Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T08:25:10.507Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An Update on the Senate Democratic Policy Committee

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2013

Donald C. Baumer
Donald C. Baumer*
Affiliation:
Smith College
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The United States Congress has long been known for its lack of partisan cohesiveness and the inability of its majority parties to formulate and enact programs of policy. In the modern era (since the 1930s), policy leadership in the national government has come largely from the executive branch during the few periods of reasonably unified party rule (Roosevelt's New Deal, Johnson's Great Society). Over the past 35 years, the prevalence of divided government of a particular sort (Republican presidents with Democratic congressional majorities) has highlighted the internal divisions and lack of centralized power among congressional Democrats. There is, therefore, a natural interest in instruments of party leadership that are designed to offset the tendencies toward fragmentation and parochialism in Congress. The focus of this paper is on the Senate Democratic Policy Committee.

The Senate's version of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 included provisions for the establishment of party policy committees. This legislation stemmed largely from the work of the Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress, known as the LaFollette-Monroney Committee. The Joint Committee's report called for the establishment of policy committees “to formulate overall legislative policy of the two parties” (Bone 1956, 342). The Committee's work was informed by, and part of, an active reform effort at that time (which included many political scientists) aimed at bringing about stronger parties that could be held accountable for certain policy outcomes (see for example Committee on Congress, American Political Science Association 1945; Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress 1946; Galloway 1946; Committee on Political Parties, American Political Science Association 1950).

Type
Research Article
Information
PS: Political Science & Politics , Volume 24 , Issue 2 , June 1991 , pp. 174 - 179
Copyright
Copyright © The American Political Science Association 1991

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Baker, Ross K. 1989. The House and Senate. New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
Bone, Hugh A. 1956. “An Introduction to the Senate Policy Committees.” American Political Science Review 50: 339–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Center for Responsive Politics. 1988. Congressional Operation: Congress Speaks, A Survey of the 100th Congress. Washington, DC: Center for Responsive Politics.Google Scholar
Cohen, Richard. 1988. “Campaigning in the Club.” In National Journal Reports, March 9: 948–51.Google Scholar
Cohen, Richard. 1989. “Setting the Democrats' Agenda.” In National Journal Reports, Feb. 25: 484.Google Scholar
Committee on Congress, American Political Science Association. 1945. The Reorganization of Congress. Washington, DC: Public Press.Google Scholar
Committee on Political Parties, American Political Science Association. 1950. Toward a More Responsible Two-Party System. Washington, DC: American Political Science Association.Google Scholar
Cook, Rhodes. 1990. “Popularity, Savvy Use of Veto, Leave Bush with 12–0 Record.” Congressional Quarterly Weekly Reports 48 (25): 1934–35.Google Scholar
Davidson, Roger H. 1989. “The Senate: If Everyone Leads, Who Follows?” In Congress Reconsidered, eds. Dodd, Lawrence C. and Oppenheimer, Bruce I.. 4th ed. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.Google Scholar
Fishel, Jeff. 1985. Presidents & Promises. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.Google Scholar
Galloway, George B. 1946. Congress at the Crossroads. New York: Crowell.Google Scholar
Glass, Andrew J. 1976. “Mansfield Reform Sparks ‘Quiet Revolution’ in Senate.” In American Government and Public Policy, ed. Manley, John F.. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Heller, Robert. 1945. Strengthening Congress. Washington, DC: National Planning Association.Google Scholar
Hook, Janet. 1990. “Incumbents Get the Jitters As Voters Grow Angry.” In Congressional Quarterly Weekly Reports, 48 (31): 2473–77.Google Scholar
Huitt, Ralph K., and Peabody, Robert L. 1969. Congress: Two Decades of Analysis. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Joint Committee on Organization of Congress. 1946. Report on the Organization of Congress Pursuant to H. Con. Res. 18, 79th Cong., 2d sess. Report No. 1011, March 4.Google Scholar
Oleszek, Walter J. 1988. Congressional Procedures and the Policy Process. 3rd ed. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.Google Scholar
Peabody, Robert L. 1976. Leadership in Congress. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
Peabody, Robert L. 1981. “Senate Leadership: From the 1950s to the 1980s.” In Understanding Congressional Leadership, ed. Mackaman, Frank H.. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.Google Scholar
Reedy, George. 1986. The U.S. Senate. New York: Crown Publishers Inc.Google Scholar
Ripley, Randall B. 1969a. Majority Party Leadership in Congress. Boston: Little, Brown, Inc.Google Scholar
Ripley, Randall B. 1969b. Power in the Senate. New York: St. Martin's.Google Scholar
Robinson, Donald A. 1976. “If Senate Democrats Want Leadership: An Analysis of the History and Prospects of the Majority Policy Committee.” In Policymaking Role of the Leadership in the Senate, papers compiled for the Commission on the Operation of the Senate, 94th Congress, 2nd sess. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Sinclair, Barbara. 1983. Majority Party Leadership in the U.S. House. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Sinclair, Barbara. 1989. “House Majority Party Leadership in the Late 1980s.” In Congress Reconsidered, 4th ed. Google Scholar
Stewart, John G. 1971. “Two Strategies of Leadership.” In Congressional Behavior, ed. Polsby, Nelson W.. New York: Random House.Google Scholar