On "The Habitation of Rhetoric"

Michael Leef attempts to explain two different approaches to rhetoric. The neo-Aristotelians view rhetoric as an art that is focused around politics. Because of the restrictions around rhetoric, neo-Aristotelians regard rhetoric as being contained. The neo-sophists view rhetoric in a different way. Instead of seeing the process of rhetoric as something shutin, neo-sophists view rhetoric as an art that needs to be expanded. Leef not only discusses the differences in the two opinions on rhetoric, but also the very few ideas they have in common. Both perspectives believe rhetoric to be an art of process. Where the neo-Aristotelians focus around rhetoric being confined to a domain, neo-sophists sees the process over various domains.
What Leef was talking about was very confusing to me. The story he told helped some with the whole idea of how he was trying to present the different views on rhetoric. Even though the narrative gave me a better understanding of the history of rhetoric, I still had a hard time following him when he started talking about neo-Aristotelians, ne0-sophists, and the different definitions of rhetoric.