PLSC 323 Notes
Davidson Readings Parties in Congress
Overview of Congressional Organization
organizational features of Congress
the rules, structures, procedures, and process internal to the Congress
focus on three aspects
parliamentary procedure- more than the language of floor debate
political parties
committees
why have organizational features?
allocate time
assert control
to control chaos
Chaos
in recent Congresses, 40-50 pieces of major legislation get passed
plus various “must pass” legislation (Budget, Approps, renewal of “sunsetting” legislation, debt ceiling, etc)
assorted minor bills
350-500 total bills passed
10,000-14,000 bills introduced
time is precious, especially floor time
Organizational response
presiding officer
right of first recognition
two additional elements specific to the House
germaneness requirements
relevance of amendments
restrictive rules (courtesy of Rules Committee)
restricts time amendments allowed, order of amendments, decision rules, etc.
Note two types of (“faces”) of power
negative power- to prevent something from happening
think of majority party’s control of the floor
minority’s proposals only come up if some deal allows them to come up
positive power- make something happen- influence what does happen
of the two, first is certainly most pervasive
but…we don’t observe the theoetically infinite array of things that could happen, just the relatively tiny set of things that do
note: making policy is much!! harder than blocking it
Managing time
more scarce v relatively less scarce
more scarce= floor time
difficulty getting all members together
bigger issue: what would all of them together really accomplish?
ans: pretty much just two things= making speeches and voting
relatively less scarce= committee time
easier to assemble small groups
bigger issue small groups are more productive
most recent example of this= bipartisan group of senators working on immigration reform
why is committee time less scarce?
more of it scheduled (see productivity and member preferences)
multiplier effect of multiple membership
big difference between Houseism and reality/House v Senate
Implications
most of what Congress does happens away from the Floor
major advantage of committees as policy making entities
roll calls are usually a foregone conclusion
one reason is that majority rarely brings things to the floor w/o a pretty good idea of how it will turn out
major responsibility of “whips” is counting votes
recent exceptions?
Note: both patterns are entirely consistent with Houseism
And yet…
we observe in Houseism that party is a powerful force in the simulation. Does the simulation have it wrong or does Mayhew
Start with some history
1st Congress made up of individuals elected in various ways from the states. No parties on the ballot. No parties existed.
within months, however, members began to divide into two camps, mainly in reaction to Alexander Hamilton’s fiscal program:
pro-administration later Federalists
Anti-administration Democratic-Republicans, Jacksonian Democrats, and now Democrats
How did “camps” become parties?
coalitions are short-term alliances that occur around specific proposals; parties are lasting and pervasive alliances
various explanations
reflected overarching philosophical orientations towards govt
democratic-republicans and federalists tended to take different positions even as issues veered off away from Hamilton’s programs
reflected patterns of behavior
members accustomed to dealing with one another on one set of issues just kept on doing it in new issue areas
reflected demands of citizens to make sense of voting choices
certainly true later, but not clear how well understood this was at the time
note that both Hamilton (Treasury) and Jefferson (State) were in Washington’s cabinet
What came first, parties or committees?
a close call actually
More history #2
first Congress immediately created “select” committees to deal with substantive areas
factions (as opposed to interests) probably developed somewhat later (weeks? months? not years!)
But
first committee expired with each Congress
parties however endured between Congresses
mainly an elite phenomenon. Parties were not formalized or sold to the public (at least in a sustained way) for some time
Question: are parties powerful?
what is power?
generally=possession of control, authority or influence over others
in legislature
ability to control or assert authority over members
ability to control agenda
certainly, parties possess power in the latter sense, but what about former?
do parties try and succeed in controlling their members?
Depends on who you ask
academics- from Wilson to Mayhew and others- are generally skeptical about the power of congressional parties
certainly in comparative perspective, American legislative parties lack the ironclad discipline of parliamentary parties
journalists and many politicians assert the opposite
impossible to read about contemporary congressional politics without parties
Why are academics so reluctant to acknowledge congressional parties?
answer goes to the heart of Mayhew’s argument:
why would members with the goal of reelection allow the existence of congressional parties that can force them to behave in any way that might threaten their electoral interests?
Generically, we know that Congress is organized as its members want
so (1) if parties are powerful, it must be because members want it that way…
(2) why would they?
Are parties powerful?
translated…do they control their members?
I.e are democrats and republicans told what to do?
note limits: no one says that Boehner or Pelosi sit in their offices ordering people around like soldiers. Rather, through a combination of enticements and threatened sanctions, they are unable to produce votes (from their own side) when necessary
Superficially, the answer seems to be clearly “yes”
Is this power or coicidence?
do party organizations influence their members naturally take these positions?
