Advertisement

Let’s Play Hardball

Congressional Partisanship in the Television Era
  • Douglas B. Harris

Abstract

The Machiavellian aim of “gaining and holding power” by winning a majority of legislative seats is a key aim, arguably the primary purpose, of legislative parties (Kolodny 1998). To be sure, legislative parties also play important roles in building legislative coalitions, passing policy, and organizing the chamber, but each of these legislative roles hinges on gaining or maintaining majority control. In this respect, contemporary parties fit well Anthony Downs’ definition of a political party as “a team of men [and women] seeking to control the governing apparatus by gaining office in a duly constituted election” (1957, 25). Still, what it takes to win enough offices to control the legislature has changed significantly in the last half century, particularly as Congress became more polarized in the post-Reagan era.

Keywords

Party Leadership Moderate Member Congressional Party Democratic Leadership Party Polarization 
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. Ajemian, Robert. 1981. “Tip O’Neill on the Ropes.” Time May 18, 17.Google Scholar
  2. Aldrich, John H. Aldrich, and David W. Rohde. 1997–1998. “The Transition to Republican Rule in the House: Implications for Theories of Congressional Politics” Political Science Quarterly 112(4): 541–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cooper, Joseph, and David W. Brady. 1981. “Institutional Context and Leadership Style: The House from Cannon to Rayburn.” American Political Science Review 75(2): 411–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cox, Gary W., and Mathew D. McCubbins. 1983. Legislative Leviathan. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  5. Davis, Tom. 2008. Memorandum to Republican Leadership “Re: Where We Stand Today.” Copy in possession of author.Google Scholar
  6. Downs, Anthony. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  7. Gilmour, John B. 1995. Strategic Disagreement: Stalemate in American Politics. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
  8. Giroux, Gregory L. 2006. “Voter Discontent Fuels Democrats’ Day.” CQ Weekly November 13, 2983–2987.Google Scholar
  9. Hammond, Susan Webb. 1997. Congressional Caucuses in National Policy Making. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Harris, Douglas B. 2005a. “House Majority Party Leaders’ Uses of Public Opinion Information.” Congress & the Presidency 32(2): 133–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Harris, Douglas B. 2005b. “Orchestrating Party Talk: A Party-based View of One Minute Speeches in the House of Representatives.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 30(1): 127–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Harris, Douglas B. 2010. “Partisan Framing in Legislative Debates.” In Winning with Words: The Origins & Impact of Political Framing, edited by Brian F. Schaffner and Patrick J. Sellers, 41–59. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  13. Harris, Douglas B. 1998. “The Rise of the Public Speakership.” Political Science Quarterly 113(2): 193–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Harris, Douglas B., and Amy Fried. 2010. “Maine’s Political Warriors: Senators Snowe and Collins, Congressional Moderates in a Partisan Era.” The New England Journal of Political Science 4(1): 95–129.Google Scholar
  15. Harris, Douglas B., and Garrison Nelson. 2008. “Middlemen No More? Emergent Patterns in Congressional Leadership Selection.” P.S. Political Science and Politics 41(January 1): 49–55.Google Scholar
  16. Herrnson, Paul S. 1988. Party Campaigning in the 1980s. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Herrnson, Paul S. 2001. Playing Hardball: Campaigning for the U.S. Congress. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.Google Scholar
  18. Hetherington, Marc J. 2001. “Resurgent Mass Partisanship: The Role of Elite Polarization.” American Political Science Review 95(3): 619–631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Highton, Benjamin. 2002. “Bill Clinton, Newt Gingrich, and the 1998 House Elections.” Public Opinion Quarterly 66(1): 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jacobson, Gary C. 2000. “Party Polarization in National Politics: The Electoral Connection.” In Polarized Politics: Congress and the President in aGoogle Scholar
  21. Partisan Era, edited by Jon R. Bond and Richard Fleisher, 9–30. Washington, DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
  22. Jamieson, Kathleen Hall. 1997. “Civility in the House of Representatives.” The Annenberg Public Policy Center Report #10, Philadelphia, PA.Google Scholar
  23. Kernell, Samuel. 1997. Going Public: New Strategies of Presidential Leadership. 3rd Edition. Washington, DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
  24. Kolodny, Robin. 1999. “Moderate Success: Majority Status and the Changing Nature of Factionalism in the House Republican Party.” In New Majority or Old Minority? The Impact of Republicans on Congress, edited by Nicol C. Rae and Colton C. Campbell, 153–172. New York: Rowman & Littlefied.Google Scholar
  25. Kolodny, Robin. 1998. Pursuing Majorities: Congressional Campaign Committees in American Politics. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press.Google Scholar
  26. Matthews, Christopher. 1988. Hardball: How Politics is Played—Told by One Who Knows the Game. New York: HarperPerennial.Google Scholar
  27. Mayhew, David R. 2001. America’s Congress: Actions in the Public Sphere, James Madison Through Newt Gingrich. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Menefee-Libey, David. 2000. The Triumph of Campaign-Centered Politics. London: Chatham House.Google Scholar
  29. Neuman, W. Russell, Marion R. Just, and Ann N. Crigler. 1992. Common Knowledge: News and the Construction of Political Meaning. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  30. O’Neill, Tip with William Novak. 1987. Man of the House. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  31. Overby, L. Marvin. L. 2006. “Public Opinion Regarding Congressional Leaders: Lessons from the 1996 Elections” Journal of Legislative Studies 12(1)(March): 54–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Poole, Keith T., and Howard Rosenthal. 1997. Congress: A Political—Economic History of Roll Call Voting. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Rocca, Michael S. 2007. “Nonlegislative Debate in the U.S. House of Representatives” American Politics Research 35(4): 489–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rohde, David W. 1991. Parties and Leaders in the Postreform House. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sellers, Patrick J. 2000. “Manipulating the Message in the U.S. Congress.” Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics 5(1): 21–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sinclair, Barbara. 1995. Legislators, Leaders, and Lawmaking. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Sinclair, Barbara. 2006. Party Wars. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press.Google Scholar
  38. Stonecash, Jeffrey, and Nicole Lindstrom. 1999. “Emerging Party Cleavages in the House of Representatives, 1962–1996.” American Politics Quarterly 27(1): 58–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Stonecash, Jeffrey M., and Mack D. Mariani. 2000. “Republican Gains in the House in the 1994 Elections: Class Polarization in American Politics.” Political Science Quarterly 115(1): 93–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Truman, David B. 1959. The Congressional Party: A Case Study. New York: Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Scott A. Frisch and Sean Q Kelly 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Douglas B. Harris

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations