Book contents
- Can America Govern Itself?
- SSRC Anxieties of Democracy
- Sponsored by the Social Science Research Council
- Can America Govern Itself?
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Acknowledgments
- 1 The Anxieties of American Democracy
- Part I Anxieties of Power, Influence, and Representation
- Part II Procedural Anxieties
- Part III Anxieties of Governance
- Index
- Index Authors
- References
Part II - Procedural Anxieties
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 25 May 2019
Book contents
- Can America Govern Itself?
- SSRC Anxieties of Democracy
- Sponsored by the Social Science Research Council
- Can America Govern Itself?
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Acknowledgments
- 1 The Anxieties of American Democracy
- Part I Anxieties of Power, Influence, and Representation
- Part II Procedural Anxieties
- Part III Anxieties of Governance
- Index
- Index Authors
- References
Summary
Calls for a return to a traditional method of lawmaking known as “regular order” have proliferated as unorthodox lawmaking has grown more dominant in Congress. Proponents claim regular order enhances deliberation on legislation. This chapter examines deliberation under one form of regular order: open rules permitting unlimited amending in the House of Representatives. We find evidence of substantial minority influence on the inputs and outputs of the appropriations process. Regular order gives the minority party members the opportunity to present and win adoption of their policy proposals. Our evidence also shows that ideological extremists play an outsized role in debate. They offer more amendments than other members, and their amendments tend to win less support and face defeat more often than moderates. The paradox of regular order is that it simultaneously offers the opportunity for bipartisan deliberation over legislation while exposing the majority party to problems that may make its management of the floor more difficult.
Keywords
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Can America Govern Itself? , pp. 153 - 236Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2019
References
References
Adler, E. S., and Wilkerson, J. D.. 2012. Congress and the Politics of Problem Solving. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Aldrich, J. 2011. Why Parties? A Second Look. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Barber, M., and McCarty, N.. 2013. Causes and Consequences of Polarization. In Mansbridge, J. and Martin, C. J. (eds.), Negotiating Agreement in Politics. Washington, DC: American Political Science Association.Google Scholar
Binder, S. 1997. Minority Rights, Majority Rule. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cox, G., and McCubbins, M.. 1993. Legislative Leviathan: Party Government in the House. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Cox, G., and McCubbins, M.. 2002. Agenda Power in the U.S. House of Representatives, 1877–1986. In Brady, D. and McCubbins, M. (eds.), Party, Process, and Political Change in Congress: New Perspectives on the History of Congress. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Cox, G., and McCubbins, M.. 2005. Setting the Agenda: Responsible Party Government in the U.S. House of Representatives. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Drutman, Lee. 2015. “The House Freedom Caucus Has Some Good Ideas on How the US House Should Operate.” Retrieved from www.vox.com/polyarchy/2015/10/20/9570747/house-freedom-caucus-process-demands (last accessed October 17, 2016).Google Scholar
Fenno, R. 1966. The Power of the Purse: Appropriations Politics in Congress. Boston: Little Brown.Google Scholar
Green, M., and Burns, D.. 2010. “What Might Bring Regular Order Back to the House?” PS: Political Science and Politics 43(2): 223–226.Google Scholar
Hanson, P. 2015. Restoring the Regular Order in Congressional Appropriations, National Budgeting Roundtable.Google Scholar
Hanson, P. C. 2016. The Endurance of Nonpartisanship in House Appropriations. In Dodd, L. and Oppenheimer, B. (eds.), Congress Reconsidered. Washington, DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
Krehbiel, K. 1998. Pivotal Politics: A Theory of U.S. Lawmaking. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lee, F. 2009. Beyond Ideology: Politics, Principles, and Partisanship in the U.S. Senate. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lee, F. 2015. “How Party Polarization Affects Governance.” Annual Review of Political Science 18: 261–282.Google Scholar
