Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T16:10:05.670Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

12 - Polarization and the Changing American Constitutional System

from Part III - Anxieties of Governance

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 May 2019

Frances E. Lee
Affiliation:
University of Maryland, College Park
Nolan McCarty
Affiliation:
Princeton University, New Jersey
Get access

Summary

Concerns about the onsequences of polarization arise from the belief that Congress is not designed to perform well in polarized environments. But the implications of reduced legislative capacity on the American constitutional system have received far less attention. Thus important questions are unanswered. How have the other branches responded to the decline in legislative capacity occasioned by increased polarization? Have other branches expanded their power at Congress’s expense? This chapter makes two arguments. First, legislative dysfunction reduces the contribution of Congress to good policymaking. While this impact may be offset by a more assertive exercise of executive or judicial power, the central role of Congress in the constitutional system leads to a decline in the quality of governance. Second, declining legislative capacity affects the relative influence on Congress over outcomes. The decline in the ability of Congress to reach decisions allows more room for other constitutional actors to act without legislative constraint.These two effects suggest that legislative dysfunction affects the balance of constitutional authority in both absolute and relative terms.

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2019

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

Adler, E. Scott, and Wilkerson, John D.. 2013. Congress and the Politics of Problem Solving. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Alchian, Armen A., and Demsetz, Harold. 1972. “Production, Information Costs, and Economic Organization.” The American Economic Review 62(5): 777795.Google Scholar
Aldrich, John H., and Rohde, David W.. 2000. The Logic of Conditional Party Government: Revisiting the Electoral Connection. In Dodd, Lawrence and Oppenheimer, Bruce (eds.), Congress Reconsidered, 7th Edition. Washington, DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
American Political Science Association. 1950. “Toward a More Responsible Two-Party System: A Report of the Committee on Political Parties.” 44(3): part 2, Supplement.Google Scholar
Barber, Michael, and McCarty, Nolan. 2013. The Causes and Consequences of Polarization. In Martin, Cathie Jo and Mansbridge, Jane (eds.), Negotiating Agreement in Politics. Washington, DC: American Political Science Association.Google Scholar
Binder, Sarah. 2015. “The Dysfunctional Congress.” Annual Review of Political Science 18: 85101.Google Scholar
Binder, Sarah A. 2003. Stalemate: Causes and Consequences of Legislative Gridlock. New York: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
Binder, Sarah A., and Maltzman, Forrest. 2002. “Senatorial Delay in Confirming Federal Judges, 1947–1998.” American Journal of Political Science 46(1): 190199.Google Scholar
Black, Duncan. 1948. “The Decisions of a Committee Using a Special Majority.” Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society 16(3): 245261.Google Scholar
Brady, David W., and Volden, Craig. 2005. Revolving Gridlock: Politics and Policy from Jimmy Carter to George W. Bush. New York: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Bulman-Pozen, Jessica. 2014. “Partisan Federalism.” Harvard Law Review 127(4): 10771146.Google Scholar
Bulman-Pozen, Jessica, and Gerken, Heather K.. 2009. “Uncooperative Federalism.” Yale Law Journal 118: 12561310.Google Scholar
Cameron, Charles M. 2000. Veto Bargaining: Presidents and the Politics of Negative Power. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cameron, Charles M., and McCarty, Nolan. 2004. “Models of Vetoes and Veto Bargaining.” Annual Review Political Science 7: 409435.Google Scholar
Chafetz, Josh. 2017. Congress’ss Constitution: Legislative Authority and the Separation of Powers. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Clark, Tom S. 2008. “Measuring Ideological Polarization on the United States Supreme Court.” Political Research Quarterly 62(1): 146157.Google Scholar
