Argumentation and the Senate: An Introduction

Abstract

special issue examines practices of argumentation in United States Senate. The three essays are largely concerned with Senate as a forum where arguments are made within cultural practices, norms and constraints of place. While changes in Senate evolve, they do so slowly and in their own unique manner. remains a sanctifying quality institution, selfishly protected by one hundred men and women who hold membership in what they collectively regard as most exclusive legislative body in world. Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania recently discovered price of violating Senate custom and rhetorical decorum. On December 15, 1995, while speaking against President Clinton's budget plan, he accused both Clinton and some of his Senate colleagues of speaking less than truth, and did so in harshest of terms. He attacked motives, used descriptive terms such as bald-faced untruths and systematic disinformation campaigns and revisionist history in course of his speech (Congressional Record, December 15, 1995, S18718-18721). How can they make statement that we have tax cuts targeted for wealthy, when they know that is a he asked about his colleagues (CR, S18718). The question was not consistent with Senate tradition. Senator Barbara Boxer of California, who spoke immediately after Santorum, took offense at his use of language, reminded him of the sanctity of this institution and invited him review his remarks in Congressional Record: Perhaps when he reads those remarks, he will understand difference between making a point in a way that is disrespectful and making a point in a way that is respectful (S18721). Senator Robert Bennett of Utah, who spoke after Boxer, supported Santorum's position on budget, but distanced himself from Santorum's language: will not use words like 'lie.' I will not use 'despicable' and 'disgraceful.' I came over here a little bit angry, but I will not use word 'anger' (S18722). The episode did not end there. Five days later, Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia, who has served in Senate since 1959 and is its self-appointed historian and defender of tradition, gave a prepared address on civility in Senate (CR, December 20, 1995, S18964-18967). The speech was largely aimed at Santorum and his nonjudicious use of words in Senate: Do we have resort such language in this forum? past century, such words would be responded by an invitation a duel (S18964). Byrd related affront his own Senatorial history: In my 37 years in this Senate, I do not recall such insolence, and it is very sad that debate and discourse on Senate floor have sunk such a low level (S18965). After reviewing Santorum's use of word lie, Byrd continued: have never heard that word used in Senate before in addressing other Senators. I have never heard other Senators called liars. I have never heard a Senator say that other Senators lie (S18965). Byrd next located Santorum in unfavorable space within traditions of Senate: There have been giants in this Senate, and I have seen some of them. Little did I know when I came here that I would live see pygmies stride like colossuses while marveling, like Aesop's fly, sitting on axle of a chariot, 'My, what a dust I do raise!' (S18966). Finally, in what became an unrelenting attack on Santorum, Byrd establishes violation of Senate as place: This is not a forum that was created for purpose of advancing one's political career or one's political party (S18966). He reminds members how fortunate they were to have been selected by American people actively participate as their representatives in this miraculous experiment in freedom which has set world afire with hope (S18967). Byrd's address was followed by several others who, with largely spontaneous remarks, praised Senator Byrd's defense of Senate decorum. …