Is Party Leadership Personal or Contextual?

The central question is whether the exercise of legislative strategy depends on the leader or context of the party? The leadership literature focuses on individuals and their accomplishments. Contextual literature relies on the institution as the bearer of constraint and freedom. In other words, each approach to legislative action is polarized into two different extremes of explanation.

Leadership first grew out of party cohesiveness in the 1960s. Later this party unity was broadened in the 1990s by Republican reforms. These reforms were based in the accountability of committees to the party. These are institutional changes. These changes are further bolstered by what Cox and McCubbin’s argue as “legislative cartels.” The leadership position is seen as a “central agent” who helps broker deals between groups. Conversely, this is absent in the Senate because of the independent nature of that institutional group.

Consequently, the Senate is an example of personal leadership style. A firm example of this type of personal leadership is LBJ. Moreover, “leadership is more individualized in the Senate leaders than the House because Senate leaders lack the institutional resources available to House members.” (Cox and McCubbin’s) Even with these institutional resources Ripley (1967) argues that there are three distinct leadership patterns available for House Speakers: Collective, Figurehead, and Personal. However, looking at leadership styles and personality is “generally … idiosyncratic.” (ibid) A better explanation is through institutional and political constraints. According to Strahan (1992) these constructs on leadership are divided into three parts: Institutional, Partisan and Agenda-related.

Institutional context is the structure and guidelines for congressional behavior. This sets the stage for committee positions and demotions. Partisan context is the internal workings of each party. This can be broad or narrow, but party cohesiveness is an important part. In other words, “strong parties exist when each party’s mass base is homogenous, yet the bases of each party differ.” (ibid) Lastly, agenda-related context is also a constraint which affects leadership power. Narrowly defined, agenda are issues which the party finds solutions to and consensus about.

In conclusion, “congressional leadership is best understood as due to the interaction of personal and contextual factors, an interaction that is more evident when leaders’ personalities make them go beyond what the context permits and allow them to take advantage of the context to increase their power.” (ibid) In effect, the party is an elastic bubble. This bubble increases and decreases according to issues, majorities, and divided government but most importantly the specific leader placed inside.