Clinton, Joshua D., Bertelli, Anthony, Grose, Christian R., Lewis, David E., and Nixon, David C.. 2012. “Separated Powers in the United States: The Ideology of Agencies, Presidents, and Congress.” American Journal of Political Science 56(2): 341354.Google Scholar
Cox, Gary W., and McCubbins, Mathew D.. 1993. Legislative Leviathan: Party Government in the House. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Cox, Gary W., and McCubbins, Mathew D.. 2005. Setting the Agenda: Responsible Party Government in the US House of Representatives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Devins, Neal. 2008. “Presidential Unilateralism and Political Polarization: Why Today’s Congress Lacks the Will and the Way to Stop Presidential Initiatives.” Willamette Law Review 45: 395.Google Scholar
Devins, Neal, and Lewis, David E.. 2008. “Not-So Independent Agencies: Party Polarization and the Limits of Institutional Design.” Boston University Law Review 1988: 459.Google Scholar
Devins, Neal E. 1988. “Appropriations Redux: A Critical Look at the Fiscal Year 1988 Continuing Resolution.” Duke Law Journal: 389.Google Scholar
Epstein, David, and O‘Halloran, Sharyn. 1999. Delegating Powers: A Transaction Cost Politics Approach to Policy Making under Separate Powers. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Eskridge, William N. 1991. “Overriding Supreme Court Statutory Interpretation Decisions.” Yale Law Journal 101: 331455.Google Scholar
Ferejohn, John, and Shipan, Charles. 1990. “Congressional Influence on Bureaucracy.” Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization 6: 120.Google Scholar
Gely, Rafael, and Spiller, Pablo T.. 1990. “A Rational Choice Theory of Supreme Court Statutory Decisions with Applications to the State Farm and Grove City Cases.” Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization 6(2): 263300.Google Scholar
Gilmour, John B. 1995. Strategic Disagreement: Stalemate in American Politics. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
Groseclose, Tim, and McCarty, Nolan. 2001. “The Politics of Blame: Bargaining Before an Audience.” American Journal of Political Science 45(1):100119.Google Scholar
Hacker, Jacob S. 2004. “Privatizing Risk Without Privatizing the Welfare State: The Hidden Politics of Social Policy Retrenchment in the United States.” American Political Science Review 98(2): 243260.Google Scholar
Hanson, Peter. 2013. “Abandoning the Regular Order: Majority Party Influence on Appropriations in the US Senate.” Political Research Quarterly 67(3): 519532.Google Scholar
Hanson, Peter. 2014. Too Weak to Govern: Majority Party Power and Appropriations in the US Senate. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hasen, Richard L. 2012. “End of the Dialogue: Political Polarization, the Supreme Court, and Congress.” Southern California Law Review 86: 205.Google Scholar
Hopkins, Daniel J. 2017. The Increasingly United States: How and Why American Political Behavior Nationalized. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Howell, William G. 2003. Power without Persuasion: The Politics of Direct Presidential Action. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Howell, William G., and Moe, Terry M.. 2016. Relic: How Our Constitution Undermines Effective Government–and Why We Need a More Powerful Presidency. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Krehbiel, Keith. 1998. Pivotal Politics: A Theory of U.S. Lawmaking. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kriner, Douglas L., and Schickler, Eric. 2016. Investigating the President: Congressional Checks on Presidential Power. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Lee, Frances E. 2009. Beyond Ideology: Politics, Principles, and Partisanship in the US Senate. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, Frances E. 2016. Insecure Majorities: Congress and the Perpetual Campaign. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Levinson, Daryl J., and Pildes, Richard H.. 2006. “Separation of Parties, Not Powers.” Harvard Law Review 119: 23112386.Google Scholar
Lewis, David E. 2010. The Politics of Presidential Appointments: Political Control and Bureaucratic Performance. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Maltzman, Forrest, and Shipan, Charles R.. 2008. “Change, Continuity, and the Evolution of the Law.” American Journal of Political Science 52(2):252267. DOI: 10.1111/j.1540–5907.2008.00311.xGoogle Scholar
