Insecure Majorities: Congress and the Perpetual Campaign

by Frances E. Lee

As Democrats and Republicans continue to vie for political advantage, Congress remains paralyzed by partisan conflict. That the last two decades have seen some of the least productive Congresses in recent history is usually explained by the growing ideological gulf between the parties, but this explanation misses another fundamental factor influencing the dynamic. In contrast to politics through most of the twentieth century, the contemporary Democratic and Republican parties compete for control of Congress at relative parity, and this has dramatically changed the parties’ incentives and strategies in ways that have driven the contentious partisanship characteristic of contemporary American politics.
           
With Insecure Majorities, Frances E. Lee offers a controversial new perspective on the rise of congressional party conflict, showing how the shift in competitive circumstances has had a profound impact on how Democrats and Republicans interact. For nearly half a century, Democrats were the majority party, usually maintaining control of the presidency, the House, and the Senate. Republicans did not stand much chance of winning majority status, and Democrats could not conceive of losing it. Under such uncompetitive conditions, scant collective action was exerted by either party toward building or preserving a majority. Beginning in the 1980s, that changed, and most elections since have offered the prospect of a change of party control. Lee shows, through an impressive range of interviews and analysis, how competition for control of the government drives members of both parties to participate in actions that promote their own party’s image and undercut that of the opposition, including the perpetual hunt for issues that can score political points by putting the opposing party on the wrong side of public opinion. More often than not, this strategy stands in the way of productive bipartisan cooperation—and it is also unlikely to change as long as control of the government remains within reach for both parties.
 

Genres: Politics, Nonfiction, Political Science, Read For School, American

248 pages, Paperback

Published August 23, 2016

Reviews

[Dan · Rating 5 out of 5]

Probably one of the most important political Science recently written Frances Lee explains the breakdown of bipartisanship as part of a greater process where both political parties now are nationally competitive. Frances Lee then goes to show the numerous effects this will have on the United States electoral system.

[Isabella · Rating 5 out of 5]

Coming back and updating my review from 3 to 5 stars. I cannot count how many times I've come back to this book in discussing politics, especially now in law school. Definitely read it. Paradigm shifting as far as the way you will view political messaging.

[Angie Boyter · Rating 5 out of 5]

I lived through the era covered by the book and considered myself fairly sophisticated and well-informed about political matters but retained my optimism and hope for good government. I found this book eye-opening and overall discouraging. The research was impressive and the central thesis convincing. Perhaps best of all, in contrast to the tenor of much current writing, it was itself very nonpartisan, taking equal shots at both the Democrats and the Republicans.
Surprisingly, given the argument presented and the damage it does to any optimism about better governing, the book was also highly entertaining, one of those books where I was frequently interrupting my husband’s own reading with some shocking or amusing factoid or quote, like when I learned that staffers sometimes track how much time senators from each of the parties have consumed on the floor and provide the metrics at the party’s weekly lunches. As Sen. John Cornyn said, “We’re a competitive lot, so when you tell Republican senators that we’re being out-spoken by Democrats, it gets them going.” I thought they just competed about things like taxes and policy! I also laughed at the quote from Rep. John Boehner, “What is the job of [a] Republican leader in the minority? It’s to hold the job for as short a time as possible.” Not all the good quotes are from politicians. Here is a sad-but-true one from economist J K Galbraith, “Politics is not the art of the possible. It consist in choosing between the disastrous and the unpalatable.”
Although this book is primarily about the U.S. Congress, I know some people in my state legislature who have complained about a decline in bipartisanship at the state level, and I can easily believe the results of the analysis in the chapter on state legislatures. What a shame.
I was very sorry that this book was written before the 2016 and 2020 elections and was left wondering what a revised edition would contain. It certainly remains valid today, and I recommend it highly.
WARNING: This is a scholarly book, and there is a lot of good but sophisticated data analysis in this book. It is great stuff if you are so inclined, but you can skim/skip the presentation and still enjoy and learn a lot from the book. Don’t let it intimidate you.

