Majority Leadership in the U.S. Senate: Balancing Constraints By ...

comes as each set of information counterbalances the others. The validity of the data increases with sample size.

Archival and content data are unified by the comparative method, in which case studies illustrating empirically evident outcomes are “used to generate new conceptual schemes” (Ragin, 1987, p. ix). Cases presented are wide ranging. Because the scope of the study is historically comprehensive, yet topically defined, the presentation of cases is not chronological. Rather than an historical narrative of Senate majority leadership, the following study identifies constraints on Senate majority leadership by offering cases linked by a unique variable. The result might appear to some to be a selective look at both the tenures of specific Senate majority leaders and the operation of Senate majority leadership. However, I must issue some qualifiers. First, any apparent selection bias is the result of data availability. The availability of usable data varies, naturally, across historical eras and with the peculiarities of Senate majority leaders themselves. Confidence in conditions analysis increases when multiple cases are presented to illustrate the factor in question. Chronological gaps only strengthen the universality of the application.

This research is made strong by its multimethod design. Archival findings paint a picture which statistical analysis cannot sketch alone; and an established data set on roll-call voting provides a framework to systematize otherwise anecdotal evidence. In its approach, as in topic, this study is distinctive.

To Treat Leadership as an Independent Variable

Lastly, this work merits attention for its novel treatment of leadership, not just as an outcome but also as an explanatory variable. Rather than considering only the tenures of specific leaders or what results from their leadership (e.g., policy), this study examines leadership, concomitant with the demands accompanying it, for its effects on senatorial behavior. This juxtaposition from dependent to independent variable is seen in the dual roles of senator and leader. That is, how does being a leader affect being a senator? How does being leader alter his representational style and his interactions with his constituencies? These questions and others are the