What does it all mean?

An online subscription to the OED costs a mere $275 per year. You could luck out with the word of the day.

From the good folks at Merriam-Webster:

rhet·o·ric
n.

1. 1. The art or study of using language effectively and persuasively.
   2. A treatise or book discussing this art.
2. Skill in using language effectively and persuasively.
3. 1. A style of speaking or writing, especially the language of a particular subject: fiery political rhetoric.
   2. Language that is elaborate, pretentious, insincere, or intellectually vacuous: His offers of compromise were mere rhetoric.
4. Verbal communication; discourse.

This word strikes me as being the evolutionary ancestor of "Flip-flopper" in politispeak. At least the dictionary definition has been adequately reworked to incorporate the emerged colloquial use. Of course, with the 4 accepted definitions above, rhetoric can basically mean whatever the hell you want it to mean.

You might point out that, on an elementary level, words are just abstract symbols for real-world observations. And as such their meanings are subjective by default. At the same time, its not unrealistic to argue that all of modern society is founded on the rather bizarre notion of object-i-fying certain of these abstract symbols in order to advance humankind. That is, the modern world relies upon the ability to take for granted the objective, concrete status of some here undefined 'fundamental' notions despite their inherent abstract, observational nature.

Where am i going with all this? The sub-prime mortgage crisis. Specifically, the way in which one can find an almost infinite number of explanations for what went/is going wrong. And not just from the guy who's always spouting off at the local pub. It seems every economist in the world has a different explanation for what is happening and why it is happening. They can't all be correct, and yet a number of conflicting opinions create rhetorically sound arguments.

Which is to say that anyone can be "right minded" about any issue if he or she can convince enough people to agree (And likewise may be "wrong minded" if enough people disagree). Which is to say that society is actually and fundamentally subjective after all. And those arbitrarily object-i-fied notions are not so agreed upon after all.

As the world and its human systems and processes become more and more complex, I'm afraid those looking for answers are bound to come up with nothing but more rhetoric.