Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wzw2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-20T13:26:38.141Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Outsider in the Senate: An Alternative Role

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

Ralph K. Huitt
Ralph K. Huitt*
Affiliation:
University of Wisconsin
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The growing concern of students of politics with the social structure of official bodies and the behavior expected of their members promises to make the Senate of the United States a prime target of research. Two recent books make notable contributions and suggest the trend. One is William S. White's Citadel: The Story of the U.S. Senate, an “insider's” impressions based on years of close observation; and the other is Donald R. Mathews' U.S. Senators and Their World, the work of a political scientist. One (though not the only) concern of both books is the system of norms for behavior of members of the Senate. Although reached through different routes (White's largely inferred from observed behavior, Matthews' principally from interviews) their statements of Senate norms and the way they work have much in common. The norms (or “folkways,” as Matthews calls them) are viewed as cultural “oughts” upon which there is a high degree of consensus. The members who conform most closely to the norms are, generally speaking, the most influential and effective members. This general view is almost certainly correct, as it would be for any stable human group; in this the Senate is not unique (as White sometimes seems to suggest it is) but typical.

But what about the senator who does not conform? What is his place in the Senate and what happens to him there? This study will explore these questions through a case study of such a senator. But first it may be useful to try to restate the relevant parts of the analysis of White and Matthews (without holding them in any way responsible for the restatement) in terms of role theory, which will provide the conceptual framework for the analysis of the senator's experience.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 55 , Issue 3 , September 1961 , pp. 566 - 575
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1961

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

The author gratefully acknowledges his indebtedness to Senator William Proxmire of Wisconsin for invaluable assistance in the preparation of this paper, and to the Rockefeller Foundation for a grant which made possible the theoretical work on it. The author is, of course, solely responsible for all statements of fact and judgment.

References

1 New York, 1956.

2 Chapel Hill, 1960.

3 See especially White, chs. 5–10, and Matthews, ch. 5.

4 Homans, George, The Human Group (New York, 1950), pp. 147, 169–170, 426–28Google Scholar.

5 “Role” and related concepts are denned in a great variety of ways by social scientists, depending upon the discipline of the definer and the special problems which engage his interest. For an excellent clarification of the definitional problem see Gross, Neal, Mason, Ward S. and McEachern, Alexander W., Explorations in Role Analysis: Studies of the School Superintendency Role (New York, 1958), ch. 2Google Scholar. Because the purpose of the present study is not to refine role theory but to employ it rather crudely to gain some insights into the behavior of senators, concepts are stated with as little elaboration as possible. For the theoretical formulation principally relied on see Sarbin, Theodore, “Role Theory,” in Lindzey, Gardner (ed.), Handbook of Social Psychology (Cambridge, Mass., 1954), Vol. I, pp. 223–58Google Scholar.

6 Op. cit., p. 82.

7 Ibid., pp. 122, 126.

8 Op. cit., pp. 114–17. More will be said about this later.

9 Op. cit., p. 82.

10 Proxmire has a B.A. degree from Yale, an M.B.A. from the Harvard Graduate School of Business Administration, and he carried his doctoral program in government at Harvard to the dissertation-writing stage.

11 See the sketch of Proxmire's life and personality by Sperling, Godfrey Jr., in The Christian Science Monitor, 08 31 1957 Google Scholar; or the Chicago Sun-Times, August 25, 1957.

12 Chicago Daily News, 08 8 1957, p. 22 Google Scholar.

13 Proxmire was elected in August, 1957 to the unexpired term of Senator McCarthy, and to his first full term in 1958.

14 John Wyngaard, August 17, 1957.

15 Congressional Record, Vol. 104 (04 3 1958), pp. 6200–14Google Scholar.

16 Ibid. (May 26, 1958), pp. 9424–25; (May 28, p. 9655; (June 4–5), pp. 9868–69, 10157–63, 10260–62, 10266–70.

17 Ibid. (July 18), p. 14187.

18 H.R. 2, 85th Cong. See S. Rept. 2482, Congressional Record, Vol. 104 (08 20 1958), p. 18606 Google Scholar.

19 Ibid. (August 19), p. 18457.

20 Ibid. (August 23), pp. 19464–66, 19469–78, 19522–39, 19554–55.

21 In his first press conference after winnning the special election in 1957, Proxmire shunned labels such as “liberal” and “Douglas Democrat,” but mentioned approvingly that some labor leaders had described him as a “maverick.” Chicago Daily News, August 29, 1957.

