Evolution of Congress February 12-14, 2008

PS 426

Party systems

lExperimental: 1789-1820, Federalists and Jeffersonian Democratic-Republicans (DRs dominate)

lDemocratizing: 1820-1854/60, Democrats and Whigs (competitive)

lCivil War: 1860-1893, Democrats and Republicans (Competitive)

lIndustrial: 1894-1932, D+Rs, Rs dominate

lNew Deal: 1932- ?, D+Rs, Ds dominate until 1968, then competitive.

Dealignment/divided govt. since 1968

lRealignment theory – issue basis for change.

Congressional eras, Experimental: 1789-1812

lJeffersonian ideals; ad hoc select committees. Strong leadership the exception in the House, almost non-existent in the Senate. Leaders from outside Congress (mostly from the executive branch): Alexander Hamilton.

lhigh turnover, no professionalization.

lBut parties emerge almost immediately; Founders were anti-party (Madison and the “evils of factions”). Parties needed to solve collective action problems, prevent voting cycles, improve legislative productivity by creating stable coalitions through logrolling and compromise. Also simplifies the voting process through “brand names.”

l1806: Senate eliminates previous question motion: creates filibuster.

Congressional eras, Experimental: 1789-1812, cont. (transition from 1812-1820)

lEmergence of the committee system, replace select committees with standing committees.

–House: aftermath of War of 1812 and the demise of the Federalists; growing factions in the DR party and emergence of Democrats; oversight of the financial mismanagement by executive branch; growing congressional workload; increased constituent demands; role of Henry Clay (textbook says yes, Schickler, no)

lSenate: happened mostly all at once in 1816, created 12 new standing committees.

lStanding committee structure pretty much complete by 1822. Continuity in Congress compared to other parts of government.

Democratizing Era: 1820-1860

lAntebellum period, emergence of slavery as the central issue.

lParty factionalism and contests for Speaker.

lMissouri compromise and balance in the Senate. Missouri admitted as a slave state, Maine as a free state. No slavery in the Louisiana Territory.

Missouri Compromise

Civil War era: 1865-1896

lRegional split: Northern states were largely Republican, Southern states were Democratic. Republicans stacked the Senate by adding Western states.

lLess electoral competition: more safe districts and lower turnover.

lStrong parties emerge because of high intraparty homogeneity and interparty heterogeneity .

lCommittee system is firmly established.

Civil War era: 1865-1896, cont.

l“Golden Age of Congress”

–Thomas B. Reed, “Reed’s rules”: began with elimination of “disappearing quorum,” continued with increased use of House Rules Committee as leadership tool.

–Joseph “Czar” Cannon: power based on control of the committee system, scheduling, and floor debate.

lHowever, increasing conflict within the GOP: “Old Guard” vs. “Progressives”

Textbook Congress: 1912-1968

lRevolt against Joe Cannon, 1910. Stripped the Speaker’s power to appoint committees. Forrest Maltzman’s work on this topic.

lWeaker parties: “King Caucus” and later the domination by committees: emergence of the seniority system and “committee turf.” Parties also weaker in elections: secret ballots, primary nominations, direct election of Senators.

lEmergence of the Conservative Coalition in the late 1930s. Showed the weakness of parties.

Textbook Congress: 1912-1968, cont.

lNorms of apprenticeship, specialization, reciprocity, be a “workhorse” not a “showhorse,” institutional patriotism, courtesy. However, no serious penalties for violating norms and recent research shows some of them may not have been that strong.

lPressures for change: after 1958 midterm elections a disparity between the caucus and committee chairs: 39.3% of House Dems were Southern, but 61.9% of committee chairs were Southern. Formation of the liberal Democratic Study Group (DSG).

lBattle over Civil Rights policy: expansion of Rules Committee in 1961.

Post-reform: 1974-?

lWatergate class of 1974. Subcommittee bill of rights: more power to SC chairs, committee assignments changed again (caucus votes on the Committee on Committee decisions rather than Ways and Means committee), seniority norm violated – decentralizing influence.

lBut also gave more powers to the Speaker (task forces, multiple referral, appoint Dems on Rules Committee).

lSunshine reforms – open up the process, more open hearings, more recorded votes (teller votes vs. electronic voting), later C-SPAN.

The Republican Revolution, 1994

lGingrich had been working for this for 10 years. Old style/new style leadership of the minority party.

l1994 changes: strengthened Speaker even more, term limits for committee chairs, abolished three standing committees, reduced committee staff, did away with some perks.

lContract with America: some success in House but much of it was stopped by the Senate.

lMore power to Gingrich: control over committee assignments and the policy agenda.

lHigh point was 1996: welfare reform, health care, minimum wage. Both Clinton and Republicans wanted something to show before the 1996 elections.

Republican Revolution, cont.

lThings start to unravel:

–Budget showdown with Clinton, 95/96, government shutdown.

–Gingrich’s ethics problems, splits within the party.

–Overreaching on impeachment. The 1998 midterm losses and then Gingrich resigns.

lDennis Hastert. Tom “The Hammer” DeLay continued the Gingrich approach. Good cop/bad cop.

lUnified govt. again in 2001, but then Jeffords’ defection in 2001. Rs regain the Senate in 2002.

l2006 midterms and the return of divided government.

General trends: party polarization

lIncreased party polarization and party unity. Party polarization in Senate was highest in 120 years and was the third highest in the House in 2006.

Party polarization, cont.

lRise of the Republican party in the South – conservative Southern Dems switched or lost. Moderate Rs decreased in number in Northeast and Midwest.

lReaganism and the centralization of politics at the national level. Gingrich and DeLay carried this forward in the House. Senate always a moderating force, but still polarized.

lMore aggressive party leadership:

–increasing use of rules to limit members’ options, more omnibus bills, more closed rules

lparty leaders more involved in recruiting and funding their parties’ candidates (“leadership PACs” role of party committees in fundraising, soft money), although typically this support was not tied to party loyalty. Parties still had a main focus on winning.

General trends: balance of institutional power between President and Congress

General trends: Size of the House