Torn and frayed: The challenges to and stability of congressional norms in the 104th House
Abstract
The informal interactions of senators and House members have been extensively examined. The vast majority of this research was undertaken prior to the two great reform periods of the modern Congress, however: the early and mid 1970s and mid 1990s. This study seeks to re-examine norm attitudes in a time of reform. In doing so, the research demonstrates the inherent connection between House institutionalism and norm adherence and posits the future for norms in a less institutionalized House. In addition, the three challenges currently facing congressional norms are analyzed to determine the effects these challenges are having and will continue to have on the institution's folkways. Finally, this study allows the members themselves to discuss the positives and negatives of the three norms so closely identified with committee work: seniority, specialization, and reciprocity. These findings demonstrate the resiliency of congressional norms, even in a time of anti-establishment sentiment. In reality, this is not simply an investigation of congressional norms. Instead, it is an examination of institutional stability in the U.S. House, and specifically, the stability of congressional norms as a fundamental component of the House. Since the 1960s, seniority, specialization, and reciprocity have been relaxed to meet the changing membership and/or attitudes of the day, but they have not been abandoned. Members come and go, reforms are attempted and abandoned, but the norms adapt and survive. This research demonstrates the reason that norms remain: the members believe they are important.
Degree
Ph.D.
Advisors
Browning, Purdue University.
Subject Area
Political science|American history|History
Off-Campus Purdue Users:
To access this dissertation, please log in to our
proxy server.