22 Representative actions are not hard to find. In 1959 Proxmire made three speeches criticizing the Democratic party leadership in the Senate, with support from four other senators. Congressional Record, Vol. 105 (February 23), pp. 281420 Google Scholar, (March 9), pp. 3559–78, (April 15), pp. 595659. In 1960 he opposed the judicial nomination of a Wisconsin man who had massive support from within and outside the state, with no one else from Wisconsin in opposition. (Proxmire said: “I have had more visits and phone calls in connection with this nomination than with any other matter I have dealt with since I came to the Senate.”) Hearings, Senate Judiciary Subcommittee, 86th Cong., 2d sess., Nomination of James R. Durfee; Congressional Record, Vol. 106 (01 25), pp. 1027–1033 Google Scholar, (April 19), pp. 7577–78, (April 20), p. 7750. In 1961 he was the first to make a fight against a Kennedy nominee. Ibid. (daily edition, January 23, 1961), pp. 1086–1100.

23 “Borah and Johnson, Disturbers of the Senatorial Peace,” The Literary Digest (08 23 1919), pp. 52, 55 Google Scholar; Haines, Austin, “Smith W. Brookhart, Dissenter,” Nation (11 1 1922), pp. 465–7Google Scholar; Barry, Richard, “A Radical in Power: A Study of La Follette,” Outlook (11 29 1922), pp. 564–7Google Scholar; Rowell, Chester H., “LaFollette, Shipstead, and the Embattled Farmers,” World's Work (08, 1923), pp. 408–20Google Scholar; Haynes, F. E., “LaFollette and LaFollettism,” Atlantic Monthly (10, 1924), 53644 Google Scholar; Bliven, Bruce, “Robert M. LaFollette's Place in Our History,” Current History (08, 1925), pp. 716–22Google Scholar; Merz, Charles, “Androcles and the Lion: The Silent President and the Roaring Borah,” Century (04, 1926), pp. 698–703 Google Scholar; Child, Richard Washburn, “He Rides Alone,” Saturday Evening Post (05 21 1927), pp. 6–7, 187, 189 Google Scholar; Merritt, Dixon, “Four Senators,” Outlook (12 28 1927), pp. 531, 534 Google Scholar; Tucker, Ray T., “Those Sons of Wild Jackasses,” North American Review (02, 1930), pp. 225–33Google Scholar; Barkley, Frederick R., “The Voice of the Corn Belt: Senator Norris—Square Peg in the G.O.P.,” Outlook (01 14 1931), pp. 52–4, 74–5Google Scholar; Cook, Louis H., “Brookhart, Insurgent,” North American Review (02, 1931), pp. 178–84Google Scholar; Villard, Oswald Garrison, “Borah Goes on the War Path,” Nation (07 25 1934), p. 91 Google Scholar; “Borah: Political History-Maker,” Literary Digest (02 1 1936), p. 9 Google Scholar; Neuberger, Richard L., “Wayne Morse: Republican Gadfly,” American Mercury (07, 1947), pp. 16–24 Google Scholar; Riggs, Robert L., “Wayne Morse: The Peril of Independence,” The New Republic (03 2 1953), pp. 10–12 Google Scholar; Riggs, Robert L., “That Maverick Morse,” Nation (05 5 1956), pp. 380–2Google Scholar.

24 Tucker, op. cit., pp. 226–27.

25 This should be emphasized. No classification of individuals is intended. Where individuals are mentioned it is only to illustrate a characteristic in the construction of a type.

26 Cohen, Albert K., “The Study of Social Disorganization and Deviant Behavior,” in Merton, Robert K. et al. (eds.), Sociology Today (New York, 1959), pp. 461–84, 462 Google Scholar. Robert A. Dentier and Kai T. Erickson argue that deviants are functional to the group, testing and tracing its boundaries, as opposed to the notion of deviance as a dysfunctional aspect of group or society; but they accept Cohen's definition and it is clear that they are talking about behavior which is regarded as illegitimate by the group. “The Function of Deviance in Groups,” Social Problems, Vol. 7 (Fall, 1960), pp. 98–107 Google Scholar.

27 Johnson, Byron L. and Butt, W. E., “Rating the Senators,” New Republic (03 3 1952), pp. 10–11 Google Scholar.

28 “Senate's Most Valuable Ten,” Time (04 3 1950), p. 20 Google Scholar.

29 Derieux, James C., “For Distinguished Congressional Service,” Collier's (04 26 1947), pp. 78–79 Google Scholar. The awards, made each year for four years to one member of each house, consisted of a $10,000 cash prize and a gold medal presented by the President of the United States. Other senators chosen were Arthur H. Vandenberg (1945), Alben W. Barkley (1947), and Vandenberg again (1948). Young Bob's style in the Senate was not his father's; indeed, by the time the Collier's award was made he probably was a valued member of the Inner Club. But the point is that his independence was stressed in the article announcing the award.

