Abstract
Through the study of statements made for and against the 2019 “For the People” Act, this paper critically evaluates some emergent rhetorical features of contemporary legislative disagreement and debate. Specifically, I highlight the institutionalization of an argument scheme in which partisan claims are paired in ways that strain the connection between the procedures and substance of legislative deliberation. I argue that the institutionalization of this pattern becomes a self-sustaining system that simultaneously delimits the range of arguments by which public policy can be debated on the floor and further intensifies public perceptions of political polarization and gridlock. I evaluate the political significance of these findings in relation to the role of institutional rhetoric in deliberative democratic theory.
Published Version
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call