POLITICAL PARTIES & ELECTIONS, FALL 2009

PARTIES IN GOVERNMENT:

LEGISLATURES, EXECUTIVE BRANCH & COURTS

Hershey chapters 13 & 14; Gibson, “Nastier, Noisier, Costlier – and Better”

Thursday, September 17

Chapter 13 terms: party caucuses/conferences in Congress; differences in leadership positions between House, Senate; why House members revolted against Speaker Joe Cannon, results of the revolt; seniority rule; policy leadership in the House, 1970s and 1980s; Newt Gingrich, Gingrich Revolution, new powers of Speaker and new rules implemented by new Republican majority; why Gingrich tumbled from power; changes in House rules under Tom DeLay; most recent rules changes under Democrats, Nancy Pelosi; why party leadership is harder to carry out in the U.S. Senate; uses of party caucuses in state legislatures; incentives and punishments available to congressional party leaders; weaknesses of party penalties; party vote/voting, party unity scores/party support; why party polarization has reached an all-time high in recent years; conservative coalition; conditions under which parties are most unified; specific pressures on legislators from marginal districts; Blue Dogs; factors that affect strength of legislative parties: party polarization, greater interparty competition, no competing centers of power, needed resources, legislative professionalism, styles of individual leaders

Chapter 14 terms: different ways that the President can act as party leader; coattails, why coattail effects declined from end of World War II through 1980s; why the president’s party usually loses congressional seats in midterm elections; why the midterm loss pattern failed to hold in 1998, 2002; divided government, implications for the president; methods of party influence for governors; bureaucratic constituencies, how these affect executive ability to influence bureaucratic agencies and departments; political outlooks among federal bureaucrats, changes over time; evidence of judicial voting along party lines, reasons for partisan behavior on the courts; party considerations in appointing federal judges and justices; merit appointment of state judges; retention election; the ‘nuclear option’ and its consequences

Gibson terms: why state judicial elections have become more politicized (state courts more important, more interest group involvement, Supreme Court decision in Republican Party of Minnesota v. White; arguments that increased politicization of judicial elections threatens legitimacy of courts, and counterarguments; policy making by judges, why this is the most appropriate way to view the role of judges; public attitudes toward judicial elections and candidates

Questions to discuss:

13.1. In an electoral system where candidates by and large control their own electoral destinies, winning and losing are only somewhat dependent on what the party does or does not do to help its candidates. With that in mind,

13.1a. How do party leaders in Congress control their members?

13.1b. In today’s Congress (particularly in the House of Representatives), why are members likely to exhibit extremely high levels of agreement with their party?

13.1c. Under what circumstances would members choose NOT to vote as their party leaders want them to?

13.2. Historically, parties within state legislatures were thought to exert more control over their members compared with the national party leadership in the Congress. Why would this have been the case?

13.3. What evidence in chapter 13 helps explain the very high reelection rates of members of Congress?

14.1. Discuss the ways that presidents influence Congress and especially the ways that party enters into this process of influence.

14.2. Why is it hard for executives, especially the president, to influence the agencies and departments within their branch of government?

14.3. Why are federal judicial appointments increasingly partisan battles?

14.4. From a party’s perspective, what is good and what is not good about state judicial selection procedures?

G.1. Gibson makes the case against the politicization of judicial elections, but ultimately argues why judges should be allowed to speak out during political campaigns. Summarize the two sides to this argument.

G.2. Is one side right?

x. Ask your question here!