No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Opposition in Congressional Committees: the Rights of the Minority Party1
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 16 January 2009
Extract
Political scientists in the United States have in recent years become concerned with analysis of the rights and responsibilities of political opposition. This interest was initially stimulated by the much-quoted, and much-maligned, report of the Committee on Political Parties of the American Political Science Association in 1950 entitled Toward a More Responsible Two-Party System. It has been supplemented by the volume edited by Robert Dahl, Political Oppositions in Western Democracies. Academic rationale for this interest is reflected in the paradox posed by Dahl, who, having cited ‘ the right of an organized opposition to appeal for votes against the government in elections and parliament’ as being one of ‘the three great milestones in the development of democratic institutions’, is then obliged to admit that in the United States ‘it is never easy to distinguish “opposition” from “government”’, and that ‘it is exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, to identify the opposition’. Opposition in the United States political system is nonstructural because of the multiple access points for influence, and opportunities for preventing or inhibiting governmental action are numerous. No single institution illustrates this fact better than Congress. In speaking of Congress, commentators do not talk about ‘the opposition’. They may refer to ‘the minority party’ (and ‘the majority party’), yet even these terms cannot be used at times when the Senate and House are not controlled by the same party. Moreover, internal organizational and procedural patterns in the contemporary Congress allow many opportunities for minority coalitions to check executive policies favoured by a majority coalition in Congress, and such coalitions are often bipartisan.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1969
References
page 17 note 2 See Dahl, R. A. (ed.), Political Oppositions in Western Democracies (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1966), pp. ix, 341Google Scholar.
page 19 note 1 See Kofmehl, K., ‘The institutionalization of a voting bloc’, Western Political Quarterly, 17 (06 1964), 256–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
page 19 note 2 For a comprehensive picture of the Congressional reforms advocated by Clark, see Clark, J. S., The Senate Establishment (New York: Hill and Wang, 1963)Google Scholar, and Congress: The Sapless Branch (New York: Harper and Row, 1964)Google Scholar, also Clark, J. S. (ed.), Congressional Reform, Problems and Prospects (New York: Crowell, 1965)Google Scholar.
page 19 note 3 See Bolling, R., House Out of Order (New York: E. P. Dutton Co., 1965)Google Scholar.
page 20 note 1 See Jones, C. O., Party and Policy-Making (Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 1964)Google Scholar.
page 21 note 1 See We Propose: A Modern Congress; Selected proposals by the House Republican Task Force on Congressional reform and minority staffing (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1966), Part 1, p. 19Google Scholar.
page 22 note 1 Kofmehl, K., Professional Staffs of Congress (Lafayette, Ind.: Purdue University Press, 1962), pp. 218–9Google Scholar. See also Cochrane, J. D., ‘Partisan aspects of Congressional committee staffing’, Western Political Quarterly, 17 (07 1964), 338–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
page 23 note 1 See Davidson, R. H., Kovenock, D. M. and O'Leary, M. K., Congress in Crisis: Politics and Congressional Reform (Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth Inc., 1966), chs. 1 and 3Google Scholar.
page 23 note 2 See Burns, J. M., The Deadlock of Democracy (Englewood Cliffs, NJ.: Prentice-Hall, 1963)Google Scholar.
page 24 note 1 Davidson et al., op. cit. p. 105.
page 26 note 1 Joint Committee on the Organization of the Congress, Hearings, Part 5, 06 1965, p. 725Google Scholar.
page 26 note 2 Hearings, op. cit., Part 6, June 1965, p. 954.
page 28 note 1 See Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, 17 March, 1967, pp. 375–80, 416.
page 29 note 1 Bolling, op. cit., p. 233.
page 30 note 1 See Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, 9 June, 1967, pp. 975–8.
page 31 note 1 Burns, J. M., Presidential Government: The Crucible of Leadership (Boston, Mass.: Houghton Mifflin, 1965), p. 341Google Scholar.