing!

< Older Nib

Newer Nibs >

Nib #66 Ten Poems Speechwriters Should Memorize

April 11, 2025

James Michael Curley's list of must-haves for public speakers (and speechwriters).

Nib #65 Be a One-Eyed Writing King

April 4, 2025

Two essays point to a generational opportunity for young writers.

Nib #64 When Lincoln Wrote Badly on Purpose

March 28, 2025

Honest Abe was a great writer -- especially the one time he wasn't.

Nib #63 Break Up Long Paragraphs

March 21, 2025

Not today, Satan.

Nib #62 Slotkin’s Rope-a-Dope Response

March 14, 2025

The official Democratic response to President Donald Trump’s big speech before Congress last week offered the country not only a contrast of political visions, but of rhetorical strategies. Trump’s address was defined by — and indeed, succeeded on — the strength of its concrete details: specific programs cut, specific heroes lauded, specific private-sector investments announced (See Nib #61 ). Democratic Senator Elissa Slotkin’s nationally televised speech immediately following Trump was, too. But not obviously. Most of the specific details of the speech were biographical, in the first 100 words. After that, Slotkin glazed over issues with airbrushed generalities: “We need to bring down the price of things we spend the most money on…” “… change doesn’t need to be chaotic or make us less safe…” “Today’s world is deeply interconnected…” “We are a nation of strivers.” The climax of Slotkin’s speech was almost a parody of homogenized political banalities. The two things we need to overcome today’s challenges, according to Slotkin and her speechwriters: “Engaged citizens and principled leaders.” Woof. On the other hand, Democrats know this poll-tested pap won’t move the needle. So what’s really going on here? The most likely answer is what boxers call the “rope-a-dope.” That is, Slotkin’s — and by extension her party’s — plan here is to put up perfunctory, superficial resistance to bait Trump into overreaching or punching himself out. This is what Muhammed Ali famously did to George Foreman in 1974.