Very tough question to answer
problem: we only observe reality, not what would happen if parties weren’t there
David Mayhew, Keith Krehbiel, others believe (to varying degrees) that the answer is largely much the same thing
Crazy?
not really. Recall the basis for party formation in 1st Congress- philosophical differences between members
no one doubts that Republicans and Democrats are different
question is whether the parties exacerbate those differences or merely reflect them
So we’re left with an irony
the depth of the apparent disagreement between the parties makes it difficult to tell whether the party leadership exercises any influence
We have a combination of anecdotes that are easy to understand and complicated models that are not
More evidence to come…
summarizing so far…
if parties in Congress make individuals like Jeffords adjust their behavior, how do they accomplish this?
if parties really have become more powerful than the ones Mayhew observed, why did members permit it?
When parties are more or less powerful, which institution loses?
answer to this is committees… So the question is why are parties and committees essentially in competition with each other
Theories of Congressional Parties
Cartel Agenda Theory
party power is about agenda setting
members support their party because good party reputation improves their electoral fortunes
Conditional party govt
party power is seen as being in tension with individual members and especially standing committees as centers of power
when the party is in general agreement about policy, party leaders are empowered to “twist arms”
members are motivated by policy preferences (contra mayhew)
policy preferences can be independent of their representative relationship with constituents
Agenda Setting
a screening process…
which serves the interests of the majority party
substantive committees (and especially their chairs) engage in gatekeeping
the rules committee further screens bills that get placed on the calendar
Party Agendas
why would party members cooperate to do this?
winning and cohesion make everyone in the party look better
party reputation
do we believe this?
when possible, the majority party chooses votes on which its members can stick together (and on which the minority is forced to make tough decisions)
Agenda control as Negative Power
“To the extent that a person or group…creates or reinforces barriers to the public airing of policy conflicts, that person or group has power.”
power is not always exercised by making people do things that wouldn’t otherwise do…
Arm twisting
rewards and punishments
not just shaping the choice set
but changing a person’s choices
when the “conditions” hold, conditional party govt theory suggests that congressional parties possess this power
ex: Jamie Written signed the southern manifesto voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1957, 1960, 1965, and 1968
by seniority, he was in line in becoming chairman of the House Appropriations Committee in the 96th congress
beginning in the 94th congress, though, chairs were subject to majority vote by secret ballot in the Democratic Caucus
three southern chairs were ousted right away: Poage, Hebert, and Patman
party loyalty- became the criterion for gaining and keeping a chairmanship
Arm twisting continued
Jamie Whitten
93rd congress
56th most conservative Democrat, voted with the majority of democrats only 36% of the time
reforms in the Democratic Caucus followed…
96th Congress
83rd most conservative democat, voted with the majority of democrats 52% of the time
he became chair of appropriations in ‘79
100th congress (1987-88)
98th most conservative Democrat, voted with the majority of Democrat 88% of the time
Comparing the two theories
cartel agenda theory is a theory of (relatively) weak parties
conditional party govt theory is a theory of stronger parties
neither conceives of parties in the House of Reps as being on par with parties in parliamentary systems
both are House-centric
What about the Senate?
absence of institutional mechanisms that the majority party in the House uses
no equivalent to the rules committee
no germaneness requirement for amendments
no previous question motion (i.e the filibuster)
Why?
maybe the answer is less organizational and more behavioral
socialization
fellow partisans also tend to be in one’s social circle
different sorts of people become members of Congress now
more committed partisans
more senators are former House Members
outside forces
party/ideological activists
exL Pat Toomey vs Arlen Specter
parties vs committees
Woodrow Wilson once lamented the domination of congress by committee chairs
some observers now long for the days of ‘bipartisanship’
when committees were independent centers of power, and not mere tools of the parties
Which better serves the public interest?
Mayhew Discussion 2025
Evolution of the Study of Politics
from descriptive and judgmental to explanatory and analytical
a discipline of borrowers and thieves
influence of disciplines like history, psychology, sociology, law, etc.
still difficult to distinguish political science from other social science disciplines
the influence of economics, recently
in theorizing and in empirical approach
how generic/hypothetical individuals would be expected to behave in the abstract
Issues in the Study of Politics
problems of aggregation
fundamentals to politics
ecological/individualistic fallacy
measurement
finding preference in observed behavior
surveys
consciousness of observation (interviewer effect, social desirability, etc).
question wording
incentives (or lack thereof) in experiments
Debate in Political Science
rationality
given what a person wants, and what that person believes, he or she will go about getting it as best as they can
WANTS?
