Advertisement

Political Behavior

, Volume 16, Issue 3, pp 319–342 | Cite as

Influences shaping members' decision making: Congressional voting on the Persian Gulf War

  • Eileen Burgin
Article

Abstract

In this paper I examine what influences members viewed as shaping their voting decisions on U.S. strategy in the Persian Gulf in January 1991. Rather than focusing on predictors of votes and the outcomes of members' decision-making processes (the yea or nay votes as in roll-call analyses), I focus on the predominant considerations that members perceived as swaying voting choices. More specifically, drawing on data gathered from interviews with 365 congressional staff people, I show that three influences in particular stand out as significant in the decision-making process on this crisis policy: members' own policy views, supportive constituents, and (for certain groups of members) the president. Thus, while the analysis confirms, in part, the conventional view of legislators' personal policy assessments as the critical influence on foreign and defense policy votes, it also underscores that this influence does not operate in a vacuum.

Keywords

Decision Making Conventional View Vote Choice Vote Decision Critical Influence 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aldrich, John H., John L. Sullivan, and Eugene Borgida (1989). “Foreign Affairs and Issue Voting: Do Presidential Candidates Waltz Before a Blind Audience?”American Political Science Review 83: 123–141.Google Scholar
  2. Bartels, Larry M. (1991). “Constituency Opinion and Congressional Policy Making: The Reagan Defense Buildup.”American Political Science Review 85: 457–474.Google Scholar
  3. Bauer, Raymond A., Ithiel de Sola Pool, and Lewis A. Dexter (1972),American Business and Public Policy: The Politics of Foreign Trade, 2nd ed. Chicago: Aldine Atherton, Inc.Google Scholar
  4. Bernstein, Robert A., and William W. Anthony (1974). “The ABM Issue in the Senate, 1968–1970: The Importance of Ideology.”American Political Science Review 68: 1198–1206.Google Scholar
  5. Bond, Jon R., and Richard Fleisher (1990).The President in the Legislative Arena. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bullock, Charles S. (1976). “Motivations for U.S. Congressional Committee Preferences: Freshmen of the 92nd Congress.”Legislative Studies Quarterly 1: 201–212.Google Scholar
  7. Burgin, Eileen (1991). “Representatives' Decisions on Participation in Foreign Policy Issues.”Legislative Studies Quarterly 16: 521–546.Google Scholar
  8. Burgin, Eileen (1993). “The Influence of Constituents: Congressional Decision Making on Issues of Foreign and Defense Policy.” In Randall B. Ripley and James M. Lindsay (eds.),Congress Resurgent: Foreign and Defense Policy on Capitol Hill. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  9. Burgin, Eileen. “Representatives’ Involvement in Foreign and Defense Policy Topics: Do Issue-Related Factors Affect Decision Making?” Under review.Google Scholar
  10. Carter, Ralph G. (1989). “Senate Defense Budgeting, 1981–1988: The Impacts of Ideology, Party, and Constituency Benefit on the Decision to Support the President.”American Politics Quarterly 17: 332–347.Google Scholar
  11. Clausen, Aage (1973).How Congressmen Decide. New York: St. Martin's Press.Google Scholar
  12. Congressional Quarterly Inc. (1991a). “Congress Approves Resolution Authorizing Use of Force.”Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, 12 January.Google Scholar
  13. Congressional Quarterly Inc. (1991b). “Party Unity and Party Opposition: House.”Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, 28 December.Google Scholar
  14. Cook, Rhodes, Ronald D. Elving, and CQ Research Staff (1991). “Even Votes of Conscience Follow Party Lines.”Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, 19 January.Google Scholar
  15. Doherty, Carroll J. (1991). “Bush Is Given Authorization to Use Force Against Iraq.”Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, 12 January.Google Scholar
  16. Eulau, Heinz, and Paul D. Karps (1977). “The Puzzle of Representation: Specifying Components of Responsiveness.”Legislative Studies Quarterly 2: 233–254.Google Scholar
  17. Fenno, Richard F., Jr. (1973).Congressmen in Committees. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
  18. Fenno, Richard F., Jr. (1978).Home Style: House Members in Their Districts. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
  19. Fenno, Richard F., Jr. (1982).The United States Senate: A Bicameral Perspective. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute.Google Scholar
  20. Fessler, Pamela (1990). “Bush Quiets His Critics on Hill by Sending Baker to Iraq.”Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, 1 December.Google Scholar
  21. Fiorina, Morris P. (1974).Representatives, Roll Calls, and Constituencies. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath and Company.Google Scholar
  22. Fleisher, Richard (1985). “Economic Benefit, Ideology, and Senate Voting on the B-1 Bomber.”American Politics Quarterly 13: 200–211.Google Scholar
