Darwinian bracketology
In the news



AIG bonus brew-ha.
Battle over the budget is
looming – concern over the
deficits and that Obama’s
budget tries to do too much.
Congratulations to Badger
Women’s hockey – third
national title in four years.
Parties and Party Leadership
PS 426
March 24-26, 2009
Approaches to studying parties in
Congress

Responsible party government
–
–
–
–

policy commitments to the electorate: candidates run on a
unified national platform.
willingness and ability to implement promises (unified
government is implied).
strong opposition party to allow accountability when necessary.
sufficient differences between the parties to provide
meaningful choices.
Is the 1994 “Contract with America” an example? Is
this possible given today’s candidate-centered politics?
Party cartels (Cox and McCubbins)


“Name brand” theory of parties – party members
benefit from having a shared name brand.
Parties help solve collective action problems by
providing the basis for passing legislation
(members would not be able to do it on their
own).
Members delegate power to party leaders -analogy to partners in a law firm or accounting
firm. Partners set the agenda, coordinate the
business side of things. Limits of the analogy?
Party cartel theory, cont.

Party cartels usurp the power to make rules governing
the structure and process of legislation. There are two
main consequences:
–
–
the legislative process is stacked in favor of majority party
interests (especially in terms of negative agenda power: keep
things off the agenda that would split the party).
because the majority party has all the structural advantages,
the key players in most legislative deals are members of that
party and the majority party's central agreements are facilitated
by cartel rules and policed by the cartel's leadership.
Conditional party government



party polarization -- that is, homogeneity within
the party and heterogeneity across parties (party
conflict), is a necessary condition for strong
leadership.
If party polarization holds, members are more
willing to give power to party leaders; if parties
are more internally divided, they will not.
Contrast recent Democratic leadership to the
Democrats of the 1950s and 1960s. Blue dogs
are nowhere near as powerful as the
conservative coalition used to be.
Challenges to the party-centered view


Preference-based theory: the median voter is pivotal, or
the filibuster pivot in the Senate (parties don’t add much
to understanding congressional decision making).
However, there are preference-based spatial theories
that do include parties. Downs: Parties “formulate
policies to win elections rather than winning elections to
promulgate policies.” Parties seek to win elections by
sticking closely to the policy preferences of the “median
voter.” However, this doesn’t mean that parties in the
legislature don’t matter.
Challenges, continued



Bipartisanship: political tactic or moral principle? What
does it really mean? Does it require compromise?
Clinton vs. Bush model. Large support from both parties,
or pick off a few extreme members? Obama is seeking
the Clinton approach, but has been rebuffed by the
Republicans. Chait, “The presence or absence of
cooperation between parties tells us nothing about
whether government is acting in the public interest.”
Tom DeLay response. Which approach does he come
closest to?
Should Obama continue to try to work with Congressional
The two-party system



Historical evolution. Straight party ticket, partycentered elections. Progressive reforms (Australian
ballot, primaries), candidate centered election.
Duverger’s law for elections and other institutional
factors, such as the committee system, promote the
two-party system. Makes it hard for third parties to get
into office and then they have to caucus with one of the
major parties if they want to have any power.
Are third parties possible? Desirable? Joe Lieberman,
Bernie Sanders, a few others, but not a real party.
Party leaders in the House and Senate




House – Speaker is the only Constitutionally mandated
position. Extensive leadership system. Regional
balance in the system – “Austin/Boston” connection.
Extensive whip system: at-large and regional whips.
Senate – President pro tem and Vice President are
mentioned in the Constitution, but are largely
ceremonial. Leadership in the Senate like “herding
cats.”
Leadership styles
Middle-person hypothesis. Recent evidence of
extremism.
House leadership - Democrats
Democrats
 Speaker—Nancy
Pelosi
 Majority Leader—
Steny Hoyer
 Majority Whip—
James Clyburn
 Caucus Chair—
John Larson
House leadership – Republicans
Republicans
 Minority Leader
– John Boehner
 Minority Whip –
Eric Cantor
 Conference
Chair – Mike
Pence
 Vice Chair –
Cathy McMorris
Rogers
Senate leadership
President of the
Senate
Joe Biden
U.S. Vice President
President Pro Tempore
Robert C. Byrd
Democrat, West
Virginia
Majority Leader
Harry Reid
Democrat, Nevada
Assistant Majority
Leader
(Democratic Whip)
Richard Durbin
Democrat, Illinois
Minority Leader
Mitch McConnell
Republican,
Kentucky
Assistant Minority
Leader
(Republican Whip)
Trent Lott
Republican,
Mississippi
Duties of parties leaders






organize the chamber – appoint task forces,
oversee committee nominations.
schedule floor business
influence colleagues
Consult and negotiate with the president
spokespersons for the party (on national
television news and talk shows)
campaigning and fundraising for party
members
Measuring the strength of parties

Roll call vote measures
–
–
–

Party Voting: at least 50% D v. 50% R.
Index of cohesion--absolute difference between proportion voting
yes and proportion voting no. 80/20. Score would be 60.
Party unity--% of the party voting together on party votes. Can be
an individual-level score, or aggregated for the party.
Distinguishing between parties and preferences
–
–
close and lopsided votes
agenda control: only 4 cases in 30 years of a bill being reported
from a committee without the support of the majority party.
Recent research




Majority and minority party “roll rates” (who wins roll call
votes, the majority party or minority party)? Studies of
roll call voting showed that the majority party rarely gets
rolled – this was seen as strong evidence of negative
agenda power. However, recent work that focuses on
all bills, not just those with votes, reaches different
conclusion. 44 major pieces of legislation from 19371952 were opposed by the majority party.
Party switchers
Shift in policy direction. Problem of locating the status
quo.
Steve Smith – “win rates” by party in House and Senate.
Leadership tools



Sanctions
Rewards
Setting the Agenda
–
–


Negative power: party cartel theory argues that it is most
important for leaders to prevent bills from coming to the floor
that would divide the party. The “Hastert rule.”
Positive power.
Shaping legislation: direct negotiation, multiple referral,
omnibus legislation.
Influencing outcomes--persuasion, control of the Rules
committee, suspension of the rules. Rayburn and
insurance votes. “Black Thursday” and the prescription
drug vote.
Limits of Leadership


Parties are not zero-sum institutions. Do not
shut out the minority party. “Shadow of the
future.” Fear that the minority party will become
the majority party and treat you the same way
you treated them.
No ultimate sanctions – can’t hire and fire
members, the voters have that power. Therefore
must operate through persuasion and incentives.
The minority party

Factionalism within the Republican party
–
–
–
–

When the Democrats were in the minority, they had
problems with factions as well:
–
–

Traditional conservatives (Bob Michel, Hastert)
New Conservatives (Gingrich/DeLay/Boehner)
Moral Conservatives (Brownback, Hatch, etc.)
Moderates (Chris Shays, Snowe, Collins).
Traditional liberals (esp. the CBC and ADA)
Blue Dog Democrats (DLC)
Differences in strategies and tactics: go along,
compromise, try to make policy? Or try to become the
majority party again?