Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Esteemed Colleagues:
Civility and Deliberation in the U.S. Senate
by
Burdett A. Loomis
(Editor)
Reviewed by:
Gianna Gayle H. Amul
2003-46431
MA Political Science
The United States Senate considered the “living symbol of (their) union of states (US
Senate Website, 2007, www.senate.gov)” remains an interesting topic for political scientists,
because it remains an active assembly that legislates autonomously (Hague and Harrop, 2004:
266). It is argued however that assemblies as institutions are in decline and their functions and
purpose have shifted. These were attributed to the “emergence of disciplined political parties, the
growth of „big‟ government, the organizational weaknesses of assemblies and the rise of interest
scholars, the book Esteemed Colleagues: Civility and Deliberation in the U.S. Senate not only
explored the United States Senate (Senate, hereafter) as an understudied but prestigious
institution but also addressed the issue of the decline of civility and the politics of deliberation in
In the first part of the book, Baker and Uslaner surveyed the issue of civility in the
contemporary Senate. In terms of civility, they described the U.S. Senate as: 1) a legislative
body whose members‟ relationships are characterized by “institutional kinship (15-16)” that
eventually led to what Baker, an active scholar, journalist and adviser to Senators in the past
three decades, calls “constitutional cohabitation”; 2) the more “civil” deliberative legislative
body compared to the United States House of Representatives (32). Baker (24-25) defined the
against a colleague; 2) coordinating fund-raising activities so that they do not conflict with those
of the colleagues facing the closest reelection contest; 3) agreeing, either formally or informally,
on the announcement of federal projects beneficial to the state; 4) agreeing, either by active
coordination or acquiescence on patronage nominations and; 5) giving cues on issues and votes.”
2
Uslaner (33), who has taught and written comprehensively about Congress, trust and corruption
for three decades now, attributes the Senate‟s civility to the “long standing tradition of courtesy,
the bipartisan friendships that permit senators to reach agreement even in the face of policy
disagreement, to the six-year term that gives senators more freedom to repel outsiders who
would push them to the extremes and to a simple fear of replicating the contentiousness of the
House debate.”
It is important, however, to note that in their investigation, there are signs of a decline in
civility in the Senate due to the “collapse of the congressional party system and the increased
polarization between Republicans and Democrats (42-43)” as well as the “fading sense of
In the second part of the book, Sinclair, Evans and Oleszek, and Gamm and Smith
examined the Senate as a “deliberative institution (57).” Sinclair (59), author of the award-
winning Transformation of the U.S. Senate (1990) explored the intricacies of the “individualism,
partisanship and cooperation” in the Senate. She posited that the legislative body in question is
an “individualist Senate (59)” because “individual senators exercise a great deal more discretion
about when and under what conditions to participate on the party team than House members do
(and) they have available attractive alternative channels for participation and they pay little price
when they go off on their own (64).” Sinclair also argued that the elevated level of partisanship
has “transformed the preferred Senate leadership style from that of solo operator to majority
leader as head of a party team (64).” She emphasized the role of the party leader in “maintaining
the necessary cooperation (74)” to the extent that “the climate of restraint and
Evans, whose main research and teaching interest is American national institutions, and
Oleszek, a senior specialist in the legislative process at the Congressional Research Service, in
turn, discussed the procedural dynamics of Senate deliberation focusing on unanimous consent
agreements (UCAs) generated by “informal negotiations among interested senators, with party
leaders and relevant committee leaders playing major roles (84).” UCAs developed into a
“critical device for facilitating floor action while guarding the prerogatives of individual
members (102)” while being more “tactical, complex, individualized and ad hoc (91)” in the
In this light, Gamm, whose current interest is on Congress and voluntary associations,
and Smith, whose recent pursuits include a study on party leadership and the emergence of the
modern Senate, expounded on the important but diminished role of the Senate‟s presiding officer
in the person of the United States Vice President and a President Pro Tempore. The weakness of
the presiding officer is mainly ascribed to the creation of the modern caucus which is “more
reliable than the presiding officer for solving collective action problems of any political
importance (112).” The role of the presiding officer was reduced to that of “enforcement of the
Senate‟s rules and orders (120).” This diminished role of the presiding officer, according to
Gamm and Smith (130) “reflects the tradition of informal governance preferred by Senators.”