Mayhew, David R. 1974. Congress: The Electoral Connection. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Mayhew, David R. 1991. Divided We Govern. New Haven, CT: Yale University.Google Scholar
McCarty, Nolan. 1997. “Presidential Reputation and the Veto.” Economics & Politics 9(1): 126.Google Scholar
McCarty, Nolan. 2007. The Policy Effects of Political Polarization. In Pierson, Paul and Skocpol, Theda (eds.), Transformations of American Politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
McCarty, Nolan. 2015a. “Reducing Polarization by Making Parties Stronger.” In Persily, Nathaniel (ed.), Solutions to Political Polarization in America. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McCarty, Nolan. 2015b. “Reducing Polarization: Some Facts for Reformers.” University of Chicago Legal Forum 2015: 243278.Google Scholar
McCarty, Nolan. 2016. “The Decline of Regular Order in Appropriations – Does It Matter?” In Jenkins, Jeffrey and Patashnik, Eric (eds.), Congress and Policy Making in the 21st Century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 162.Google Scholar
McCarty, Nolan, Poole, Keith T., and Rosenthal, Howard. 2013. Political Bubbles: Financial Crises and the Failure of American Democracy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
McCarty, Nolan, Poole, Keith T., and Rosenthal, Howard. 2016. Polarized America: The Dance of Ideology and Unequal Riches. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
McCarty, Nolan, and Razaghian, Rose. 1999. “Advice and Consent: Senate Responses to Executive Branch Nominations 1885–1996.” American Journal of Political Science 43(3): 11221143.Google Scholar
Moe, Terry M., and Howell, William G.. 1999. “The Presidential Power of Unilateral Action.” The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 15(1): 132179.Google Scholar
O’Connell, Anne Joseph. 2009. “Vacant Offices: Delays in Staffing Top Agency Positions.” Southern California Law Review 82: 913.Google Scholar
O’Connell, Anne Joseph. 2015. “Shortening Agency and Judicial Vacancies through Filibuster Reform? An Examination of Confirmation Rates and Delays from 1981 to 2014.” Duke Law Journal, 64.Google Scholar
Pildes, Richard H. 2015. “Focus on Fragmentation, Not Polarization: Re-Empower Party Leadership.” In Persily, Nathaniel (ed.), Solutions to Political Polarization in America. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Poole, Keith T., and Rosenthal, Howard. 1984. “The Polarization of American Politics.” The Journal of Politics 46(4): 10611079.Google Scholar
Posner, Eric A., and Vermeule, Adrian. 2011. The Executive Unbound: After the Madisonian Republic. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rogers, Steven. 2016. “National Forces in State Legislative Elections.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 667(1): 207225.Google Scholar
Rogers, Steven. 2017. “Electoral Accountability for State Legislative Roll Calls and Ideological Representation.” American Political Science Review 111(3): 555571.Google Scholar
Segal, Jeffrey A., and Spaeth, Harold J.. 2002. The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model Revisited. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Shor, Boris, and McCarty, Nolan. 2011. “The Ideological Mapping of American Legislatures.” American Political Science Review 105(3): 530551.Google Scholar
Tyler, Tom R. 1990. Why People Obey the Law: Procedural Justice, Legitimacy, and Compliance. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Tyler, Tom R. 1998. Trust and Democratic Governance. In Braithwaite, Valerie and Levi, Maragret (eds.), Trust and Governance. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, pp. 269294.Google Scholar
White, Joe. 1988. “The Continuing Resolution: A Crazy Way to Govern?The Brookings Review 6(3): 2835.Google Scholar
Widiss, Deborah A. 2011. “Undermining Congressional Overrides: The Hydra Problem in Statutory Interpretation.” Texas Law Review 90: 859.Google Scholar
Woon, Jonathan, and Anderson, Sarah. 2012. “Political Bargaining and the Timing of Congressional Appropriations.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 37(4): 409436.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×