Lee, F. 2016. Insecure Majorities: Congress and the Perpetual Campaign. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mann, T., and Ornstein, N.. 2006. The Broken Branch: How Congress Is Failing America and How to Get It Back on Track. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Monroe, N. W. and Robinson, G.. 2008. “Do Restrictive Rules Produce Nonmedian Outcomes? A Theory with Evidence from the 101st–108th Congress.” The Journal of Politics 70(1).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polsby, N. 2004. How Congress Evolves: Social Bases of Institutional Change. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Reynolds, M. 2016. “Fights Loom Over Appropriations in the House and Senate.” New Republic, January 3.Google Scholar
Rohde, D. W. 1991. Parties and Leaders in the Postreform House. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Schickler, E. 2001. Disjointed Pluralism: Institutional Innovation and the Development of the U.S. Congress. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Shepsle, K. 1992. “Congress Is a “They,” Not an “It”: Legislative Intent as an Oxymoron.” International Review of Law and Economics 12: 239–256.Google Scholar
Sinclair, B. 2012. Unorthodox Lawmaking: New Legislative Processes in the U.S. Congress. Washington, DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
White, J. 1989. The Functions and Power of the House Appropriations Committee. Berkeley: University of California.Google Scholar
References
Abramowitz, Alan I. 2010. The Disappearing Center: Engaged Citizens, Polarization, and American Democracy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Adler, E. Scott, and Wilkerson, John D.. 2012. Congress and the Politics of Problem Solving. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Aldrich, John H., and Rohde, David W.. 2000. “The Consequences of Party Organization in the House: The Role of the Majority and the Minority Parties in Conditional Party Government.” In Bond, Jon R. and Fleisher, Richard (eds.), Polarized Politics: Congress and the President in a Partisan Era. Washington, DC: CQ Press, pp. 31–72.Google Scholar
APSA Committee on Parties. 1950. “Towards a More Responsible Two-Party System.” Supplement, American Political Science Review 44(3).Google Scholar
Arnold, R. Douglas. 1990. The Logic of Congressional Action. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Baumgartner, Frank R., and Jones, Bryan D.. 2015. The Politics of Information: Problem Definition and the Course of Public Policy in America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Barber, Michael J., and McCarty, Nolan. 2015. “Causes and Consequences of Polarization.” In Persily, Nathaniel (ed.), Solutions to Political Polarization in America. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 15–58.Google Scholar
Bartels, Larry M. 2000. “Partisanship and Voting Behavior, 1952–1996.” American Journal of Political Science 44(1): 35–50.Google Scholar
Bendix, William. 2016. “Bypassing Congressional Committees: Parties, Panel Rosters, and Deliberative Processes.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 41(3): 687–714.Google Scholar
Bessette, Joseph. 1994. The Mild Voice of Reason: Deliberative Democracy and American National Government. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Binder, Sarah A. 2003. Stalemate: Causes and Consequences of Legislative Gridlock. Washington: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
Binder, Sarah A.. 2014. “Polarized We Govern?” Center for Effective Public Management, Brookings Institution. Retrieved from www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/BrookingsCEPM_Polarized_figReplacedTextRevTableRev.pdf (last accessed December 11, 2018).Google Scholar
Butler, Daniel M., and Powell, Eleanor Neff. 2014. “Understanding the Party Brand: Experimental Evidence on the Role of Valence.” Journal of Politics 76: 492–505.Google Scholar
Cox, Gary W., and McCubbins, Mathew D.. 2005. Setting the Agenda: Responsible Party Government in the U.S. House of Representatives. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Crespin, Michael H., and Madonna, Anthony J.. 2016. “New Directions in Legislative Research: Lessons from Inside Congress.” PS: Political Science and Politics 49(3): 473–477.Google Scholar
Curry, James M. 2015. Legislating in the Dark: Information and Power in the House of Representatives. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Curry, James M. 2016. “Knowledge, Expertise, and Committee Power in Congress.” Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, April 6–10, 2016.Google Scholar
Drutman, Lee. 2016. “Political Dynamism: A New Approach to Making Government Work Again.” Policy Paper, New America. Retrieved from www.newamerica.org/new-america/policy-papers/political-dynamism/ (last accessed December 17, 2018).Google Scholar