[Barbara · Rating 3 out of 5]

The meat is very interesting but it is absurdly repetitive. There’s restating your thesis for clarity and then there’s this.

[Alex T · Rating 5 out of 5]

no book has explained so well the circumstances & incentives that are shaping the current political climate in US congress. if you read one academic book on the topic (not everyone's cup of tea) make it this one!

[Arjun · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent book - Lee persuasively makes the case that, even after considering the recent ideological polarization of Congress, we can attribute some of the gridlock in Congress to the fact that elections for control of both chambers have become more closely contested in recent decades. I would have guessed the starting point would be in 1994 when the Republicans took back the House, but she actually shows it goes back earlier to 1980, when Republicans took the Senate in a surprise victory. That victory transformed the way both parties viewed congressional elections, and relatedly, how they viewed their actions in Congress. Minority parties began taking legislative actions not with the aim of achieving legislative results, but rather to send messages to voters clarifying the differences between the two parties and showing what they hoped to achieve as a majority party - even if these actions were not substantive policy-wise.

The classic example in the past decade is the numerous votes the Republican House took to repeal Obamacare in its entirety - they knew that Obama would never consider such a bill, but it sent a message to the Republican base that they would undertake such an action if they joined the majority, rather than try to fix the flaws of the bill with Democrats. Now, of course, that Republicans control all three branches, they need to pass an actually substantive bill and it is the Democrats' turn to force difficult and unpopular votes.

There are a few arguments I would have liked to have seen be explored in greater detail - for example, was such conduct common in the other American period of intense party competition between 1876 and 1896? Lee's qualitative analysis limits the ability to discover the answer to that question completely, but it would have provided an interesting test case to compare to the current era (in which one could argue that the relationship between party competition in Congress and polarization is a simple case of correlation, not causation). However, on the whole this is an excellent book that should be read by anyone interested in learning more about why Washington works the way it does, and why it's not likely to change any time soon.

[Bob Mulcahy · Rating 2 out of 5]

This is an important book for understanding the modern political landscape in the United States. Early in the book Lee points out that there have been other periods in history of relative political parity across the two parties--what I expected and hoped for at that point was that the book would dive into comparative historical research to show whether all of those periods have in common the style of polarized politics we are seeing today. Unfortunately, that's not the direction she takes, leaving unanswered the central question of whether parity polarizes political behavior. It could be that polarization instead causes parity, or that both are correlated with some other cause. The closest she gets is late in the book with a short chapter on whether states with political parity are more or less polarized, which was the best chapter in the book.

[Jenna Spinelle · Rating 5 out of 5]

I learned a lot from this book about how political parties and the media impact the way that Congress acts. We often hear that it things would be so much better if Republicans and Democrats could just have dinner together more often. Frances shows why that thinking is not feasible in today's climate.

I had the opportunity to speak with Frances for a podcast I host about democracy. It's a great conversation that covers many of the main themes in the book: https://www.democracyworkspodcast.com....

[Cecilia Pang · Rating 4 out of 5]

Well written and compelling argument that doesn’t reject the conventional wisdom but adds an important point that wasn’t articulated up to that point. Really appreciated the clear language and logic.

Party competition rather than secure majorities facilitates more partisan politicking as legislators focus on undercutting the competition to secure the benefits of being in the majority.

[John Paschold · Rating 5 out of 5]

Frances Lee is a great writer, and this book is no exception. She puts party messaging votes front and center as she argues that their rise in recent years has helped voters distinguish between parties and candidates. It is a timely read and broadens your perspective to candidates’ behavior in this age of polarization. Highly recommend.

[GW · Rating 4 out of 5]

Could be subtitled: "How Bipartisanship Died"

Messaging instead of legislating.
Creating bills intentionally for the president to veto.

Explains how concerted efforts were taken in 70’s and 80’s for the minority party to focus on messaging and party wide fundraising. Confrontation and polarization. Nods to attacks on Anne Gorsuch,

[Gordon Kwok · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great book and discussion on what caused the legislative paralysis we see today.