Accordingly, the “emergence of modern party caucus, scheduling routines, unanimous consent
practices and party leadership (130)” as characteristics of the modern senate is attributed to the
In the third part of the book, Oppenheimer, Cook, Davidson and Campbell examined
Senate deliberation in context of the dynamics of the relationships of: 1) the strategic behavior of
members of the Senate who differ in constituency size; 2) the Senate and the media, and; 3) that
4
of the executive and the Senate. Oppenheimer, (137-138) whose main interest lie on
congressional elections and congressional policymaking, was particular in pointing out that: 1)
the Senate is the “most malapportioned democratic legislature in the democratic world from the
“representational experiences” of small-state Senators from that of populous state Senators; and
3) there are differences in the “goals and the paths to political success of Senators” who have
differences in constituency size. Oppenheimer (138) saw these differences as factors affecting
Senators on “what activities they view as important, the committees on which they choose to
serve, the time they spend on different activities and how they behave strategically in the
Senate.” It was in this aspect that the decline of civility in the deliberations of the Senate was
seen as caused by the “enormous range in the size of constituencies that Senators represent and
Cook, with his experience and expertise in research on media and American politics, did
a study of the evolution of the relationship and the dynamics between the Senate and the news
media in particular, pointed out that the media has an evident impact on Senate deliberations
such that the media may: 1) “provoke legislators to think in the public interest; 2) push
definitions of public problems that fit with journalistic production values above political
concerns and; 3) work to speed up deliberation to favor the first available alternative- all without
furthering the consultation of the public at large (184).” Cook argued that the impact brought
about by the media resulted to the following: 1) “political agendas are increasingly reactive to
new agendas and policies have to be crafted with news values in mind; 2) political processes are
sped up under the media spotlight; and 3) the public and the interests of the public are not
On the other hand, Davidson, who co-authored The Encyclopedia of the United States
Congress with Donald Bacon and Morton Keller (1995) and Campbell, who co-authored
Impeaching Clinton: Partisan Strife in Capitol Hill with Nicol Rae (2003) examined executive-
legislative relations focusing on: the process of the Senate‟s advice and consent roles in ratifying
and issues regarding foreign policy, and judicial nominations; its oversight functions over the
executive and its important role in the impeachment process (200-215). It is within these
by “compromise, conflict and flux” which: 1) “requires that the president engage in a continual
process of legislative coalition building” and 2) “depends on the nature of the institutional
environment , the contour of political forces, the accessibility of economic resources and the
In the last part of the book, Ornstein and Thurber looked at the Senate as a civil
deliberative body through examining the dynamics of the impeachment process as well as comity
(or lack of it) in the Senate Budget Committee. Ornstein, who was famous for questioning the
Congress‟ capacity as a deliberative body in 1990, examined the impeachment case of former
President Bill Clinton which the House of Representatives and the Senate deliberated on from
1998 to 1999. He also argued that the differences in how the House of Representatives and the
Senate responded to the pressures of the impeachment process embody the political culture
prevailing in the Senate (231). Ornstein describes this political culture of the Senate as that
“shaped by its greater prestige” and its tendency to “inculcate in members a sense of institutional
loyalty (231-232).”
6
Thurber, who in his almost four-decade scholastic endeavor had studied Congress,
groups and lobbying, and campaigns and elections, in contrast, analyzed how comity and trust on
the Senate Budget Committee declined due to a number of internal and external factors that led
to deadlock over the budget as compared to the early characteristics of the Senate Budget
Thurber argued that the following factors affect comity in the Senate Budget Committee: 1)
“policy preferences imported with members after each election; 2) turnover(number of freshmen
on the Senate Budget Committee and the number of retirements in recent years); 3) negative and
Loomis, in his part as editor, applied his expertise honed by four decades of scholarly
work on legislatures in the United States, interest group politics, elections, political parties and
voting behavior as well as public policy and public opinion. Esteemed Colleagues is a successful
attempt at looking into the processes and dynamics in the United States Senate. The book gives
Polsby (1968) to the U.S. House of Representatives: 1) “institutional autonomy defined in terms
complex internal organization defined in terms of role specificity and widely shared
movement form role to role; and 3) universalistic criteria applied in the conduct of internal
7
business and impersonal codes that supplant personal preferences as prescriptions of behavior
The analysis done by US congressional scholars of the Senate‟s civility and deliberation,
as part of the political culture of the legislature in the United States, remains an important subject
to the study of politics and government especially in defining the characteristics of the
contemporary Senate. It highlighted the functions of the legislature in democracies like the
(Caoili, 1993: 2). Apart from these, it also performs conflict resolution and oversight functions
(Angkar, 1991:15).
The compilation of articles that covered topics regarding the Senate as an institution or
arena where civility and deliberation is exercised and as an actor that coexists with the House of
Representatives, the media and the executive provides a comprehensive and thorough coverage
The analysis of the individual authors in their respective articles entailed not only
quantitative methods in the form of statistical analysis but also qualitative methods in the form of
historical and institutional comparisons and analysis of primary sources from Senate journals.
The scholars who contributed to the compilation had different writing styles but all were able to
convey their arguments in clear, precise and interesting terms accompanied with a thorough
Esteemed Colleagues differed from other books on the US Senate such that it focused on
the Senate both as an actor (characterized by civility) and as an arena (where deliberation is
practiced). The contemporary literature on the Senate, on the other hand, focuses on specific
practices in the US Senate such as filibustering, on the gender gap in the contemporary Senate,
8
on the elections to the Senate, on the constitutional oversight functions of the Senate and on the
The book sheds light on the issue of the decline of civility in the contemporary Senate as
an analysis of the Senate hurled right into the agency-structure debate in mainstream political
science. It traces this decline through an examination of the historical, institutional and cultural
dynamics within the Senate. It attributed this decline of civility through the increasing
partisanship in the Senate as well as the infusion of new “blood” into the upper chamber.
Congressional scholars in other countries can benefit from this book especially those
democratizing countries where the institutionalization of the Congress is still underway. The
problems the US Senate has are a far cry from problems that legislatures in democratizing
countries are experiencing. It can serve as a guidebook of signals to scholars who are closely
watching the developments unfold in their legislative systems and provide mechanisms from
lessons derived from the United States Senate‟s politics and history which shall reverse the
References:
Anckar, D. 1991. Parliaments, Centers and Peripheries: Two Perspectives, One Metaphor,”
International Political Science Association, XVth, World Congress, Buenos Aires
Caoili, O. 1993. “The Philippine Congress: Executive- Legislative Relations and the Restoration
of Democracy” State of the Nation Reports. Quezon City: UP-CIDS and UP Press