Pub Date : 2022-12-12DOI: 10.1080/07343469.2022.2114695
Dean J. Kotlowski
{"title":"The Wilson Circle: President Woodrow Wilson and His Advisers","authors":"Dean J. Kotlowski","doi":"10.1080/07343469.2022.2114695","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/07343469.2022.2114695","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":41473,"journal":{"name":"Congress & The Presidency-A Journal of Capital Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2022-12-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"73389487","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-11-15DOI: 10.1080/07343469.2022.2110994
Terri L. Bimes, Casey B. K. Dominguez, Dan Grushkevich
Abstract The troubled presidential transition of 2020–21 necessitates a renewed look at how rising partisanship has affected new administrations in the 21st century. Examining legislative output, confirmation votes, and executive orders during the first hundred days from 1953 to 2021, we show that there has been a decline in opposition party cooperation with newly elected presidents since the era of polarized parties and insecure majorities began. Our evidence suggests that strategic party behavior, as well as ideological polarization, has limited the ability of transition planning to foster early presidential success.
{"title":"Hyperpartisanship and the First Hundred Days","authors":"Terri L. Bimes, Casey B. K. Dominguez, Dan Grushkevich","doi":"10.1080/07343469.2022.2110994","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/07343469.2022.2110994","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The troubled presidential transition of 2020–21 necessitates a renewed look at how rising partisanship has affected new administrations in the 21st century. Examining legislative output, confirmation votes, and executive orders during the first hundred days from 1953 to 2021, we show that there has been a decline in opposition party cooperation with newly elected presidents since the era of polarized parties and insecure majorities began. Our evidence suggests that strategic party behavior, as well as ideological polarization, has limited the ability of transition planning to foster early presidential success.","PeriodicalId":41473,"journal":{"name":"Congress & The Presidency-A Journal of Capital Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2022-11-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47520812","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-11-08DOI: 10.1080/07343469.2022.2110995
B. Bae, Carlos Algara
Abstract Fenno (1975) famously posited that the mass public’s assessments of the U.S. Congress are rooted in a paradox, with citizens holding negative evaluations of the collective Congress while holding favorable views of their individual members of Congress. Since the conceptualization of “Fenno’s Paradox,” Congress underwent pronounced changes due to increased ideological polarization between increasingly homogeneous parties comprised of more partisan loyal, ideologically extreme legislators. In this article, we ask whether this partisan polarization shifted the public’s assessments of Congress and their individual representatives over time. Leveraging over 45 years of new data measuring the monthly approval of Congress and legislators with generalized error correction models, we find that greater polarization lowers the approval rating of both over time, suggesting that greater polarization weakens Fenno’s Paradox by considerably lowering legislator approval. We explore the underlying mechanism of this finding at the individual level, finding that co-partisan support for Congress and opposing-partisan support for legislators has collapsed since 1980. Taken together, our results suggest that partisan polarization plays a large role in motivating the historic decline in congressional approval and the ability of legislators to amass a personal incumbency advantage.
{"title":"Fenno’s Paradox in a Polarized Age: How Polarization Lowers the Mass Public’s Assessments of Congress and Legislators","authors":"B. Bae, Carlos Algara","doi":"10.1080/07343469.2022.2110995","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/07343469.2022.2110995","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Fenno (1975) famously posited that the mass public’s assessments of the U.S. Congress are rooted in a paradox, with citizens holding negative evaluations of the collective Congress while holding favorable views of their individual members of Congress. Since the conceptualization of “Fenno’s Paradox,” Congress underwent pronounced changes due to increased ideological polarization between increasingly homogeneous parties comprised of more partisan loyal, ideologically extreme legislators. In this article, we ask whether this partisan polarization shifted the public’s assessments of Congress and their individual representatives over time. Leveraging over 45 years of new data measuring the monthly approval of Congress and legislators with generalized error correction models, we find that greater polarization lowers the approval rating of both over time, suggesting that greater polarization weakens Fenno’s Paradox by considerably lowering legislator approval. We explore the underlying mechanism of this finding at the individual level, finding that co-partisan support for Congress and opposing-partisan support for legislators has collapsed since 1980. Taken together, our results suggest that partisan polarization plays a large role in motivating the historic decline in congressional approval and the ability of legislators to amass a personal incumbency advantage.","PeriodicalId":41473,"journal":{"name":"Congress & The Presidency-A Journal of Capital Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2022-11-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44984588","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-10-18DOI: 10.1080/07343469.2022.2121449
Tanya Gardner, A. Russell
Abstract U.S. senators are increasingly turning to Twitter to stoke partisan divisions, and it’s not just what they say, but rather how they say it. Senators spent the Spring of 2020 responding to the COVID-19 pandemic, but the tone and framing used to engage a digital constituency was largely dependent on partisan alignment with President Trump. We use senators’ Twitter activity during the outbreak to offer new insight into the mechanisms of lawmakers’ party polarizing trends in congressional communication. We show that divisions stemmed from senators’ sentiment and framing—with Republicans more likely to incorporate positivity into forward-looking steps for economic recovery and Democrats preferring a negative tone to address government failings and inadequate response by President Trump. This article extends the literature on polarizing rhetoric in the Senate by using the pandemic response to illustrate how the dynamics of senators’ digital rhetoric, even during a moment of shared crisis, continue to fuel partisanship and polarizing narratives.
