My correspondent writes:
One thought with respect to partisan polarization. It does have something to do with team work. Our Members see themselves as much more part of a team now than ever before (team work on fundraising, voting, and agenda-setting are all in high gear) We operate more like "shirts and skins" than I ever remember. Here's a related point. I think the rise of more organized interest group behavior has something to do with it too.
Most lobbyists are shirts and skins now too. It wasn't always this way. Lobbyists used to play both sides of the aisle. Some still do, but the "rise of the partisan lobbyist" is something that needs to get built in to the polarization story.
Further, most interest groups (or lobbyists) don't stake out positions that are focused on enacting a legislative product. They are focused on reflecting their own best interests and ideal positions, often wrapped in a communications narrative that fits the particular party they are trying to win over.
To the extent that lawmakers support these positions (to win financial support, get good scorecard ratings, etc) they are supporting positions that move away from consensus rather than toward it. Interest groups are strategic, just like Members. And I think this leads their lobbyists to take positions that make finding consensus with the Senate and the President more difficult.
Changes in technology and the tools interest groups now use have made it almost impossible for lawmakers to support compromises without getting savaged from groups that are not getting everything they want from the policy process. Bottom line: interest groups (and the rise of the institutionalization of lobbying) may have a role encouraging Members to act more like teammates and encourage more polarization.I thank my correspondent for his willingness to share and promise to revise and extend as needed.
The polarization of lobbyists is curious.
ReplyDeleteDoes this mean that a particular interest group, lets say oil, tries to achieve it's policies by empowering one party (let's say Republicans) and just leave the other alone?
Or does the interest group just hire different firms to work the different parties, but the they still work on everyone?
I think he means that, as individuals, lobbyists often start out in party-affiliated jobs in Congress, the White House, or campaigns, and maintain their party affiliation, loyalty, and connections throughout their lobbying career. Jennifer Victor and I found that this is evident in the donation patterns of lobbyists (again, as individuals): http://works.bepress.com/gregorykoger/5/
DeleteSo, I would guess that an oil company would have an in-house set of lobbyists--some Republican, some Democratic--supplemented by contract lobbyists & firms as needed.The R/D balance of the company's lobbying team probably reflects WHO it needs to lobby more than the partisan leanings of the corporation, so when the Democrats hold the White House and both chambers of Congress the firm would hire more Democrats.
That makes sense. But is that a new phenomenon? I would think it has always been thus.
Delete