Concordance: Black Lawmaking in the U.S. Congress from Carter to Obama

7. The Moderating Effect of Institutional Pressures

129 Chapter 7 The Moderating Effect of Institutional Pressures Concordance holds that in winning incorporation African American Democratic lawmakers have moved closer to the political mainstream even as they have pushed their party to better represent their group’s interests. Incorporation , thus, is a two-sided process. In this chapter, I provide a more stringent analysis of the data to provide further support for my theory of concordance. I present data showing support for one side of this process— the ideological movement of Black Democratic legislators toward their party. Through multivariate analysis of their Poole-Rosenthal ideological scores, I show that important factors reducing Black ideological liberalism point to the greater inclusion of Black lawmakers in the policymaking process in Washington. Critics of concordance, however, might point out that the policy environment mostly pushed Black lawmakers to the center as Washington became more conservative during the 1980s and 1990s. They might not agree that the institutional components of incorporation changed Black lawmakers ideologically. Additionally, still others might contend (as I noted in chapter 1), that Black ideological moderation in the House is an artifact, through both the creation of new majority-Black districts in the South and as Black majorities in Black-led districts were whittled down from the 1970s to the 2000s. However, more than expanding Black representation in the South or as a consequence of redistricting nationally, I contend that increasing political opportunities for Black lawmakers to be national leaders and to run for statewide offices have subtly changed the legislative behavior all Black lawmakers. 130 • concordance Incorporation Forces Affecting Black Legislative Behavior Incorporation compels minorities seeking to influence the political process ultimately to follow institutional leaders. The institutional leaders in Congress are usually seen as the Speaker of the House, the Senate and House Majority Leaders, and the two house minority party leaders. In this analysis, however, the institutional leaders are the president, the party, legislative leaders, and the House majority. Additional forces include political ambition, region, age, and potentially gender. The conservative climate in Washington that emerged in the 1980s is also a potential force causing the ideological scores of Black lawmakers to shift toward the political center. Presidential Leadership Because of integration as well as party polarization, Black House legislators are more likely to follow the lead of Democratic presidents than in the group’s early years. Black House legislators rejected President Carter’s leadership initiative to reduce federal spending, seeking an agenda where government-sponsored projects would become a permanent part of national policy to combat Black unemployment instead. Presidential support scores for Democratic presidents have increased because of stronger efforts by presidents to command the policymaking process in Congress and also because of stricter party discipline. Matthew N. Beckmann (2010) finds that despite constitutional limitations American presidents play an enormous role in the legislative process. Presidents, it is theorized, exert conservative pressures on liberal lawmakers, because they generally craft legislation that appeals widely, across the partisan aisle. Clinton sought triangulation , which was not simply pursuing bipartisan bills but pitching policies that had very liberal and extremely conservative elements. Presidents need lawmakers to straddle the partisan divide, not merely sit closer to the middle. This puts pressure on all Democrats, including liberal ones, to help presidents win the necessary votes for their policy agendas. Support for presidential policymaking will push ideological scores for Blacks toward the center. As discussed in chapter 4, the CBC’s presidential support levels for President Clinton were higher than for President Carter. President Clinton entered the legislative arena gifted with better relations with the CBC than President Carter had. For Carter, CBC presidential support scores ranged from 66 to 73, while for Clinton they ranged from 72 to 83. President Obama won even higher presidential support scores The Moderating Effect of Institutional Pressures • 131 from the CBC—an average of 91 for 2009 and 2010. Obama won impressive presidential support scores from House Democrats as well—the highest achieved for these three Democratic presidents. Scores improved for Obama because of the impressively high party discipline that parties have achieved in Congress. Black House members have traditionally shown slightly higher levels of support for Democratic presidents than House Democrats generally. It remains a remarkable period for institutional leadership in Washington, as presidents have continued to rack up impressive presidential support scores from members of their party—moving them from a high of 70 percent under Clinton to 80...