Egar, William T. 2016. “Tarnishing Opponents, Polarizing Congress: The House Minority Party and the Construction of the Roll‐Call Record.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 41(4): 935–964. DOI: 10.1111/lsq.12135.Google Scholar
Fenno, Richard F. 1962. “The House Appropriations Committee as a Political System: The Problem of Integration.” American Political Science Review 56(2): 310–324.Google Scholar
Fiorina, Morris P., and Abrams, Samuel J.. 2009. Disconnect: The Breakdown of Representation in American Politics. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.Google Scholar
Gelman, Jeremy. 2017. “Rewarding Dysfunction: Interest Groups and Intended Legislative Failure.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 42(4): 661–692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerrity, Jessica C. 2014. “Understanding Congressional Approval: Public Opinion from 1974 to 2014.” The Evolving Congress. Committee on Rules and Administration. United States Senate. Washington, DC: U.S Government Printing Office, pp. 189–216.Google Scholar
Gilligan, Thomas W., and Krehbiel, Keith. 1990. “Organization of Informative Committees by a Rational Legislature.” American Journal of Political, Science 34(2): 531–564.Google Scholar
Gilmour, John B. 1995. Strategic Disagreement: Stalemate in American Politics. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
Glassman, Matthew E., Straus, Jacob R., and Shogan, Colleen J.. 2010. Social Networking and Constituent Communication: Member Use of Twitter during a Two-Week Period in the 111th Congress. Congressional Research Service Report for Congress, R40823, September 21, 2009.Google Scholar
Glassman, Matthew E. 2014. “Tweet Your Congressman: The Rise of Electronic Communications in Congress.” The Evolving Congress. Committee on Rules and Administration. United States Senate. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, pp. 95–106.Google Scholar
Golbeck, Jennifer, Grimes, Justin M., and Rogers, Anthony. 2010. “Twitter Use by the U.S. Congress.” Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 61(8): 1612–1621.Google Scholar
Grimmer, Justin. 2013. Representational Style in Congress: What Legislators Say and Why It Matters. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Grimmer, Justin, Westwood, Sean J., and Messing, Solomon. 2015. The Impression of Influence: Legislator Communication, Representation, and Democratic Accountability. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Groseclose, Tim, and McCarty, Nolan. 2001. “The Politics of Blame: Bargaining Before an Audience.” American Journal of Political Science 45: 100–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gutmann, Amy, and Thompson, Dennis S.. 1996. Democracy and Disagreement. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Hall, Thad E. 2004. Authorizing Policy. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University Press.Google Scholar
Hamilton, Lee. 2008. “Congress Needs Proper Leadership.” Commentaries, Center on Congress. Bloomington: Indiana University.Google Scholar
Hanson, Peter. 2014. Too Weak to Govern: Majority Party Power and Appropriations in the U.S. Senate. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hanson, Peter. 2015. “Restoring the Regular Order in Congressional Appropriations.” New Ideas for Federal Budgeting: A Series of Working Papers for the National Budgeting Roundtable. Centers on the Public Service. School of Policy, Government and International Affairs. George Mason University.Google Scholar
Harris, Douglas B. 2005. “Orchestrating Party Talk: A Party-Based View of One-Minute Speeches in the House of Representatives.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 30: 127–141.Google Scholar
Hetherington, Marc J. 2001. “Resurgent Mass Partisanship: The Role of Elite Polarization.” American Political Science Review 95(3): 619–631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huitt, Ralph K. 1961. “Democratic Party Leadership in the Senate.” American Political Science Review 55(2): 333–344.Google Scholar
Jenkins, Jeffrey A., and Charles, Stewart III. 2016. “The Deinstitutionalization (?) of the House of Representatives: Reflections on Nelson Polsby’s ‘Institutionalization of the House of Representatives’ at Fifty,” Presented at the Congress & History Conference, Norman, Oklahoma, June 16–17, 2016.Google Scholar
