Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Why Not Parties?Party Effects in the United States Senate$
Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content.

Nathan W. Monroe, Jason M. Roberts, and David W. Rohde

Print publication date: 2008

Print ISBN-13: 9780226534879

Published to Chicago Scholarship Online: March 2013

DOI: 10.7208/chicago/9780226534947.001.0001

Show Summary Details
Page of

PRINTED FROM CHICAGO SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.chicago.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright University of Chicago Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in CHSO for personal use.date: 29 March 2020

Make Way for the Party: The Rise and Fall of the Senate National Security Committees, 1947–2006

Make Way for the Party: The Rise and Fall of the Senate National Security Committees, 1947–2006

(p.121) 7 Make Way for the Party: The Rise and Fall of the Senate National Security Committees, 1947–2006
Why Not Parties?

Linda L. Fowler

R. Brian Law

University of Chicago Press

Committees have traditionally been the linchpin of the institutional power and policy expertise of Congress. However, surprisingly little discussion of the changing status of Senate committees has arisen in the current literature. The neglect is understandable, because changes regarding the prerogatives of Senate committees have been episodic, seemingly modest, and often informal. The consequences have been substantial, however: first, by adding to the collective-action problems in the Senate that powerful committee barons once handled; and second, by diminishing the incentives for committees to protect their turf from party leaders. The implication for U.S. foreign and defense policy is a potential de-emphasis of the informational role of committee experts in favor of the political calculations of party leaders. This chapter develops a logic of unintended consequences regarding the flattening of the committee hierarchy. It develops a new measure of committee attractiveness—the seniority ratio, based on the distribution of senior senators—to illuminate the evolution of committee rankings over time. Comparisons of the seniority ratio for all Senate committees provide a context for the more detailed descriptions of patterns for Foreign Relations and Armed Services. The analysis then shifts to an examination of the relative importance of internal influences, such as the mean number of committee assignments and the polarization of the parties, compared to exogenous disturbances, such as public opinion, war casualties, budget priorities, and the end of the Cold War. The conclusion considers the implications of the results for the role of committees and parties in shaping U.S. foreign and defense policy.

Keywords:   Senate committees, collective action, incentives, foreign policy, defense policy, party leaders

Chicago Scholarship Online requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books within the service. Public users can however freely search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter.

Please, subscribe or login to access full text content.

If you think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

To troubleshoot, please check our FAQs, and if you can't find the answer there, please contact us.