Chapter 1: | Introduction |
by the several supermajoritarian rules of the Senate as well as individual prerogatives such as “holds” (Evans & Lipinski, 2005; Sinclair, 2005). Sinclair highlighted, but did not resolve, this dilemma of legislating that requires some support of the minority party in order to pursue majority party goals. These partisan and institutional demands illustrate the value in studying the Senate separate from the House and provide prominent constraints on the power of the Senate majority leader.
Individual Leaders
Tales of individual congressional leaders, both formal and informal, are replete with outsize personalities who have established themselves in the lore of Congress (e.g., Cheney & Cheney, 1996; Davidson, Hammond, & Smock, 1998; Peters, 1995, 1997). While a general and theoretical understanding of Senate majority leadership leaves room for attention, scholars do know something about a few Senate majority leaders, especially about Lyndon B. Johnson (D-TX). Probably because his tenure and personality were so extraordinary, his is a notable case that draws scholars’ attention. Ralph Huitt (1961), writing at the end of Johnson's tenure, instructed about Democratic party leadership in the Senate, but he did so through a case study of Johnson, and it is now widely appreciated that Johnson is an exceptional case. Recently scholars, mostly historians (Caro, 2002; Conkin, 1986; Dallek, 1991), have produced biographies of Johnson and found a rich trove of activity in his Senate years. John Stewart (1971) offered comparative cases of Johnson and his successor Mike Mansfield (D-MT). But other, later leaders, such as Howard H. Baker (R-TN), have found interest as well (Annis, 1995; Bobic, 1996; Welborn, 1993). Richard Baker and Roger Davidson (1991) assembled a volume's worth of profiles of Senate party leaders and their tenures from which we can glean the problems and achievements, the opportunities and constraints, faced by each individual leader. Over two decades, Norman Ornstein, Robert Peabody, and David Rohde (1977, 1997) “reconsidered” trends in Senate development, including turnover of leaders. Their snapshots began with the contrasting styles of Johnson and Mansfield and ultimately profiled the tenures of George J. Mitchell (D-ME) and Tom Daschle (D-SD). However, an individualized