Preferences- unknowable source
the interior world- requires us to make assumptions
self-interest (NOT selfish)
rationality (cont.)
external environment
creates uncertainty
what random stuff will happen?
what will other people do?
People form beliefs to deal with uncertainty
Rationality (cont.)
instrumental rationality
“acting in accord with one’s preferences and one’s beliefs”
Actions are not mere responses to stimuli
or morally/ethically determined by rules/duties/obligations
or integral to one’s social role
there are instruments (tools) used to bring about preferred outcomes
Rationality and Social/Political Science?
do arguments based on rationality give us the best chance to make the study of politics more scienific?
clearer, more explicit assumptions about what motivates people
helps move away from mere description
from ‘what’ is happening to ‘why’
Mayhew’s Contribution
from sociological to economic perspectives
sociological:
congress is a social system: persistent, greater than the sum of its parts, change is evolutionary and not revolutionary
members of Congress have to find their proper role within the system. Cooperation/coordination happen because they are necessary for the system to function (structural functionalism)
congress as a whole, parties, and committees act as unitary actors with their own ‘interests’
Mayhew’s Contribution (cont.)
economic
congress is a set of economic style institutions created to solve dilemmas (analogous to firms, trusts, cartels, trade unions, etc. as solutions to market failures)
change can be sudden and drastic when enough members want it; entrepreneurs can create disruptions that upset the prevailing institutions
(ex: Speaker Reed, Richard Bolling, Newt Gingrich)
Methodological individualism
institutions are created to serve the interests of individuals when we see cooperation/coordination, it is because self-interested individuals want it that way
Mayhew’s Contribution (cont.)
contemporary congressional scholarship is unthinkable without Mayhew
Congress: the Electoral Conneciton has been cited in 6000 books and articles
even if (or maybe because) he is wrong about important aspects of how Congress works
highlighting where and explaining why Mayhew is wrong is a good description of the research agenda in legislative studies
PLSC 323 Congress in American Politics Deliberation and Roll Call Voting
HR 395 (108th Congress)
Do-Not-Call Implementation Act
from introduction to law in less than 2 months
revisions made with H.R 3541 (110th): Do-Not-Call Improvement Act of 2007
eliminated the need to re-register phone #s
passed the House under suspension of the rules via a voice vote, passed the Senate by unanimous consent
Popular law dealing with a real (if minor) problem
notable exception to legislative dysfunction?
HR 395
Passed the House, 418-7
None spoke during debate on teh House floor
passed the Senate by unanimous consnet
only two senators spoke during <5 minutes
Case Study (cont.)
the program has proved quite popular: as of 2007, according to one survey, 72 percent of Americans had registered on the list, and 77 percent of those say that it made a large difference in the number of telemarketing calls that they receive
Deliberation In Congress
Deliberation and Decisions?
from a naive perspective, this is most of what ‘Congress in Washington’ does
committee hearings and testimony, floor debate, etc
the appearance of a ‘deliberative body’
Congress has the forms, but is this how ti actually functions?
Deliberation and Decision cont
theater?
performing in front of an audience?
amendments filled, bills sponsored, and votes cast are all important as signals sent to observers
may be the only way in which these things matter
Empty rites and rituals?
when real decisions are made elsewhere?
one of the ironies of floor procedure is that we almost always know the outcome before it’s begun
for there to be surprising outcomes, minds, must be changeable and changed, by deliberation and debate
Deliberation
main entry:
1 deliberate
pronunciation
function verb
date 14th century
intrasitive verb: to think about or discuss issues and decisions carefully
transitive verb: to think about deliberately and often with formal discussion before reaching a decision
Deliberation
is there deliberation in Congress?
what are the incentives?
revisiting Mayhew
do members of Congress care about making good public policy
Deliberation
“We don’t really read most of the bills. Do you know what that would entail if we read every bill we passed?”
Deliberative roles
different roles to play
specialization
constituency
reinforced by committee structure
leadership track
expansion in # of leadership offices
alternative to committee as a career path
Springboad-ers
higher office seekers
what would we expect of them?
Characterizing Members
work horses and show horses
doing the work of legislating and more keeping the institution functioning vs
seeking fame and publicity
legislating doesn’t really play (electorally)
spending time and energy on committee work, submitting/sponsoring bills, passing bills etc don’t make members more likely to be reelected
the importance of personality, personal commitment
Deliberative Arenas
vary by transparency
member office
caucus
conference committee
standing committee
floor
Who is able and willing to pay attention in each arena?