30 Congressional Record, Vol. 105 (09 11 1959), pp. 19085–86Google Scholar. See also Benton, William, “For Distinguished Service in Congress,” New York Times Magazine (07 24 1955), pp. 14 ff.Google Scholar

31 New York Times, May 5, 1957, IV, p. 2.

32 The original committee was made up of Lyndon B. Johnson, chairman; Russell, Richard B., Bridges, Styles, Mansfield, Mike, and Millikin, Eugene D.. Congressional Record, Vol. 101 (08 2 1955), p. 12967 Google Scholar. Johnson later was replaced by Kennedy and Millikin by John W. Bricker. For a description of the selection process, see Kennedy, John F., “Search for the Five Greatest Senators,“ New York Times Magazine (04 14 1957), pp. 14–18 Google Scholar.

33 See S. Rept. No. 279, 85th Cong., 1st sess., Congressional Record, Vol. 103 (05 1 1957), pp. 6206–08Google Scholar.

34 This was frankly acknowledged in the committee report, ibid., p. 6205, which says of LaFollette, in part: “Ceaseless battler for the underprivileged in an age of special privilege, courageous independent in an age of partisan conformity, he fought memorably against tremendous odds and stifling inertia for social and economic reforms which ultimately proved essential to American progress in the 20th century …. The bitter antagonisms stirred by his unyielding opposition to international commitments and conflict were ultimately submerged by widespread admiration for his dedicated life-long fight against political corruption and corporate greed.” An editorial criticism of the selections characterizes LaFollette as “the champion of lost causes.” “What Makes These Senators Great?” Christian Century (05 15 1957), p. 612 Google Scholar.

35 Congressional Record, ibid., pp. 6212–13.

36 White, op. cit., pp. 121–35.

37 S. 2917, S. Rept. 1592, 86th Cong., 2d Sess.; P.L. 86–799. See Congressional Record (daily edition, 08 19 1960), pp. 15594–600Google Scholar.

38 See the discussion of “the postulate of role consensus” in Neal, et al., op. cit., ch. 2.

39 Ibid., pp. 25–26.

40 The most perceptive and elaborate statement of the interrelated sets of roles within a legislative sub-system is found in the comparative study of four state legislatures by Eulau, Heinz, Wahlke, John C., Ferguson, LeRoy C. and Buchanan, William, “The Role of the Representative: Some Empirical Observations on the Theory of Edmund Burke,” this Review, Vol. 53 (09, 1959), pp. 742–56Google Scholar; “The Legislator as Specialist,” Western Political Quarterly, Vol. 13 (09, 1960), pp. 636–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and especially their mimeographed working paper, “The Role Concept in the Comparative Study of State Legislatures,” pp. 3–17. See also my “The Congressional Committee: A Case Study,” this Review, Vol. 48 (06, 1954), pp. 340–365 Google Scholar.

41 Op. cit., pp. 86–87.

42 Op cit., pp. 114–17.

43 In determining standards for the selection of the five outstanding senators, Kennedy rejected the notion of choosing those whose names are prominently associated with legislation. He pointed out that the senator whose name a bill bears may not be for the bill and may not even have read it, while a senator whose legislative efforts fail may find that later on someone else will take up his bill and succeed. John F. Kennedy, op. cit.

44 Bailey, Stephen K. and Samuel, Howard D., Congress at Work (New York, 1952), ch. 8Google Scholar; Hart, Henry C., “Legislative Abdication in Regional Development,” The Journal of Politics, Vol. 13 (1951), pp. 393–417 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

45 Merton, Robert K., Social Theory and Social Structure (Glencoe, Ill., 1957), pp. 19–84 Google Scholar.

46 In their forthcoming comparative study of four state legislatures, Eulau, Wahlke, Ferguson and Buchanan use this phrase to define the legislative process.

47 Op. cit., pp. 60–84. Merton makes “the distinction between manifest functions and latent functions; the first referring to those objective consequences for a specified unit (person, subgroup, social or cultural system) which contribute to its adjustment or adaptation and were so intended; the second referring to unintended and unrecognized consequences of the same order.”

48 David B. Truman suggests this as one of the functions of the public hearing of the congressional committee. The Governmental Process (New York, 1953), pp. 372–77Google Scholar.

49 This is suggested by Proxmire's mail from all over the country when, for instance, he criticized his party's leadership in the Senate.

50 Merton, op. cit., p. 30.