RHETORIC AND JUDGMENT IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL RATIFICATION DEBATE OF 1787-1788 - AN EXPLORATION IN THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THEORY AND CRITICAL PRACTICE

The relationship between the practice of public rhetoric and the nature of political judgment is complex. The essay analyzes a pivotal constitutive controversy, the public Constitutional ratification debate of 1787-1788, and uncovers conflicting objects and standards of judgment. The essay demonstrates that Federalists advocated a "formal" and "spectator-oriented" model of judgment while Anti-Federalists depicted a "substantive" and "actor-oriented" model. The concluding section of the essay explores certain theoretical implications (rhetorical distance, interest time, and prudence) that emerge from the constitutive rhetoric of the ratification debate.