Where do the preferences of the public enter?
Roll Calls in Congress
roll call votes
of great interest to Congress scholars (too much?)
politicians motivations
delegate representation?
personal policy ideas
trustee representation?
special interest influence
the effect of lobbying
evaluating roll calls
party unity?
a majority of one party voting against a majority of the other party
near unanimous?
>90% of the whole chamber voting the same way
conservative coalition?
a majority of Republicans AND of Southern democrats voting against a majority of Northern Democrats
preference over party
different kinds of roll calls
final passage votes
bill (as amended on the floor) vs Status Quo policy
Amendment votes
taking the bill as written (and as changed in committee) and allowing the whole membership to decide on further changes
procedural votes
determining the way in which floor business will be conducted
ex: special rules
party unity vote?
majorities of the two parties voting the opposite way on a roll call
Who cares?
are members of Congress concerned with the policy outcomes that result from their votes?
or are they merely opportunities to take a position?
do voters pay attention to roll calls?
no
then why (and when) do they matter?
two step flow of information
Congress and the Presidency
The Evolving President as Chief Legislator
constitutional design
the president was to play a minor role, especially in domestic policy
until the 20th century, presidents played a limited role in legislative activity
theodore roosevelt and woodrow wilson expanded the president’s role
TR saw it as his duty to make an active role in helping to pass proper legislation
WW
defining program goals, formulating bills, personally delivering the State of the Union address, using the Cabinet to build Congressional support for bills, and personally lobbying
FDR and the modern presidency
the most massive overhaul of economic policy in history
with full congressional report
set the standard for the modern presidency
utilization of mass communication technology
active participation in all aspects of the legislative process
critiques
the imperial presidency
Modern Presidency (cont)
but the expansion of presidential power has occurred with congressional acquiescence or even encouragement
members of congress often want the president to take the lead
think about the way we talk about legislative achievements
the bush tax cuts, trump’s wall
obamacare
despite obama’s much-criticized hands-off approach to the details of the bill
Romney USA today Op-Ed “Why' I’d Repeal Obamacare”
not without congressional action first
although the executive bill can make programs virtually disappear
Limited Formal Legislative Role
messages
the state of the union
annual budget message
prior to the 1920s, the Congress prepared its own budget, but badly
the budgeting and accounting act of 1921 required that the president prepare the nation’s budget
enable presidents to shape the congressional agenda and enlist public opinion behind his priorities
Signature/veto
Informal legislative role
agenda legislature
the white house EOP generates about one third of the significant legislation on the agenda
presidential initiatives are more likely than congressional initiatives to become law
white house initiatives constitute a larger percentage of the agenda under unified govt
efforts to replace presidential leadership with a congressionally-generated agenda are difficult to sustain
The Rhetorical presidency
presidents “go public” to build support
did not really emerge until the 20th century
expanded with mass communication technology
presidential appeals to the public have become routine
going public has increased presidential travel
“permanent campaign”
“going international” to muster support abroad (Reagan)
Support and job approval are important resources
all but the most unpopular presidents have higher approval rating than Congress as an institution
Dynamics of Presidential Approval
“honeymoon”
firstb 6 months
rally around the flags
wars and foreign policy crises
end of term improvement
partisan polarization
Polarization and approval
trump’s approval in february 2017
reps and r-leaners
84% approval
dems and d-leaners
8%
Two presidencies
distinction between presidential roles
domestic policy
most of the president’s power comes from being de facto leader of a political party
foreign policy
the formal powers granteed to the president as Commander in Chief are extensive
where is the president’s advantage over Congress the greatest?
Constituencies?
members of Congress (even Senators) have relatively narrow constituencies
the president can claim to represent “all the people”
called the “plebiscitary presidency”
a ‘mandate’, ‘political capital,’ ‘accountability moment
The president is one person, one voice
at least as perceived by the public
this will always be an advantage in competing with and dealing with Congress
Congress and the bureaucracy
Bureacracy by the numbers
in 2014, there were nearly 2.1 million civilian employees of the executive branch
less than 10% were located in DC
+2.3 million active (1.5) and reserve (.8) military
legislative and judicial branches combined employ only about 64,000
less than the department of interior alone
employees of the federal bureacracy are the day-to-day face of the national govt
“the nine most terrifying words in the english language are: “i’m from the govt, and I’m here to help.”