Krehbiel, Keith. 1991. Information and Legislative Organization. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Krehbiel, Keith. 1998. Pivotal Politics: A Theory of U.S. Lawmaking. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Krutz, Glen S. 2005. Hitching a Ride: Omnibus Legislating in the U.S. Congress. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University Press.Google Scholar
Layman, Geoffrey C., Carsey, Thomas M., Green, John C., Herrera, Richard, and Cooperman, Rosalyn. 2010. “Activists and Conflict Extension in American Party Politics.” American Political Science Review 104(2): 324–346.Google Scholar
Lee, Frances E. 2016. Insecure Majorities: Congress and the Perpetual Campaign. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Levendusky, Matthew. 2009. The Partisan Sort: How Liberals Became Democrats and Conservatives Became Republicans. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lewallen, Jonathan, Theriault, Sean M., and Jones, Bryan D.. 2016. “Congressional Dysfunction: An Information Processing Perspective.” Regulation and Governance 10(2): 179–190.Google Scholar
Mann, Thomas E., and Ornstein, Norman. 2006. The Broken Branch: How Congress Is Failing America and How to Get It Back on Track. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mann, Thomas E., and Ornstein, Norman. 2012. It’s Even Worse Than It Looks: How the American Constitutional System Collided with the New Politics of Extremism. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Mayhew, David R. 1974. Congress: The Electoral Connection. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Mayhew, David R. 2000. America’s Congress: Actions in the Public Sphere, James Madison through Newt Gingrich. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Mayhew, David R. 2005. Divided We Govern: Party Control, Lawmaking, and Investigations, 1946–2002, 2nd ed. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
McCarty, Nolan, Poole, Keith T., and Rosenthal, Howard. 2006. Polarized America: The Dance of Ideology and Unequal Riches. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Mill, John Stuart. 1975 [1861]. “Considerations on Representative Government.” In Three Essays. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Reynolds, Molly E. 2018. Vital Statistics on Congress. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
Polsby, Nelson W. 1968. “The Institutionalization of the U.S. House of Representatives.” American Political Science Review 62(1): 144–168.Google Scholar
Polsby, Nelson W. 1975. “Legislatures.” In Greenstein, Fred I. and Polsby, Nelson W. (eds.) Handbook of Political Science. New York: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Quirk, Paul J. 2005. “Deliberation and Decision Making.” In Binder, Sarah A. and Quirk, Paul J. (eds.), The Legislative Branch. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 314–348.Google Scholar
Ramirez, Mark D. 2009. “The Dynamics of Partisan Conflict on Congressional Approval.” American Journal of Political Science, 53: 681–694.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rohde, David W. 1991. Parties and Leaders in the Postreform House. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Rosenthal, Alan. 2004. Heavy Lifting: The Job of the American Legislature. Washington: CQ Press.Google Scholar
Shepsle, Kenneth A. 1988. “Representation and Governance: The Great Legislative Trade-Off.” Political Science Quarterly 103(3): 461–484.Google Scholar
Shepsle, Kenneth A. 1989. “The Changing Textbook Congress.” In Chubb, John and Peterson, Paul (eds.), Can the Government Govern? Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, pp. 238–266.Google Scholar
Shepsle, Kenneth A., and Weingast, Barry R.. 1987. “The Institutional Foundations of Committee Power.” American Political Science Review 81(1): 85–104.Google Scholar
Shogan, Colleen J. 2010. “Blackberries, Tweets, and YouTube: Technology and the Future of Communicating with Congress: PS: Political Science & Politics 43(2): 231–233.Google Scholar
Shogan, Colleen J. 2012. “Defense Authorization: The Senate’s Last Best Hope.” In Straus, Jacob R. (ed.), Party and Procedure in the United States Congress. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, pp. 195–216.Google Scholar
Sinclair, Barbara. 1989. The Transformation of the U. S. Senate. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Sinclair, Barbara. 2016. Unorthodox Lawmaking: New Legislative Processes in the U.S. Congress, 5th edition. Washington: CQ Press.Google Scholar
Smith, Steven. 1989. Call to Order: Floor Politics in the House and Senate. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
Smith, Steven S. 2014. The Senate Syndrome: The Evolution of Procedural Warfare in the Modern U.S. Senate. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press.Google Scholar
