Lanham explains his "Strong Defense" of rhetoric
"The Strong Defense argues that, since truth comes to human kind in so many diverse and disagreeing forms, we cannot base a polity upon it. We must, instead, devise some system by which we can agree on a series of contingent operating premises. . . .
"The most familiar example of this procedure to most of us is is the Anglo-Saxon system of jurisprudence. We stage a public drama, empanel an audience whom we call a jury, and offer contending versions of reality. The jury decides on one. The decision then beomes a different sort of reality altogether, a precedent, a referential reality against which further judicial dramas are measured. The magic moment of transmutation, what drives the system is the need tor each a decision. . . . As York says in "Richard II," when he has to decide whether to join Bolingbroke or not, "Somewhat we must do." That decision is made by people, not handed down by God, but the system does all it can to strengthen the decision by arriving at in a certain way. It is a proceeding of radically impur motives. It is fundamentally a contest, a game. It is full of the formal pleasure -- what makes the law so complex is the need for formal pleasure, as much as for exactitude -- that renders the proceedings themselves highly satisfying, "full of drama," as we like to say. And these two motives, play and game, are driven and controlled by purpose, by the need to reach a decision: "Somewhat we must do." The Strong Defense does not apologize for the mixture of motives but rather glories in it, for it reflects the motiviational structure of human kind, and in so doing holds the greatest promise of enduring effectiveness." Lanham at 187-188.