Disjointed Pluralism: Institutional Innovation and the Development of the U.S. Congress

"Schickler is a historical political scientist; he uses archives, just like a historian does. He pioneered a way of writing about congressional history from a political scientist’s point of view. He offers some of the best analytical work that we have on the institution. He shows that to understand Congress, you can’t just look at political moment. Disjointed Pluralism looks at different periods of congressional reform—such as the early 20th century, and the 1970s—and shows that during periods of reform, we usually don’t get rid of the system that came before. Reforms are layered on top of other reforms. We keep building and bandaging the system. “Reforms are layered on top of other reforms. We keep building and bandaging the system” It’s a great history of congressional reform, and it has this compelling explanation of why we have the system that we built. Whereas many political scientists tried to find single causal arguments to explain what motivates reformers in any given period, Schickler takes on a more historical approach by bringing forward the multiplicity of objectives in any given moment, which explains why different outcomes of reform often have contradictory effects. His is an understanding of the different motivations built into any period of reform, and the essential messiness of what is left behind. The way Congress works is not set in stone. The Constitution doesn’t lay out the organization of Congress beyond the basic qualifications for election and the bicameral system of a Senate (with two members per state) and a House (with representation apportioned based on population). Moreover, congressional committees are not in the Constitution, but they are crucial to how Congress does its business. You won’t find the filibuster in the Constitution: it was created as a way of dealing with problems in the Senate while allowing the minority’s voice to be heard. Because many of the nuts and bolts of congressional procedure are left to the parties and to the institution, Congress changes at different points in time. Can an average member propose amendments to legislation or just party leaders? Answers to questions like that are subject to shifting norms. That is why Schickler is so right: you have to go back decades, if not centuries, to understand the institution. At any given moment, you can see many layers that were put into place in previous eras."