(CHP 5) Being There: Hill Styles and Home Styles

Hill Styles

Who Are the Legislators?

  • Senators and representatives constitute an economic and social elite

    • Well-educated

    • From prestigious occupations

    • 2020 - Majority of members of Congress were millionaires

  • When diversity of viewpoints is systematically limited, important interests and concerns are likely to be overlooked or undervalued

  • Descriptive representation — Refers to whether a legislature’s membership reflects the diversity of backgrounds and interests in society

  • Substantive representation — Occurs when legislators consciously act as agents for constituents and their interests; an activity legislators can perform regardless of their background or group memberships

    • Ex: Legislators can voice farmers’ concerns even if they are not themselves farmers

Education and Occupation

  • 95% of House members & 99% of Senators held university degrees

  • Congress is a highly educated body

Race

  • Minorities face underrepresentation

Gender

  • With the increase of women in Congress, issues that weren’t taken seriously—”women’s issues”—are now being taken more seriously

Collective Representation

  • Representation is “collective,” not just “dyadic”

    • Representation involves more than the interactions between individual members and the residents of their geographic constituencies

Congressional Roles

  • Two contexts—Washington and Home

Legislator

  • Legislative work; investigation; committee specialization

  • House more formal than Senate

  • Contemporary members are more partisan and ideologically driven; shun norms such as reciprocity and compromise

Constituency Servant

  • MCs attempt to give voice to local citizens’ concerns, solve constituents’ problems with federal programs, and ensure that their states and districts receive a fair share of federal dollars

  • Casework

  • Collaboration = better able to win federal funding for their districts

Partisan

  • Elected not just as individuals, but as members of a political party

  • Members have personal interest in if their party is in control of the chamber or not

  • Members engage in internal party communications and party message development

  • Members from swing districts are less likely to engage in partisan criticism than are members from districts that lean strongly toward their own parties

How Do Legislators Spend Their Time?

  • Average senator sits on 3 full committees and 7 subcommittees; representatives average 2 committees and 4 subcommittees

The Shape of the Washington Career

  • Long tenure tends to pull members toward legislative specialization

  • Seniority tends to boost legislative achievement

Looking Homeward

Independent Judgment or Constituency Opinion

  • Legislators are faced with dilemma—whether to take actions that are popular with constituents or to do what the legislator believes is in their best interest

What Are Constituencies?

  • Senate seats are more likely to be closely contested than House races, but most incumbents still win by a substantial margin

Political and Personal Constituencies

  • Supporters (the re-election constituency)

  • Loyalists (the primary constituency)

  • Intimates (the personal constituency)

Home Styles

  • A successful home style will elicit trust—constituents’ faith that legislators are who they claim to be and will do what they promise

  • The aim of a member’s home style is to become “one of us” in constituents’ estimation

  • Constituency Careers and the Two Recognizable Stages

    • Expansion

      • The member builds a re-election constituency by soldifying the commitment of hard-core supporters and reaching out to attract additional blocks of support

    • Protection

      • The member stops expanding the base, content with protecting support already won

  • Once established, a successful home style is rarely altered

  • Certain development, can lead to a change in a member’s home style

    • 1) Demographic change in the constituency

    • 2) Strategic reaction (fresh challengers)

    • 3) New personal goals and ambitions

Office of the Member Inc

  • Road Tripping

    • Senior members tend to make fewer trips to their districts than junior members

  • Constituency Casework

    • Senators representing smaller states often have casework loads that exceed those of House members because their greater institutional clout makes them more attractive to small-state residents than their state’s House members

      • By contrast, large-state senators are perceived as being more distant, so constituents in those states are more likely to turn to their House members for casework requests

  • Personal staff

    • Each House member is entitled to a member representational account that ranges from $1.35 to $1.63 million annually

      • The average House member’s full-time staff numbers about fifteen

    • Senators’ personal staffs range in size from 13 to 71; the average is from 30 to 35

      • Unlike the House, the Senate places no limits on the number of staff a senator may employ

    • Congress has moved to greater reliance on paid internships

  • Staff Organization

    • A senator from a farm state likely will employ at least one specialist in agricultural problems

