Managing the public meanings of legislative outcomes: A rhetorical understanding of congressional floor debate in the policy process

Gary Matthew Weier, Purdue University

Abstract

This study examines the rhetorical functions of floor debate in the congressional policy process. The central argument advanced is that meaningful policy debate continues even after legislation reaches its final form and legislators make their voting decisions. Partisan legislators use floor speeches to shape public interpretations and meanings of their policy work. The discourse that emanates from this unique rhetorical context characterizes the legislation under consideration, portrays the political parties and their leadership, defines the legislation's proponents and opponents, characterizes the institution of Congress, and shapes subsequent policy debate. This research project turned to Kenneth Burke's notion of the representative anecdote to examine the political medicine offered by partisan legislators during debates on the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. The study was unique in that it relied on C-SPAN video tapes as its data source rather than the Congressional Record. The analysis demonstrated that across party lines and in both congressional chambers, legislators who delivered floor speeches overwhelmingly articulated a consistent party message. In the case of the highly visible and controversial crime bill, members of Congress subordinated personal goals and internal legislative functions in order to pursue collective goals and to reach public audiences.

Degree

Ph.D.

Advisors

Smith, Purdue University.

Subject Area

Rhetoric|Composition|Public administration

COinS