Rating: 3 (out of 5)
Summary: A Few Holes
Comments: In her book, Unorthodox Lawmaking: New Legislative Processes in the U.S. Congress, Barbara Sinclair successfully argues that legislation no longer follows the common "textbook method." Representatives and senators alike have adapted new methods, sending each bill through a different custom-tailored process. Though she leaves a few questions unanswered, Sinclair uses multiple forms of research to paint a clear picture of how legislation is now passed.Sinclair divides the book into3sections - 1st analyzing the path bills take, then exploring how and why these processes developed, and finally making an in-depth analysis of these changes through several case studies. The House, she argues, has grown more efficient through this developmental process. The leadership has seized power through a variety of rules and other manipulations. By shipping bills to what committee it wants (or, in some cases, committees), the leadership can put bills in friendly hands. Post-committee changes make bills passable, and finally the leadership can use rules to craft debate exactly how it wants. In the Senate, the opposite has happened. Senators have used new methods to gain individual power. almost all importantly, Senators have often use filibusters, both covertly and overtly, to prevent the majority from getting its way. The need for a 60 person majority gives a minority senator incredible power. After this analysis, Sinclair then turns to examine how these changes came about. She suggests that opportunity and necessity drove the changes. As parties became more polarized and constituents demanded more efficient legislation, the Senators looked for ways to outsmart and out manipulate the other side. Ultimately, Sinclair argues that these processes have made passing legislation more efficient. Significan not legislation has passed more often when such measures have been applied. Proving any thesis, including this1is a difficult task. Some books, including the Jacobs/Shapiro book and the Fenno book, lack a strong backbone because they rely on only1method of research that each have obvious shortcomings. Sinclair avoids this mistake, opting for a variety of research methods that paint a broad and tightly made picture. The 1st method Sinclair turns to is statistical data. Multiple charts confirm Sinclair's argument that the legislative process is becoming more complex. Figure 5.1 notes a distinct and obvious trend towards the use of more special maneuvers. Later figures confirm these trends (at least to a degree) in the Senate. As evidenced in Jacobs and Shapiro, statistical evidence does, however, have its limit. Sinclair successfully researches history and changing political dynamics to explain the statistics, not leaving them to stand on their own ground. Of course, this method has its drawbacks. The reader is forced to accept Sinclair's interpretation and conclusions. Nonetheless, there is no better method to interpret the data, and Sinclair seems to have done her homework, presenting a thoughtful and well researched chapter. Finally, Sinclair uses another method to bring her point together. Standing alone, case studies do not pass muster; they are simply too narrow to make broad generalizations. When taken in the context of statistical data and interpretations, however, they effectively bring the numbers to life. Sinclair starts by examining the National Service Bill. She highlights a more or less traditional process. The reader does, however, see several uses of non-traditional methods, particularly in the Senate, where a filibuster threat and a non-germane amendment give the minority quite a voice. By the time the Omnibus Health Bill was passed, Sinclair describes a process that was completely different. The bill is sculpted and directed at e turn. The reader sees a clear difference from the 1st case study to the last. Using these methods, Sinclair does paint a convincing picture. However, she leaves some notable holes. The 1st concerns the role of the President in the legislative process. In her initial analysis (chapters 1 through 5), she considers the president only briefly, mentioning his veto power and the occasional need for a summit. Surely, the president's role is not limited to a brief meeting. From reading the case studies, it becomes obvious the president is often influential, even a driving force in legislation. Why is the president's role essentially ignored in her descriptive analysis? Sinclair's ultimate conclusion is that "unorthodox lawmaking" makes legislating more efficient, however she seems to recklessly add that legislation will now "reflect the will of the people." Through examination of this book, I have encountered scan not evidence that would suggest this to be true. The new tools are used to overcome the power of the opposing party; how this reflects public opinion is not seriously addressed. In fact, Sinclair offers little proof that new legislative processes have significan notly increased responsiveness to the general public. By making this statement, Sinclair opens a whole new set of inquiry about the dynamics of public opinion and the influence of outside interests. Unfortunately, she can not substantiate any claims in this area. An interesting addendum to this book might include an analysis of how closely legislation's relation to public preference has changed as these processes developed. Another addendum might include an inquiry into how the public sees these processes. Does it further the view that the Congress is simply power driven and unresponsive? Despite these minor shortcomings, Sinclair nonetheless proves her point. Congress today is a different body than it used to be several decades ago. Legislation no longer follows the textbook method on its way to becoming law. Instead, it takes many different paths and contours, contours that help promote its passage. Unorthodox Lawmaking is a piece of sound research that describes an evolving process. |
