Skip to main content

ETHNOS_APP

Home • Search • Journals • List 0

The House GOP's Civil War

A Political Science Perspective

Bibliographic Data

ID12377281
AuthorsWilliam F Connelly (Washington and Lee University, corresponding author), John J Pitney (0000-0003-1862-0841, Claremont McKenna College)
Year1997
Volume30
Issue4
Pages699-702
Publication date1997-12-01
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenuePS Political Science & Politics (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 1049-0965 • E-ISSN: 1537-5935
PublisherCambridge University Press (CUP) (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.2307/420395
OpenAlexW4234697492
LanguageEN
Citations received1
References cited2

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 Speaker's ethics problems and the leadership's poor political judgments about disaster-relief legislation. But the House GOP's summer of discontent was neither a purely personal affair nor a total departure from the party's history: House Republicans suffered from serious factionalism during their long journey in the political wilderness (Connelly and Pitney 1994, ch. 2). While lacking in liberals and ethnic minorities, they still found many things to fight about, such as political strategy, institutional loyalty, and generational outlook. As Rohde (1991, 152–53) demonstrated in detail, House Republicans consistently had lower party-unity scores than Democrats throughout the Reagan years. After they won their majority, swift House Republican action on the Contract left the widespread impression that they had turned into a lean, mean, quasi-military machine. That impression was misleading. According to an excellent analysis by James G. Gimpel (1996, 18), the Contract was a consensus document: party leaders included only items that already commanded broad agreement within the party (e.g., a balanced-budget amendment) and they excluded items that would stir dissent (e.g., anti-abortion legislation)

Congressman · Democracy · Dissent · House of Representatives · Legislation · Lower house · Political machine · Political science · Politics · American Political and Social Dynamics · Electoral Systems and Political Participation · Judicial and Constitutional Studies · Law

  • Institutional Change in the House of Representatives, 1867-1998

    Open Access•Eric Schickler•American Political Science Review•2000

  • Parties and Leaders in the Postreform House

    David W Rohde•Parties and leaders in the…•1991

  • Institutional Context and Leadership Style

    Open Access•Joseph Cooper, D Brady et al.•American Political Science Review•1981

Citations per year0.04
Citation span2000 - 2000 (1)
Highly citedNo

Tools

Open DOISci-Hub
Ethnos_APP • Open Source Project • MIT License • Frontend v2.0.0 • Privacy and Cookies • API Documentation: api.ethnos.app/docs • API Source Code: GitHub • DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17049435 • Frontend Source Code: GitHub • DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17050053 • cruz.rio.br • Expectantes Misericordiae