History
early federal bureacracy was a means of providing political patronage
the spoils system
corruption and increased responsibility of the federal govt led to the gradual adoption of the merit system
James Garfield, Charles Guiteau, and the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act
civil service exams
defined career paths for professional bureaucrats
a permanent, professionalized bureaucracy grew up over time
took decades as positions were transitioned to the merit system track
Political Appointees
top-level bureaucratic positions still turn over with changes in party control
president nominates
senate confirms
appointed positions have taken much longer to confirm in recent years
some positions sit empty for years
filibusters/holds by senators
often to extract policy concessions on other issues
sometimes to prevent even the operation of an agency that some senators hate
recess appointments?
limited by supreme court in NLRB v Noel Canning
Why does the Bureaucracy Matter?
legislation is often (if not always) vague
even in volumbinous bills
bureaucrats establish the day-to-day implementation of legislation
often empowered with broad mandates to make sweeping regulatory policy
The Principal Agent theory
a principal authorizes someone else (an agent) to act on his or her behalf
deviation from the principal’s interest by the agent is referred to as “agency cost” or “agency failure”
why does this happen?
principals fail to monitor agents. Why?
delegation is supposed to save the principal time and resources, but…
Congress’s relationship with bureaucratic agencies is analogous to investor stockbroker, customer-mechanic, patient-doctor, parent-babysitter, etc.
fundamental to politics and governing
far less direct than the principal-agent relationship between bureaucrats and the president
Political control of the bureacracy
bureaucrats are thought to have their own interests
budget maximizers (economist William Niskansen)
true believers
when congress delegates, is it really abdicating?
such as bureaucrats are left with a free hand
or, does Congress tolerate bureaucratic failure because it allows members to play the role of ombudsmen?
oversight
scholars have noted that congressional committees’ oversight seems lax
police controls v fire alarms
McCubbins and Schwartz (1984)
a police patrol approach would be inefficient
members and committees wait for constituents or interest groups to ‘sound the alarm’
Iron Triangles
What if what looks like “agency failure” is really condoned by the
committees with oversight responsibility?
• Members of Congress can be ‘true believers’ too
– “With a brief interruption in the mid-1950's, when the Republicans held
the majority, [Jamie Whitten] was chairman of the Appropriations
subcommittee on agriculture from 1949 until he left Congress last year,
making him a kind of shadow Secretary of Agriculture. Mr. Whitten was the
man cotton farmers had to thank for the Government's large subsidy
payments, the most costly of all Federal agricultural subsidy programs.”
– “This kind of bureaucratic-congressional maneuvering, exercised between
the lines of the law, is little understood, seldom given public scrutiny, and
far too infrequently challenged. In the quiet process of hidden power, a
bureaucrat in the Agriculture Department reacts more quickly to a raised
eyebrow from Jamie Whitten than to a direct order from the Secretary
himself. Time after time, a few words from Jamie Whitten can harden into
gospel at the Department of Agriculture. Indeed, a casual Whitten
statement may be so magnified as it is whispered from official to official
that the response is more subservient than even the Congressman had in
mind.”
Trump’s Effect on Bureaucracy
Chronic understaffing
– Many candidates as political appointees for a typical Republican Administration said no
– Many career bureaucrats resigned or retired early
– Trump White House never had a ‘normal’ staffing process, either for itself or the bureaucracy
• “Burrowing”
– More technically, “conversion” from political appointee to permanent civil service employee
• Under Trump, these burrowers were seen as hostile to the agencies they came to be permanent
employees in, placed to undermine the mission of the agency
• Schedule F - Executive Order 13957 (October 21, 2020)
– Turning permanent staff into at-will appointees
• ‘Eleanor Mueller, a writer for Politico, wrote that the executive order "stripped job
protections for many federal workers" by requiring federal agencies to classify "any
worker responsible for the handling of policy" into a new category that would be
exempt from hiring and firing protections and ineligible for representation as part of
a union bargaining unit, and "would make it easier to remove civil servants who do
not agree with the administration's policies" while easing the potential transition of
current political appointees into permanent civil service jobs’ (Schedule F
appointment wiki)
• LA Times Editorial of 12/4/20: “the timing laid out in Trump’s order suggests he was
preparing the ground for a wide restructuring of the federal civil service during a
second term. . . Why should you care? A government that demands political loyalty to
a president from its key bureaucrats is not a government by, for and of the people. It
is a fiefdom.”
– Repealed by a Biden Executive Order on January 22, 2021
Trump V. 2
Impoundment – a term for the president refusing to
spend appropriated funds
– Impoundment Control Act of 1974
– Train v. City of New York
• Attempt to end union protections for federal civil
service
– Recreating the Spoils System?
• DOGE
– A renaming and repurposing of the United States Digital
Service
– What are they doing? Is any of it legal?