The tenuous majority: The effect of two-party competition on the House of Representatives.

Abstract

This dissertation relies on interviews of members of Congress and their staff, in conjunction with the historical record, to illustrate how the new race for the House and the new era of tenuous, narrow House majorities is affecting American politics and the House of Representatives. The developments in House politics emanating from the new era of two-party competition challenge many of the existing theories and explanations of how the House of Representatives operates, both institutionally and electorally. Two-Party competition for the House, despite the problems in governance it brings to the House institutionally, is primarily a positive development, and presents new challenges for congressional scholarship, American government, and House politics.

This dissertation examines the effects of two-party competition on the House of Representatives in the 1990s. Specifically, it analyzes how the competitive fights for majority control by the two parties are altering House elections, the party cultures of the two parties on Capitol Hill, and the governing process. Two-Party competition for the House of Representatives in the 103rd--105th (1993--1998) Congresses has fundamentally altered the electoral and institutional politics of the House, from how candidates are selected and elected to how congressional parties conduct themselves on Capitol Hill. In particular, congressional leaders are increasingly intervening in the recruitment process of House candidates, in order to produce the most electable candidates capable of helping secure control of the House. In addition, the party cultures of the Republican Conference and the Democratic Caucus are adapting to the incentives of two-party competition. Meanwhile, the governing process is being altered as well to the demands of intense competition through triangulation, shutdown politics, and more partisan governing tactics.