Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-684899dbb8-ndjvl Total loading time: 0.32 Render date: 2022-05-29T06:54:08.177Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true }

The direct election of senators and the emergence of the modern presidency

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 March 2020

Thomas R. Gray
Affiliation:
School of Economic, Political and Policy Sciences, University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, TX, USA
Jeffery A. Jenkins*
Affiliation:
Sol Price School of Public Policy, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA
Philip B.K. Potter
Affiliation:
Department of Politics, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA
*
*Corresponding author. Email: jajenkins@usc.edu

Abstract

Research on presidential power delineates between a modern era of relative autonomy and an earlier period of congressional dominance. What drove this change? Unlike prior arguments about presidential entrepreneurship and the rise of the United States as a global power, we attribute the emergence of the modern presidency partially to an institutional change—the adoption of direct election of senators that culminated in the 17th Amendment. With direct election, senators were selected by individual voters rather than state legislators. These senators answered to a new principal—the general public—that was (in the aggregate) less informed and less interested in foreign policy. As a result, senators had less incentive to constrain presidential foreign policy preferences. We find evidence for this shift in the relationship between the piecemeal adoption of direct election and senate votes to delegate foreign policy authority to the executive. The implication is that the direct election of senators played an underappreciated role in the emergence of the modern presidency.

Type
Research Note
Copyright
Copyright © The European Political Science Association 2020

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.)

References

Baum, MA and Potter, PBK (2015) War and Democratic Constraint: How the Public Influences Foreign Policy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Campbell, BC (1980) Representative Democracy: Public Policy and Midwestern Legislatures in the Late Nineteenth Century. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Canes-Wrone, B, Howell, WG and Lewis, DE (2008) Toward a broader understanding of presidential power: a reevaluation of the two presidencies thesis. Journal of Politics 70, 116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Canon, DT and Stewart, C III. 2002. The evolution of the committee system in the U.S. Senate. In Oppenheimer, B (ed). Senate Exceptionalism. Columbus: Ohio State University Press, pp. 157181.Google Scholar
Canon, D, Nelson, G and Stewart, C (1998) Historical congressional standing committees, 1st to 79th Congresses, 1789–1947.Google Scholar
Cox, GW and McCubbins, MD (2005) Setting the Agenda: Responsible Party Government in the U.S. House of Representatives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dearborn, JA (2019) The “proper organs” for presidential representation: a fresh look at the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921. Journal of Policy History 31, 141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Delli Karpini, MX and Keeter, S (1997) What Americans Know about Politics and Why It Matters. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Donohue, III, John, J and Levitt, SD (2001) The impact of legalized abortion on crime. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 116, 379420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gailmard, S and Jenkins, JA (2009) Agency problems, the 17th amendment, and representation in the senate. American Journal of Political Science 53, 324342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldstein, J (1993) Ideas, Interests, and American Trade Policy. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Groseclose, T and Stewart, C III (1999) The value of committee seats in the senate, 1947–91. American Journal of Political Science 43, 963973.Google Scholar
Holmstrom, B (1979) Moral hazard and observability. Bell Journal of Economics 10, 7491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holsti, O (1996) Public Opinion and American Foreign Policy. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Howell, WG (2003) Power without Persuasion: The Politics of Direct Presidential Action. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lapinski, JS (2000) Representation and Reform: A Congress Centered Approach to American Political Development (PhD Dissertation), Columbia University.Google Scholar
Lott, JR Jr and Lawrence Kenny, W (1999) Did women's suffrage change the size and scope of government? Journal of Political Economy 107, 11631198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacNeil, N and Baker, RA (2013) The American Senate: An Insider's History. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Miller, W and Stokes, D (1963) Constituency influence in congress. American Political Science Review 57, 4556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moe, TM (1985) Control and feedback in economic regulation: the case of the NLRB. American Political Science Review 79, 10941116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neustadt, RE (1991) Presidential Power and the Modern Presidents: The Politics of Leadership from Roosevelt to Reagan. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
Ostrom, CW Jr and Simon, DM (1985) Promise and performance: a dynamic model of presidential popularity. American Political Science Review 79, 334358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rogowski, JC (2016) Presidential influence in an era of congressional dominance. American Political Science Review 110, 325341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rohde, DW (1991) Parties and Leaders in the Postreform Congress. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rothman, DJ (1966) Politics and Power: The U.S. Senate, 1869–1901. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schiller, WJ and Stewart, C III (2015) Electing the Senate: Indirect Democracy before the Seventeenth Amendment. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wawro, GJ and Schickler, E (2006) Filibuster: Obstruction and Lawmaking in the U.S. Senate. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Wildavsky, A (1966) The two presidencies. Trans-Action 4, 714.Google Scholar
Wolman, P (1992) Most Favored Nation: The Republican Revisionists and U.S. Tariff Policy, 1897–1912. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: Link
Link
Supplementary material: File

Gray et al. supplementary material

Gray et al. supplementary material

Download Gray et al. supplementary material(File)
File 58 KB

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

The direct election of senators and the emergence of the modern presidency
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

The direct election of senators and the emergence of the modern presidency
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

The direct election of senators and the emergence of the modern presidency
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *