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.