William F. Connelly

The House GOP's Civil War: A Political Science Perspective

In 1997, just two years after their impressive show of unity on the Contract With America, the House Republicans were apparently turning into the House of Atreus. Squabbles high and low divided their leadership, demoralized their rank and file, and delighted their Democratic opponents. Many political commentators blamed this turmoil on the personal shortcomings of Speaker Gingrich and other top lawmakers. Such explanations did make some sense. At least part of the trouble stemmed from the Speakers ethics problems and the leaderships poor political judgments about disasterrelief legislation. But the House GOPs summer of

The Future of the House Republicans

With each passing day, House Republicans are setting a new record. Between Abraham Lincoln and Dwight Eisenhower, neither party had ever served in the minority in the House for more than sixteen years at a time. But since losing a short-lived majority in the 1954 midterm, House Republicans have served in the minority for forty years. This unprecedented time in the wilderness has some remarkable features. Of 256 House Democrats, only three have ever served in the minority: Jamie Whitten (Mississippi), Jack Brooks (Texas), and Sidney Yates (Illinois). (Whitten is retiring in 1994.) Of 178 House Republicans, not one has ever served in the majority. Twenty-seven current members thirteen Republicans and fourteen Democrats had not even been born when the GOP last had a majority. Despite this unique situation, political scientists have paid scant attention to the House GOP. We analyze how House Republicans are coping with their permanent minority status in light of the changing circumstances of the mid-1990s. We ask:

American Politics: “Broken” Since 1885

Abstract: Woodrow Wilson, along with progressive intellectuals and reformers, bears significant responsibility for the decline of trust in government today. Wilson may have eclipsed James Madison in theory and practice, thereby contributing to the decline of trust in government. The criticism today of our politics as “dysfunctional” is, in large part, an echo of Wilson’s criticism of Madison’s Constitution. Today’s concerns about accountability, permanent politics, gridlock, special interests and petty partisanship reflect Wilson’s critique. In turn, Wilson has powerfully influenced the practice of our politics by providing the template for generations of political reformers. Today’s “dysfunction” is exacerbated by constitutionally inappropriate progressive reforms which have produced unintended consequences because reformers failed to appreciate Madison’s complex constitutional context. A century of progressive reforms have augmented dysfunction and distrust.

The Politics of Constraint: House Republicans in Retrospect and Prospect

One must grade House Republicans on a curve. As co-partisans of President Bush, they were the party of government. As the minority in the House, they were also the party of opposition. This combination severely limited their power and political choices. Nevertheless, they did manage to win some defensive victories and score some public-relations points.

Wall vs. Wave

How did a wave of anti-Republican sentiment breach the wall of structural advantages available to the majority party? In 2006, as in 1994, we learned that structural advantages are not impregnable, there is no permanent minority, and all politics is local, except when it is national. Like House Democrats in 1994, House Republicans in 2006 could not govern the country, could not govern Congress, and could not govern themselves. In particular, in both elections the majority parties beat themselves due to their failure to control the mischiefs of faction within their own ranks. In managing such factions, each party faces a constitutional quandary: government or opposition, compromise or confrontation, policy or politics.