In Matt Miller's article Is Persuasion Dead?, Miller poses the question as to whether persuasion had indeed died or not, and whether it really matters if it did.  He exposes his frustration about the lack of eloquent argument supported by factual evidence, complaining that "Talk radio and opinion journals preach to the converted."  He also mentions that, "...most political speech is not to persuade but to win."  Miller's article really exposes his general discomfort with the lack of artful tact that was once present in formal argumentation.

Upon reading Miller's article I was impacted with a feeling of agreement, or agitation in the same direction I am forced to believe Miller's is directed.  However, after a little careful thought I came to a different conclusion.  I believe it's possible that Miller's discomfort is a result of an evolution in the art of persuasion.  Is it not possible that something has changed the way people argue, and this particular columnist was too closed minded to accept the new way and adapt?  I think that is exactly what happened.  

Mr. Miller's rejection of the new style will unfortunately not enlist new members into his school of thought, but leave him behind society with the small group of people who cling to old methods and ideals.  This I believe for one reason.  Persuasion is a tool, much like a shovel or hammer.  Persuasion's purpose is to facilitate a person skilled in its application to attain things that make him happy.  History has shown us what happens to people who reject evolution and advancement.  Unfortunately for Mr. Miller it may be too late.