| Abstract: | Our article examines recent Australian political speech to discover rhetorical standards for deliberation. Unlike philosophical standards for public reason — such as those developed by Jürgen Habermas and John Rawls — rhetorical standards are not anchored in reason, but in the institutional and linguistic constraints of partisan political speech. Accordingly, rhetorical standards are unwritten, malleable, and permissive. Two standards are apparent. The first is that political parties should not be influenced by factions or vested interests, but must serve the national interest, even as the meaning of that idea is acknowledged to be open to divergent interpretations. The second standard relates to individual politicians, and it prohibits officeholders from acting on the basis of religious beliefs. Both standards can be invoked to attack the reasoning and actions of rival politicians and parties, but both standards also offer generous resources for legitimation. |
