Abstract: In discussing the rhetoric of democratic politics, both Weber and Arendt support their respective diagnoses of modern problems in comparison to ancient Western political thought. They each represent two typical positions in the face of rhetoric, and at the same time propose answers to the democratic dilemma in the West based on the context of their respective times. Weber's contribution lies in his identification of the relationship between political rhetoric and the comprehensive crisis of modern society, namely, political apathy and the absence of popular participation under a democratic bureaucracy. The two sides of rhetoric are revealed in Weber's discussion. On the one hand, rhetoric can operate in a top-down manner through leaders' incitement to the masses, and on the other hand rhetoric can also operate from the bottom up, serving as the basis for public discussion and dialogue. However, Weber's treatment of rhetoric as a means fails to connect it with legitimacy. Arendt, on the other hand, argues that modern capitalist society has obscured mankind exists as words and action since ancient Greece. Based on her reflection on Nazi politics, Arendt selected public opinion as her addition to the other side of rhetoric, that is, the formation of consensus. Arendt pays more attention to rhetoric as a bottom-up form of political organization, as well as to the revelation of the concrete subject by speech and its relation to the power of legitimacy. Both Weber's and Arendt's positions in the face of rhetoric have their own contemporary contexts and limitations, but both have made outstanding contributions to the subject. The last section of this paper aims to exhibit, using Habermas, a comprehensive stance that upholds Arendt's fundamental rhetorical standpoint, while also considering Weber's overarching analysis of contemporary society.

Key words: democracy, rhetoric, truth, opinion, political demagogue