{"title":"Pandemic Messaging: Congressional Communication and the Mechanisms of Polarizing Rhetoric","authors":"Tanya Gardner, A. Russell","doi":"10.1080/07343469.2022.2121449","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/07343469.2022.2121449","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract U.S. senators are increasingly turning to Twitter to stoke partisan divisions, and it’s not just what they say, but rather how they say it. Senators spent the Spring of 2020 responding to the COVID-19 pandemic, but the tone and framing used to engage a digital constituency was largely dependent on partisan alignment with President Trump. We use senators’ Twitter activity during the outbreak to offer new insight into the mechanisms of lawmakers’ party polarizing trends in congressional communication. We show that divisions stemmed from senators’ sentiment and framing—with Republicans more likely to incorporate positivity into forward-looking steps for economic recovery and Democrats preferring a negative tone to address government failings and inadequate response by President Trump. This article extends the literature on polarizing rhetoric in the Senate by using the pandemic response to illustrate how the dynamics of senators’ digital rhetoric, even during a moment of shared crisis, continue to fuel partisanship and polarizing narratives.","PeriodicalId":41473,"journal":{"name":"Congress & The Presidency-A Journal of Capital Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2022-10-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"78193187","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-09-02DOI: 10.1080/07343469.2022.2114688
Michelle Belco
{"title":"Checks in the Balance: Legislative Capacity and the Dynamics of Executive Power.","authors":"Michelle Belco","doi":"10.1080/07343469.2022.2114688","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/07343469.2022.2114688","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":41473,"journal":{"name":"Congress & The Presidency-A Journal of Capital Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2022-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45414054","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-09-02DOI: 10.1080/07343469.2022.2114698
David A. Bateman
{"title":"The Senate: From White Supremacy to Governmental Gridlock","authors":"David A. Bateman","doi":"10.1080/07343469.2022.2114698","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/07343469.2022.2114698","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":41473,"journal":{"name":"Congress & The Presidency-A Journal of Capital Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2022-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"78452395","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-09-01DOI: 10.1080/07343469.2022.2114689
Loch k. Johnson
{"title":"The Diplomatic Presidency: American Foreign Policy from FDR to George H.W. Bush","authors":"Loch k. Johnson","doi":"10.1080/07343469.2022.2114689","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/07343469.2022.2114689","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":41473,"journal":{"name":"Congress & The Presidency-A Journal of Capital Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2022-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42452361","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-09-01DOI: 10.1080/07343469.2022.2114696
Irwin L. Morris
{"title":"Presidential Control over Administration: A New Historical Analysis of Public Finance Policymaking, 1929–2018","authors":"Irwin L. Morris","doi":"10.1080/07343469.2022.2114696","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/07343469.2022.2114696","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":41473,"journal":{"name":"Congress & The Presidency-A Journal of Capital Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2022-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49064419","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-09-01DOI: 10.1080/07343469.2022.2114691
B. Kalt
{"title":"Mass Pardons in America: Rebellion, Presidential Amnesty, and Reconciliation","authors":"B. Kalt","doi":"10.1080/07343469.2022.2114691","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/07343469.2022.2114691","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":41473,"journal":{"name":"Congress & The Presidency-A Journal of Capital Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2022-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48345999","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-08-09DOI: 10.1080/07343469.2022.2099481
Seth C. McKee, S. Huffmon
Abstract South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham is one of the most powerful actors in American politics and has been for over a quarter-century. Unquestionably, Graham fits the bill of a strategic and progressively ambitious politician. Interestingly however, in a time of increasing partisan and ideological polarization in the U.S. Congress, Graham has moderated his representation. In this article, we situate the political career of Lindsey Graham within the broader milieu of the changing partisan dynamics of Congress, his state, and southern politics. With a bevy of data, we show that the sorting of the American electorate and nationalized voting behavior have undermined Graham’s political support across the partisan aisle. Nevertheless, this development has not placed Graham in electoral jeopardy because of the impressive Republican advantage in South Carolina, which should persist for years to come despite evidence of a gradually growing Democratic opposition.
{"title":"Lindsey Graham and Southern Politics in State and Nation","authors":"Seth C. McKee, S. Huffmon","doi":"10.1080/07343469.2022.2099481","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/07343469.2022.2099481","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham is one of the most powerful actors in American politics and has been for over a quarter-century. Unquestionably, Graham fits the bill of a strategic and progressively ambitious politician. Interestingly however, in a time of increasing partisan and ideological polarization in the U.S. Congress, Graham has moderated his representation. In this article, we situate the political career of Lindsey Graham within the broader milieu of the changing partisan dynamics of Congress, his state, and southern politics. With a bevy of data, we show that the sorting of the American electorate and nationalized voting behavior have undermined Graham’s political support across the partisan aisle. Nevertheless, this development has not placed Graham in electoral jeopardy because of the impressive Republican advantage in South Carolina, which should persist for years to come despite evidence of a gradually growing Democratic opposition.","PeriodicalId":41473,"journal":{"name":"Congress & The Presidency-A Journal of Capital Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2022-08-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49275079","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：