1 of 3
How does any researcher begin to explain the motivations and work of 535 unique individuals (or even just the 435 members of the House of Representatives)? Congressional research is not simple, formulaic, or easy to grasp—and that is why political scientists like me find such work both invigorating and infuriating. Books, articles, and datasets can lead us to important insights, but study alone is not enough to grasp the intricacies of a complex and ever-changing institution like the U.S. Congress.
Uncompromising Positions: God, Sex, and the U.S. House of Representatives
|
One source of assistance for congressional scholars hoping to explain aspects of legislative behavior is the American Political Science Association (APSA) Congressional Fellowship program, a fellowship based on the novel premise that those who study politics should get real-world experience to better understand the institutions and people they research. Congressional fellows spend a year working as full-time legislative staff on Capitol Hill, gaining an insider's perspective of life in the office of one or two members of Congress. While conducting much of the research for Compromising Positions: God, Sex, and the U.S. House of Representatives, APSA fellow Elizabeth Anne Oldmixon worked for two members of the House of Representatives, Mike Capuano (D-Mass.) and Joe Scarborough (R-Fla.). Her time on Capitol Hill working for members from both political parties gave her a window into the legislative process and access to members of Congress that made this insightful book possible.
Oldmixon began her research with this question: Do legislators approach moral issues differently from other issues they confront during the congressional term? Drawing upon interviews with 35 legislators and key congressional aides, data from a decade of roll call votes and cosponsorship of bills, and census information about congressional districts, she finds that lawmakers—and constituents as well—do indeed approach moral issues distinctively.
Several common factors distinguish the "cultural conflicts" that combine to create potential minefields for both legislators and the legislative process. First and foremost, moral issues are what political scientists call "easy" issues—a misnomer for sure. Such issues appear simple to the voter; that is, constituents think they understand them and know their position instinctively. In addition, "easy" issues are usually perceived in dichotomous terms: one is either for the issue (abortion, for example) or against it. The categories are simple; the focus is sharply and intently on the end goal. The debate over "hard" issues, by contrast, is rarely about ends and almost always about means. Voters rarely disagree with the goals of ending poverty, ensuring peace, or abating terrorism. Conflict arises when seeking agreement on the means for achieving the accepted ends.
Because the locus of debate on "easy" issues is typically over ends, not means, activists often frame the debate in absolutist terms, cueing voters that compromise is not only impossible but may even be immoral. Thus, moral issues are often described in terms of black and white, us versus them. Moral issues seem to offer little space for shades of gray.
But gray is the color of politics. At its heart, lawmaking is the result of compromise; it is a rather messy process of give and take. The framers of the Constitution would be proud; they designed our system of separate institutions sharing power to be slow and resistant to change, and they succeeded. If you think of how long it takes three or four people to choose a DVD at the local video store, try to imagine getting 218 or more members of the House of Representatives to agree on every word of a bill! Add the 100-member Senate and the president who must also concur, and one begins to wonder how any bill ever becomes a law.
RSS Feed
