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.
Read full abstract