“A Decade of Republican Control: The House of Representatives.”

Dodd and Oppenheimer

Republican Style of Leadership (23)

Republican Style of Leadership Lacking a mandate and a safe majority, the Reps leadership had two choices

after 1994:

1) Coalitional Approach2) Pursue a Partisan Agenda

The Republican leadership choice the latter: Partisan Leadership.

…

Purpose of Chapter

Purpose of Chapter: Context and Implications of Rep RuleThe purpose of the chapter is to look at the context of Rep takeover and to

examine their leadership changed the distribution of power in the House.

…

The Era of Democratic Rule (23)

Old System: Speaker In ControlUntil the 1910 revolt against “Czar Cannon” (Joseph Cannon), speakers

appointed committee chairs and sat on the Rules Committee.

The revolt was led by Progressives Republicans who joined with Democrats to challenge Cannon.

Committee-Centered Government:The old system was replaced by one where committee became dominant. In

this system, comm. chairs were selected based seniority. The result a Congress governed by largely autonomous, and mostly conservative and southern Democratic comm. Chairs.

…

A Liberalizing Congress, and the Decline of Committees: 1960-1980

A Liberalizing Congress, and the Decline of Committees:The committee-based system began to decline in the mid-1960s in response to

political changes in the south (increase in African-American voters), the rise of the liberal/northern wing of the Democratic Party in Congress.

…

Interpretations: Southern Control of Congress

Text Book Congress?

Pluralist?Were Southern Conservative Members responding to Constituents/pressure groups? How would you measure it?

Rational Choice?Or was their behavior shaped by specific, identifiable goals? What

were they?

Institutionalist?Or were they autonomous? That is, animated by the

rules, norms of the House or their own vision of the world? …

The Republican Challenge (25)

The Republican ChallengeAfter the 1980 election, conservative Republicans sought to gain more

influence in Congress. But neither the 1980 and 1982 elections gave them control of House, despite having won several southern seats once dominated by Democrats.

Conservative Republicans went on the offensive anyway, led by Newt Gingrich.

…

Laying the Foundations (25)

Laying the Foundation: Precursor to Contract with America Republican conservatives used a number of vehicles to challenge

Democratic rule in the 1980s.

Some of the leading Republicans organizations included: Conservative Opportunity Society GOPAC

Gingrich was elected Minority Whip in 1989.

…

Contract with America

Contract with AmericaThe contract outlined a series of policy priorities that directly challenged

the prevailing Democratic orthodoxy in the House.

Asserting Control of the House: the 1994 Election (26)In 1994, the Republicans won 52 seats in the House and…in the Senate, and

with that assumed control of Congress for the first time since 1952. It was the largest partisan swing since 1948 (when the Democrats won…seats).

…

Republican Revolution: a Republican Realignment?

Did the 1994 elections signal the beginning of a period of Republican Rule?

Republican Speaker: Return of Czarist Leadership?Gingrich and his leadership team (Dick Armey and Tom Delay) sought to

impose a level of control over committees and the Republican Party in general not been seen since 1910. He bypassed seniority, and imposed term limits (three terms) on committee chairs and (four terms) on the speaker.

Weakened Committee Government:In the process, committees were reduced to simply “rubber-stamping” legislation endorsed by the Republican leadership.

…

Republican Agenda and Limits of Congressional Power

Contract With America: First 100 DaysGingrich pushed to enact the legislative priorities outlined by the Contract,

and seized upon the budget as a vehicle to challenge a Clinton administration.

Limits of Congressional Power: Government ShutdownsClinton effectively resisted Gingrich’s efforts to control the budgetary

process.

Republican Agenda and Limits of Congressional Power

When Gingrich shutdown the government (twice) in response. But when the public blamed the Republican leadership in Congress,

Gingrich was forced to back down from directly challenging the president. His leadership never recovered.

1998: End of GingrichHouse Republican impeached Clinton, but lost seats.

Preparing for the 2000 Elections (28)

Hastert and the Return to Modern LeadershipGone with Gingrich was the idea of a czarist Speaker.

2000 Election Strategy: Changed Tactics: Work with Democrats Responding to public opposition to a conservative Republican agenda (public supported health and education programs, for example), and hoping to expand the Republican majority, the Republicans decided to develop a “constructive partnership” with the Republicans.

Preparing for the 2000 Elections (28)

Changing Republican Policy:In an effort to work with Democrats, the Republicans:

1) Dropped a broad tax cut in favor of “targeted cuts” 2) Supported some health and education spending 3) Worked with Clinton to nornmalize trade relations with

China.