    • An urban representative might hire a consumer affairs or housing expert

  • Staff functions

    • Most personal aides in the House and Senate are young, well educated, and transient

    • Most MCs hire chiefs of staff, legislative assistants, caseworkers, and press aides + a few people from the home state or district

    • Restricted to the conduct of official business

Members and the Media

  • Mail

    • Franking privilege—the right of members to send out mail at no cost with their signature (the frank) instead of a stamp

  • Feeding the Local Press

    • Most MCs have at least one staffer who serves as a press aide

  • Local vs National Media

    • Local focusing more on local senators and reps

    • National focusing more on Congress as an institution

  • Social Media

    • A tool to reach a broader audience

9/18 Lecture

  • Starting point: Members of Congress want to satisfy their constituents in order to win re-election…but..

    • How does a member of Congress perceive his/her constituency?

    • What consequences do these perceptions have for representational behavior?

  • Perception is key…

  • Geographic Constituency 

    • Perception of the entire district 

    • Seen in terms of demographics

      • Blue collar vs. white collar

      • Race, religion, diversity, stability 

  • Ex: NY-15 (prior to redistricting) 

    • One of the most homogenous districts in the US

      • Largely Hispanic, 100% Urban

      • All within one borough of NYC: The Bronx

      • Consistently around 95% of the vote for Democratic presidential nominees

  • Ex: AZ-1 (Prior to redistricting) 

    • The 3rd most heterogeneous district in the US 

      • Includes part of the Phoenix, Tucson, and Flagstaff metro areas 

      • Urban, suburban, and rural 

      • Racially/ethnically diverse 

      • Cook rating: R+2 

  • Re-election Constituency 

    • Those who typically vote for the member 

    • Understood cross-sectionally 

      • Solid supporters

      • Lucrative territory 

      • Out of reach

    • Understood longitudinally: who supported last time…

      • vs. this time…

      • vs. next time 

    • Defined by uncertainty 

  • Primary constituency 

    • Strong supporters 

      • Not just routine supporters 

      • Not temporary supporters

    • Solidarity, even in primaries 

    • High comfort level 

    • Often an identity-link

    • Or issue-based link

  • Personal constituency 

    • Intimates - Those the member trusts 

    • Could be: 

      • Family

      • Friends

      • Close political advisors 

      • Staffers

      • Etc 

  • Immediate consequences 

    • The way MCs view their constituencies affects their behaviors as they try to keep the support of their constituencies enough to win re-election 

    • This is manifested in a number of different dimensions. Two are: 

      • Time usage

      • Staff allocation

    • Main goal of these behaviors is to try and build trust 

  • Trust in the District 

    • Trust of what? 

      • That the member has and will continue to faithfully represent their interests 

      • If voters feel like they trust the legislator, they will continue to support and vote for that legislator 

      • This, in the long run, can give the legislator some leeway to make the decisions they feel are right, and then return to the district and justify those choices with their constituents 

  • Presentation of self 

    • In order to build this kind of trust, legislators, develop a presentation of self: 

      • An actor (the member) before an audience (a constituency) 

      • Convey three qualities 

        • Qualification (competence and honesty) 

          • Look and sound congressional 

            • Both verbally and non-verbally 

          • Emphasize background, experience, accomplishments 

          • “I’m capable and honest, you can trust me” 

        • Identification (I am just like you) 

          • I’m one of you

            • Again, verbal and non-verbal 

          • Mentioning things specific to the district and people

          • “Trust me because I am one of you” 

        • Empathy (I feel your pain) 

          • Emphasizes with the people 

            • Verbal: Talk to and about 

            • Non-verbal: Appear at empathetic events 

          • Trust me, I “feel your pain” 

  • Home “Style” 

    • Actions to curate a “presentation of self” with constituents in the district

      • Members presenting themselves “as a good person”

      • What’s involved?

        • Qualification

        • Identification

        • Empathy

      • Approaches:

        • Person-to-person, issue-oriented, and explanation of Washington activities

      • Purpose: Win electoral support and leeway in Washington

    • Adopt a style to convey these three things, but not equally…

    • What mix of these three makes the most sense to present? 

