Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T11:54:41.447Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Observations on a Post-Gingrich House

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2013

Gary J. Andres
Gary J. Andres*
Affiliation:
Dutko Group
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The U.S. House of Representatives is in the midst of its second operational transformation in five years. Compared to the post-1994 “Gingrich-led revolution” (Drew 1996), Republican leadership strategies are considerably different in the 106th Congress under the direction of Speaker J. Dennis Hastert and his team.

This essay outlines five strategies the new House leadership team has implemented to correct past problems, shape members' behavioral norms (Weingast 1979), and manage their razor-thin majority. While it's still too early to gauge the ultimate success of these strategies, my conversations with members of the House Republican leadership, other members of Congress, House staffers, and political operatives involved with the day-to-day functioning of the U.S. House, reveal a pattern of strategic changes and accompanying modifications in member norms aimed at managing the legislative majority in the 106th Congress.

Type
Research Article
Information
PS: Political Science & Politics , Volume 32 , Issue 3 , September 1999 , pp. 571 - 574
Copyright
Copyright © The American Political Science Association 1999

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.)

Footnotes

*

I would like to thank Don Goff, Teresa Youngblood, Keith Kirk, Kimberly Spaulding, and Ben Sands for their comments on earlier drafts of this manuscript.

References

Connelly, William F., and Pitney, John J. 1997. “The House GOP's Civil War: A Political Science Perspective.” PS: Political Science and Politics 30(December): 699–702.Google Scholar
Dahl, Robert. 1963. Modem Political Analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Doherty, Carroll J., and Martinez, Gebe. 1999. “GOP's Great Expectations for '99 Fade to Modest Hopes.” CQ Weekly Reports, May 15, 1122–25.Google Scholar
Drew, Elizabeth. 1996. Showdown: The Struggle Between the Gingrich Congress and the Clinton White House. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
Gingrich, Newt. 1998. Lessons Learned the Hard Way: A Personal Report. New York: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
Greenblatt, Alan. 1998. “Gingrich: Relentless Rebel in an Era of Limits.” CQ Weekly Reports, November 14, 3065–68.Google Scholar
Jones, Charles O. 1971. “Joseph G. Cannon and Howard W. Smith: An Essay on the Limits of Leadership in the House of Representatives.” In Congressional Behavior, ed. Polsby, Nelson. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Katz, Jeffrey L. 1998a. “Shakeup in the House.” CQ Weekly Reports, November 7, 2989–92.Google Scholar
Katz, Jeffrey L. 1998b. “GOP Must Decide How Muchof Gingrich's Team to Keep.” CQ Weekly Reports, November 14, 3057–61.Google Scholar
Kreibel, Keith. 1998. Pivotal Politics: A Theory of U.S. Lawmaking. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindblom, C.E., and Woodhouse, E.J. 1992. The Policymaking Process. New York: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Sinclair, Barbara. 1997. Unorthodox Lawmaking: New Legislative Processes in the U.S. Congress. Washington, DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
Taylor, Andrew. 1998. “Is Livingston the Manager the House Needs?” CQ Weekly Reports, November 14, 3050–54.Google Scholar
Weingast, Barry. 1979. “A Rational Choice Perspective on Congressional Norms.” American Journal of Political Science 23: 245–62.Google Scholar