  23. Fleisher, Richard (1993). “PAC Contributions and Congressional Voting on National Defense.”Legislative Studies Quarterly 18: 391–409.Google Scholar
  24. Forsythe, David P., and Susan Welch (1986). “Human Rights Voting in Congress.”Policy Studies Journal 15: 173–187.Google Scholar
  25. Hibbing, John R. (1991). “Contours of the Modern Congressional Career.”American Political Science Review 85: 405–428.Google Scholar
  26. Kingdon, John W. (1989).Congressmen's Voting Decisions, 3d ed. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  27. Kozak, David C. (1982). “Decision-making on Roll Call Votes in the House of Representatives.”Congress and the Presidency 9: 51–78.Google Scholar
  28. LeoGrande, William M., and Philip Brenner (1993). “The House Divided: Ideological Polarization Over Aid to the Nicaraguan ‘Contras.’”Legislative Studies Quarterly 18: 105–136.Google Scholar
  29. Lindsay, James M. (1990). “Parochialism, Policy, and Constituency Constraints: Congressional Voting on Strategic Weapons Systems.”American Journal of Political Science 34: 936–960.Google Scholar
  30. Lindsay, James M. (1991). “Testing the Parochial Hypothesis: Congress and the Strategic Defense Initiative.”Journal of Politics 53: 860–876.Google Scholar
  31. Lindsay, James M., and Randall B. Ripley (1993). “How Congress Influences Foreign and Defense Policy.” In Randall B. Ripley and James M. Lindsay (eds.),Congress Resurgent: Foreign and Defense Policy on Capitol Hill. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  32. Madison, James [1787] (1969).Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787. New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
  33. Mann, Thomas E., and Raymond E. Wolfinger (1980). “Candidates and Parties in Congressional Elections.”American Political Science Review 74: 617–632.Google Scholar
  34. Matthews, Donald R., and James A. Stimson (1975).Yeas and Nays: Normal Decision-Making in the U.S. House of Representatives. New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
  35. McCormick, James M. (1985). “Congressional Voting on the Nuclear Freeze Resolutions.”American Politics Quarterly 13: 122–136.Google Scholar
  36. McCormick, James M., and Michael Black (1983). “Ideology and Voting on the Panama Canal Treaties.”Legislative Studies Quarterly 8: 45–63.Google Scholar
  37. Miller, Warren E., and Donald E. Stokes (1963). “Constituency Influence in Congress.”American Political Science Review 57: 45–56.Google Scholar
  38. Overby, L. Marvin (1991). “Assessing Constituency Influence: Congressional Voting on the Nuclear Freeze, 1982–83.”Legislative Studies Quarterly 16: 297–312.Google Scholar
  39. Patterson, Samuel C., and Gregory A. Caldiera (1988). “Party Voting in the United States Congress.”British Journal of Political Science 18: 111–131.Google Scholar
  40. Poole, Keith T. (1988). “Recent Developments in Analytical Models of Voting in the U.S. Congress.”Legislative Studies Quarterly 13: 117–133.Google Scholar
  41. Ripley, Randall B., and Grace A. Franklin (1991).Congress, the Bureaucracy, and Public Policy. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  42. Schneider, William (1991). “Public Backs Gulf War as Last Option.”National Journal, 12 January.Google Scholar
  43. Sinclair, Barbara (1993). “Congressional Party Leaders in the Foreign and Defense Policy Arena.” In Randall B. Ripley and James M. Lindsay (eds.),Congress Resurgent: Foreign and Defense Policy on Capitol Hill. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  44. Stanley, Harold W., and Richard G. Niemi (1988).Vital Statistics on American Politics. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.Google Scholar
  45. Stokes, Donald E., and Warren E. Miller (1962). “Party Government and the Saliency of Congress.”Public Opinion Quarterly 26: 531–546.Google Scholar
  46. Thomas, Martin (1985). “Election Proximity and Senatorial Roll Call Voting.”American Journal of Political Science 29: 96–111.Google Scholar
  47. Thomas, Rosita M. (1991). “American Public Opinion on the Iraq-Kuwait Crisis until January 15.” In aCRS Report for Congress, 91-109 GOV, 16 January.Google Scholar
  48. Tierney, John T. (1993). “Interest Group Involvement in Congressional Foreign and Defense Policy.” In Randall B. Ripley and James M. Lindsay (eds.),Congress Resurgent: Foreign and Defense Policy on Capitol Hill. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  49. Twight, Charlotte (1990). “DOD Attempts to Close Military Bases: The Political Economy of Congressional Resistance.” In Robert Higgs (ed.),Arms, Politics, and the Economy: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives. New York: Holmes and Meier.Google Scholar
  50. U. S. Congress. Senate.Congressional Record. 102nd Cong., 1st sess., 10 January 1991, 12 January 1991. Vol. 137.Google Scholar
  51. Wayman, Frank W. (1985). “Arms Control and Strategic Arms Voting in the U.S. Senate.”Journal of Conflict Resolution 29: 225–251.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eileen Burgin
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceUniversity of VermontBurlington

Personalised recommendations