    • This decision will be influenced by:

      • Perception of the district 

      • Personal characteristics and talents 

      • Strategic considerations 

  • The Archetypes 

    • Congressman A: Person-to-Person 

      • Rep. John Flynt 

        • Conservative southern Democrat

        • Born in small rural town, country lawyer by trade 

      • District: GA 6th 

        • Outskirts north of Atlanta 

        • Flynt’s perception: Homogenous — rural, white, and southern 

      • Member strengths: 

        • Good at “retail” politics 

      • Style 

        • Emphasized identity and empathy 

        • “Personal” relationship with constituents — “howdying” 

        • Little emphasis on articulating the issue 

    • Congressman B: “Popular local boy” 

      • Rep. Floyd Spence (R-SC) 

        • Local star athlete 

      • District: SC 2nd 

        • Central South Carolina, around Columbia 

        • Spence’s perception: Largely heterogeneous - rural, suburban, and urban 

      • Member strengths:    

        • Personally popular, strong policy acumen 

      • Style 

        • Focus on identity, but in a different way — exceptionality 

        • Focus on single unifying issue — national defense 

    • Congressman D: “Articulating the issues” 

      • Rep. Gerry Studds 

        • Born in NY, moved to MA in adulthood 

        • First openly gay member of Congress (outed) 

      • District: MA 12th 

        • South of Boston toward Cap Cod 

        • Studds’ perception: Very heterogeneous — “three worlds” 

      • Member strengths: 

        • Very strong on policy 

        • Weakness: limited ties to the district 

      • Style 

        • Focuses on qualification 

        • Issue oriented 

        • Coffee chats/open meetings 

    • Congressman E: “Serving the district” 

      • Rep. Roger H. Zion 

        • Born and raised in Michigan 

        • Political novice before running for Congress 

      • District: IN 8th 

        • “The Bloody Eight” — notorious swing district (previously) 

        • Zion’s perception: very heterogeneous 

      • Member weaknesses: 

        • Lack of local ties, limited policy interest, lack of electoral skill 

      • Style 

        • Non-political / All in on constituent service 

        • Emphasizes empathy but in a particular way 

  • Grimmer et al. 

    • Getting federal money for the district is a good way to increase approval ratings 

      • In fact, it’s not really about how much money they bring home, but how many times they send out messages 

    • Why does this matter? 

      • If credit claiming works so well at building approval, maybe legislators have incentives craft home styles around procuring grants instead of policy making 

      • When would this be the case? 

      • Specifically, representatives in competitive districts - marginal representatives - have incentives to avoid articulating policy positions and instead focus on claiming credit from appropriations 

      • Alternatively, representatives in safe districts - aligned representatives - have incentives to adopt more extreme positions and articulate them 

  • Consequences of Home Style 

    • This connection between competitiveness and home styles exacerbates polarization, as it encourages ideologically extreme legislators to dominate policy debates 

    • Consequence: “Representatives to constituents in a district, then, can have negative consequences for collective representation” 

    • Fenno argues that by focusing on building relationships in the district, legislators may build enough trust to have some voting leeway in Washington 

    • Voters trust the legislator → don’d mind if they vote out of step every once in a while 

    • “Presentation of self enhances trust, trust enhances acceptability of explanations, the acceptability of explanations enhances leeway” (p. 151)

    • Bad for accountability because…

      • But we don’t really have any evidence for this…

      • And today, district activities are often portrayed as tense confrontations over policy disagreements rather than positive interactions that build trust 

      • Let’s test it! Can modern legislators use local activities to compensate for being “out of steep” on the policy issues? 

        • Results from Dr. Kaslovsky’s data: 

          • It does not seem like these local activities can be used to build approval among constituencies in ideological disagreement 

          • Home Style cannot be used in modern times for voting leeway

  • Summary 

    • Legislators strategically craft home styles to fit their perceptions of the district 

    • These strategies lead legislators to allocation their effort towards different kinds of activities, including policy vs. procuring federal grants 

    • This has consequences for both dyadic and collective representation 

    • At least today, it doesn’t seem legislators can use district activities to escape accountability in Washington