-
Chapter Four: Individualism, Partisanship, and Cooperation in the Senate
- Brookings Institution Press
- Chapter
- Additional Information
59 chapter four Individualism, Partisanship, and Cooperation in the Senate barbara sinclair the senate is unique among legislative chambers; no other legislature grants its members as individuals so much latitude in the legislative process . Extended debate allows any senator to hold the floor as long as he or she wishes unless cloture is invoked, which now requires a supermajority of sixty votes. The Senate’s permissive amending rules enable senators to offer any and as many amendments as they please to almost any bill, and those amendments need not even be germane. Senators’ prerogatives have their origins in decisions made—or more accurately, not made—in the nineteenth century.1 Yet, as the Senate’s membership and its political environment have changed, so has the way senators use their prerogatives and consequently the legislative process. This chapter examines the development of the individualist Senate in the late 1960s and 1970s, the resurgence of partisanship in the late 1980s and 1990s, and the impact of these trends on the legislative process in the chamber. Development of the Individualist Senate The Senate of the 1950s was a clubby, inward-looking body governed by constraining norms; influence was unequally distributed and centered in strong committees and their senior leaders, who were most often conservatives , frequently southern Democrats.2 The typical senator of the 1950s was a specialist who concentrated on the issues that came before his committees . His legislative activities were largely confined to the committee room; he was seldom active on the Senate floor, was highly restrained in 60 barbara sinclair his exercise of the prerogatives the Senate rules gave him, and made little use of the media. The Senate’s institutional structure and the political environment rewarded such behavior.3 The lack of staff, for example, made it hard for new senators to participate intelligently right away; so serving an apprenticeship helped prevent a new member from making a fool of himself early in his career. Meager staff resources also made specialization the only really feasible course for attaining influence. Restraint in exploiting extended debate was encouraged by the lack of the sort of time pressures that would later make extended debate such a formidable weapon; when floor time is plentiful, the leverage senators derive from extended debate is much less.4 Furthermore, the dominant southern Democrats had an enormous constituency -based interest in restricting and thus protecting the filibuster for their one big issue: opposition to civil rights. The Senate of the 1950s was an institution well designed for its generally conservative and electorally secure members to further their goals. Membership turnover and a transformation of the political environment altered the costs and benefits of such behavior and induced members to change the institution; over time, norms, practices, and rules were altered .5 The 1958 elections brought into the Senate a big class of new senators with different policy goals and reelection needs. Mostly northern Democrats, they were activist liberals and most had been elected in highly competitive contests, in many cases having defeated incumbents. Both their policy goals and their reelection needs dictated a more activist style; these senators simply could not afford to wait to make their mark. Subsequent elections brought in more and more such members and, in the 1960s, the political environment began a transformation. A host of new issues rose to prominence, politics became more highly charged, the interest group community exploded in size and became more diverse, and the media— especially television—became a much bigger player in politics. This new environment offered tempting new opportunities to senators.6 The myriad interest groups needed champions and spokesmen, and the media needed credible sources to represent issue positions and to provide commentary. Because of the small size and prestige of the Senate, its members fit the bill. To take on those roles, however, senators would have to change their behavior and their institution. From the mid-1960s through the mid-1970s, senators did just that. The number of positions on good committees and the number of subcommittee leadership positions were expanded and distributed much more broadly. [18.226.187.24] Project MUSE (2024-04-17 21:21 GMT) individualism, partisanship, and cooperation 61 Staff, too, was greatly expanded and made available to junior as well as senior senators. Senators were able to involve themselves in a much broader range of issues, and they did so. Senators also became much more active on the Senate floor, offering more amendments and to a wider range of bills...