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

as leaders in their respective chambers. However, his work fathered other studies of leadership races and outcomes that analyzed the extent to which the rank and file choose leaders to advance individual or collective goals (Green, 2006; Green & Harris, 2007; Harris, 2006; Oppenheimer & Peabody, 1977).

Alone among these studies, Sean Kelly (1995a, 1995b) examined leadership selection in the Senate. Why Senate leadership selection has been understudied in comparison to the House defies explanation. Data are just as readily available, and any results would be substantively interesting (especially as Sinclair [1989] has described the “transformation” of the body which would make leadership less a matter of inheritance). It is decidedly easier, and more meaningful, to explain the value of studying Senate leadership. Understanding the types of leaders that members select illuminates not only the goals the members find salient (Green & Harris, 2007), but also reveals the expectations they have for the office and its holder—expectations, which, in turn, place demands and constraints on leaders in carrying out the duties of the office.

If we are lacking in scholarly understanding of how senators choose leaders, thanks to Gerald Gamm and Steven Smith (2000, 2002a, 2002b, 2004), we do know how the office of Senate majority leader came about. With a renewed interest in the historical Congress (e.g., Brady & McCubbins, 2002, 2007), Gamm and Smith offered historical accounts of the development of leadership positions in the Senate and their contribution to the creation of the modern Senate. The office of Senate majority leader is not formally specified in the constitution, nor is it established in the elaborate Senate rules. Using content analysis of major newspapers of the day, Gamm and Smith were able to pinpoint the emergence of the “official” leadership positions in the Senate and to link it with strong party competition. They noted that as formal leadership positions emerged, leaders became chief spokesmen for their parties and in so doing, provided “policy leadership,” affecting not only how the Senate conducts business (process and procedure) but also what business the Senate conducts (setting agendas and passing legislation). These remarkable efforts of research identified conditions under which Senate majority leadership