Snowe, Olympia J. 2013. “The Effect of Modern Partisanship on Legislative Effectiveness in the 112th Congress.” Harvard Journal on Legislation 50(1): 21–40.Google Scholar
Straus, Jacob R., Glassman, Matthew Eric, Shogan, Colleen J., and Smelcer, Susan Navarro. 2013. “Communicating in 140 Characters or Less: Congressional Adoption of Twitter in the 111th Congress.” PS: Political Science & Politics 4(1): 60–66.Google Scholar
Theriault, Sean M. 2008. Party Polarization in Congress. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Thompson, Dennis S. 2008. “Deliberative Democratic Theory and Empirical Political Science.” Annual Review of Political Science 11: 497–520.Google Scholar
Thurber, James A. 2011. “What Is Wrong with Congress and What Should Be Done about It.” In Morgan, Iwan and Davies, Philip John (eds.), Broken Government? Politics in the Obama Era. London: University of London/Institute for the Study of the Americas Press.Google Scholar
Tiefer, Charles. 2016. The Polarized Congress: The Post-Traditional Procedure of Its Current Struggles. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.Google Scholar
Volden, Craig, and Wiseman, Alan E.. 2014. Legislative Effectiveness in the United States Congress. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wallner, James I. 2013. The Death of Deliberation: Partisanship and Polarization in the United States Senate. New York: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
Waxman, Henry with Green, Joshua. 2009. The Waxman Report: How Congress Really Works. New York: Twelve.Google Scholar
Wawro, Gregory. 2000. Legislative Entrepreneurship in the U.S. House of Representatives. Ann Arbor: MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
References
Bai, Jushan, and Perron, Pierre. 2003. “Computation and Analysis of Multiple Structural Change Models.” Journal of Applied Econometrics 18: 1–22.Google Scholar
Benoit, Kenneth, Laver, Michael, and Mikhaylov, Slava. 2009. “Treating Words as Data with Error: Uncertainty in Text Statements of Policy Positions.” American Journal of Political Science 53(2): 495–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cann, Damon, Goelzhauser, Greg, and Johnson, Kaylee. 2014. “Analyzing Text Complexity in Political Science Research.” PS: Political Science & Politics 47(3): 663–666.Google Scholar
Coleman, M., and Liau, T. 1975. “A Computer Readability Formula Designed for Machine Scoring.” Journal of Applied Psychology 60(2): 283–284.Google Scholar
Dale, Edgar, and Chall, Jeanne. 1948. “A Formula for Predicting Readability.” Educational Research Bulletin 27(1): 11–20.Google Scholar
Diamond, Larry. 2002. “What Political Science Owes the World.” PS: Political Science & Politics Online Forum: 113–127.Google Scholar
Flesch, Rudolph. 1948. “A New Readability Yardstick.” Journal of Applied Psychology 32(3): 221–233.Google Scholar
Flynn, James R. 1999. “Searching for Justice: The Discovery of Iq Gains Over Time.” American Psychologist 54(1): 5–20.Google Scholar
Galston, William. 2001. “Political Knowledge, Political Engagement, and Civic Education.” Annual Review of Political Science 4: 217–234.Google Scholar
Gatto, John Taylor. 2002. Dumbing Us Down: The Hidden Curriculum of Compulsory Schooling. Vancouver: New Society Publishers.Google Scholar
Hofstadter, Richard. 1963. Anti-Intellectualism in American Life. New York: Knopf Books.Google Scholar
Jansen, David-Jan. 2011. “Does the Clarity of Central Bank Communication Affect Volatility in Financial Markets? Evidence from Humphrey-Hawkins Testimonies.” Contemporary Economic Policy 29(4).Google Scholar
Kincaid, J. Peter, Fishburne, Robert, Rogers, Richard, and Chissom, Brad. 1975. Derivation of New Readability Formulas (Automated Readability Index, Fog Count, and Flesch Reading Ease Formula) for Navy Enlisted Personnel. Vols. Research Branch Report, pp. 8–75. Naval Air Station Memphis: Chief of Naval Technical Training.Google Scholar
Lim, Elvin. 2008. The Anti-Intellectual Presidency. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
McLaughlin, Harry. 1969. “SMOG Grading: A New Readability Formula.” Journal of Reading 12(8): 639–646.Google Scholar
Owens, Ryan, and Wedeking, Justin. 2011. “Justices and Legal Clarity: Analyzing the Complexity of Supreme Court Opinions.” Law & Society Review 45(4): 1027–1061.Google Scholar
Spache, George. 1953. “A New Readability Formula for Primary-Grade Reading Materials.” The Elementary School Journal 53(7): 410–413.Google Scholar
Spirling, Arthur. 2016. “Democratization of Linguistic Complexity: The Effect of Franchise Extension on Parliamentary Discourse, 1832–1915.” Journal of Politics 78(1): 120–136.Google Scholar
- 4
- Cited by