Description
Product Description
No one understands the U.S. Senate better than Fred Harris. A professor of political science, author of a number of books on government, former Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, and a former United States Senator from Oklahoma, he has both experienced and studied the political
process for forty years. Now he distills his understanding into a lively, informative account of the present Senate and its problems.
In Deadlock or Decision, Harris provides a far-reaching look at the Senate's history, traditions, and operation as he explains the emergence of today's frequent deadlocks. He traces the growth and change of the chamber from its earliest days (when the first senators made a point of looking
down on the House of Representatives) through the days of Webster, Clay, and Calhoun, to the height of its prestige as the "citadel of democracy" in the 1950s (under the firm leadership of Lyndon Johnson). Harris shows how the efficiency of the senate in Johnson's era was tied to its
inward-looking, undemocratic practices: the body had firm traditions, and an emphasis on seniority, that concentrated power and aided decisive action. Today, he writes, power has become fragmented, with greater partisanship, less cooperation, and more individuality as the specialization norm has
eroded and senatorial staff has expanded dramatically. Harris links these trends to the "advocacy explosion" in American politics, with the multiplication of lobbying organizations (which now dish out huge campaign contributions). American society and politics in general, he argues, has become less
regional and more nationally unified; senate campaigns have become events of national significance, and senators are now expected to be national advocates for issues that affect the entire country. As a result, senators are now much more vulnerable to outside pressure. The irony of today's Senate,
Harris writes, is that as the body has become more responsive, it has become less responsible--and more prone to inaction as it has become more democratic in its own procedures.
Harris lays out an agenda for change that includes campaign finance reform, changes in senate rules, and a reshaped budget process to restore efficiency while preserving the trend toward responsiveness and democracy in the senate. With clear, compelling logic and fascinating details, Deadlock
or Decision gives us a fresh understanding of what is wrong in Washington, and what can be done to make it right again.
From Kirkus Reviews
An important, if ponderous, inquiry into the Senate's evolution, its periods of influence and decline, and its urgent need for self-reform. Harris (Political Science/University of New Mexico; Potomac Fever, 1977, etc.) knows whereof he speaks: He's a former Democratic senator from Oklahoma. The author's concept of the ``nationalization'' of US politics--in which TV, rapid travel, and fast transmission of news have made the country a single community--is useful. Today's sometimes dysfunctional Senate, he explains, has been shaped in part by positive developments--a better-educated electorate with more interest in government, and greater media scrutiny of Senate activities. But despite Harris's reverence for what he continually calls the ``world's greatest deliberative body,'' he admits that the Senate is in bad need of reform. Legislation is held up endlessly in committees, in procedural wrangles, and by grandstanding lawmakers; the budget-making process is highly inefficient; lobbyists have a lock on senators, whose pay, Harris says, is insufficient to live on; extremism slows formation of consensus; campaign strategists pander to the worst in the electorate; and campaign finance laws are widely abused or evaded. Certain Senate powers--the ratification of treaties and confirmation of judges--have grown with time, but the Senate, Harris says, desperately needs to be restored to its place as party with the President to all military decisions befo
No one understands the U.S. Senate better than Fred Harris. A professor of political science, author of a number of books on government, former Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, and a former United States Senator from Oklahoma, he has both experienced and studied the political
process for forty years. Now he distills his understanding into a lively, informative account of the present Senate and its problems.
In Deadlock or Decision, Harris provides a far-reaching look at the Senate's history, traditions, and operation as he explains the emergence of today's frequent deadlocks. He traces the growth and change of the chamber from its earliest days (when the first senators made a point of looking
down on the House of Representatives) through the days of Webster, Clay, and Calhoun, to the height of its prestige as the "citadel of democracy" in the 1950s (under the firm leadership of Lyndon Johnson). Harris shows how the efficiency of the senate in Johnson's era was tied to its
inward-looking, undemocratic practices: the body had firm traditions, and an emphasis on seniority, that concentrated power and aided decisive action. Today, he writes, power has become fragmented, with greater partisanship, less cooperation, and more individuality as the specialization norm has
eroded and senatorial staff has expanded dramatically. Harris links these trends to the "advocacy explosion" in American politics, with the multiplication of lobbying organizations (which now dish out huge campaign contributions). American society and politics in general, he argues, has become less
regional and more nationally unified; senate campaigns have become events of national significance, and senators are now expected to be national advocates for issues that affect the entire country. As a result, senators are now much more vulnerable to outside pressure. The irony of today's Senate,
Harris writes, is that as the body has become more responsive, it has become less responsible--and more prone to inaction as it has become more democratic in its own procedures.
Harris lays out an agenda for change that includes campaign finance reform, changes in senate rules, and a reshaped budget process to restore efficiency while preserving the trend toward responsiveness and democracy in the senate. With clear, compelling logic and fascinating details, Deadlock
or Decision gives us a fresh understanding of what is wrong in Washington, and what can be done to make it right again.
From Kirkus Reviews
An important, if ponderous, inquiry into the Senate's evolution, its periods of influence and decline, and its urgent need for self-reform. Harris (Political Science/University of New Mexico; Potomac Fever, 1977, etc.) knows whereof he speaks: He's a former Democratic senator from Oklahoma. The author's concept of the ``nationalization'' of US politics--in which TV, rapid travel, and fast transmission of news have made the country a single community--is useful. Today's sometimes dysfunctional Senate, he explains, has been shaped in part by positive developments--a better-educated electorate with more interest in government, and greater media scrutiny of Senate activities. But despite Harris's reverence for what he continually calls the ``world's greatest deliberative body,'' he admits that the Senate is in bad need of reform. Legislation is held up endlessly in committees, in procedural wrangles, and by grandstanding lawmakers; the budget-making process is highly inefficient; lobbyists have a lock on senators, whose pay, Harris says, is insufficient to live on; extremism slows formation of consensus; campaign strategists pander to the worst in the electorate; and campaign finance laws are widely abused or evaded. Certain Senate powers--the ratification of treaties and confirmation of judges--have grown with time, but the Senate, Harris says, desperately needs to be restored to its place as party with the President to all military decisions befo