The Elusiveness of United Party Control: The 107th Congress (2001-2003) (29)

2000 Election: United Republican GovernmentDespite again losing seats in the House, the Republicans retained control of

Congress, and won the White House. It was the first time conservative Republicans controlled both the legislative and executive branch since the Hoover administration.

Republican Party Agenda: Muscular ConservativeBush revived the Republicans push for broad tax cuts, and was warmly received by the House leadership, who proposed only minor tactical changes to the White House Proposals.

1.35 trillion dollar tax cut passed in May, 2001. …

Congress and Bush: Pre 9/11 (30-31)

House Republicans Embrace Bush AgendaHouse Republicans enthusiastically supported Bush’s policy agenda. Their

support would prove critical to the passage of several of Bush’s top policy priorities in 2001.

Where House Republican Supported CountedMay 2001 Tax Cut (1.35 Trillion)Faith-based initiativesOmnibus Energy LegislationDecember 2001 Economic Stimulus Plan (Capital Gains Tax Cut)December 2001 Fast-Track Legislation

Opposition: Democratic and Republican

House Leadership Support for Bush: Frustrated Moderate RepublicansThe House Leadership aggressive support for Bush’s conservative agenda

alienated party moderates and angered Democrats. It also distanced the House from the Senate, where moderates and Democrats had more influence.

Republican Party DisciplineDespite its increasingly partisan nature, the House leadership was able to

keep party members in line.

Jefford’s Defection:The Republicans were not able to prevent James Jefford from leaving the

Republican Party in the summer of 2001 and thereby handing Democrats control of the Senate.

…

9/11 and War on Terror

Bush’s Popularity Surges, But Congress Struggles to be RelevanceBush’s popularity reached a record high of 90% after the attacks, but as the

direction of the subsequent War on Terror became clear Congress found itself sidelined.

Spectator Congress: Bush’s War ChestThe House controls the purse strings, but the Republican leadership’s apparent willingness to support, and thus fund any and all White House proposals undermined its ability to shaped subsequent policies discussion surrounding the War on Terror.

…

Analyzing 2002 (35-42)

2002: Republicans Regain Unity GovernmentBy a slim margin, the Republicans retained control of the House, and

regained the Senate. For only the second time since 1934 an “in-party” (the party of the president) picked up seats in a mid-term election. The Republicans won 229 seats (one less than in 1994).

Analyzing the Results: Beginning of a Republican Consolidation? Despite the gains, most observes concluded that the 2002 election did not

point to a Republican realignment among the electorate, bur rather the success of Republican redistricting efforts, and Bush’s post-9/11 popularity.

…

Post 1994 Trend: Fewer Seat Changes

Post 1994 Trend: Fewer Seat ChangesThe 2002 results were consistent with the previous three elections: no

dramatic changes in the partisan balance.

Since 1994:

Republican: Most: 230 Least: 221

Democratic:Most: 212 Least: 204

…

Reasons for Stasis Since 1994

Reasons for Partisan ParityThere are a number of reasons for the apparent partisan balance in

Congress:

Low Turnover since 1996: (37)In 1998 and 2000, fewer than eighteen seats changed hands, and a total of 12 incumbents were defeated (98% of incumbents were reelected. How many were challenged?)

In 2002, 396 members ran for reelection. 8 lost in Primaries, 8 Lost in General Elections. Half of the 16 defeats were in redistricted districts were an incumbents ran against an incumbent.

Careerists on the Rise Again: (39)

Reasons for Stasis Since 1994

Low “Retirement” Rates90 % of members returned in 1998 and 2000.

2000 Redistricting Did Not Challenge as Many IncumbentsRedistricting efforts 1972, 1982 and 1992 resulted in the defeat of larger

numbers of incumbents.

…

Reasons for Stasis Since 1994

Redistricting Reelection Rates

1972: 369 (84.8%)1982: 354 (81.3%)1992: 323 (74.2 %)2002: 380 (87.3%)

1994: Unusual Opportunity

Republican Revolution1994 was a perfect storm for the Republicans for the following reasons:

1) Large Number of Democratic Retirements

2) Weak Democratic Incumbents (in Marginal Districts) elected on Clinton coattails in 1992.

3) A number of them were southern Democrats in districts that voted Republican presidential candidates.

1994: Unusual Opportunity

Taken together, these factors strained Democratic resources and gave the Republicans a target rich environment in which they could select the best chances for victory and still expect to pick up a lot of seats.

2002 and Beyond:

In 2002 and Beyond:Conditions do not favor dramatic partisan shifts:

Fewer Open SeatsFewer Junior membersFewer Competitive or Marginal districts

>>>