Symbolic Speeches in the U.S. Senate and Their Representational Implications

We document multiple forms of symbolic behavior by members of the U.S. Senate and then offer systematic tests intended to account for variations in such behavior. Our measures of symbolic behavior are developed from floor speeches in the Senate, and we demonstrate, first, that the major types of speeches match particular home style activities and other commonly recognized behaviors of legislators. Our empirical tests provide evidence that the frequency with which senators give particular kinds of speeches is predictable by theoretically grounded expectations about their representational, positional, and strategic interests. Our results provide support for the prospect of systematic analysis of symbolic behavior and representation and for developing integrated theory that takes account of symbolic and policy representation simultaneously.

[1]  A Revised Theory of American Party Politics , 1950 .

[2]  D. Macrae.  The Relation Between Roll Call Votes and Constituencies in the Massachusetts House of Representatives , 1952, American Political Science Review.

[3]  D. Matthews.  U.S. Senators and their world , 1961 .

[4]  John C. Wahlke.  Policy Demands and System Support: The Role of the Represented , 1971, British Journal of Political Science.

[5]  Earl R. Babbie,et al.  Survey Research Methods , 1984 .

[6]  David R. Mayhew.  Congress: The Electoral Connection , 1975 .

[7]  J. Kuklinski.  District Competitiveness and Legislative Roll-Call Behavior: A Reassessment of the Marginality Hypothesis , 1977 .

[8]  H. Eulau,et al.  The Puzzle of Representation: Specifying Components of Responsiveness , 1977 .

[9]  J. Kuklinski.  Representativeness and Elections: A Policy Analysis , 1978, American Political Science Review.

[10]  Richard F. Fenno.  Home Style : House Members in Their Districts , 1978 .

[11]  Walter J. Oleszek.  Congressional Procedures and the Policy Process , 1978 .

[12]  James E. Campbell.  Cosponsoring Legislation in the U. S. Congress , 1982 .

[13]  N. C. Kiefer.  Less Than Meets the Eye , 1983 .

[14]  Barbara Sinclair,et al.  Senate Styles and Senate Decision Making, 1955-1980 , 1986, The Journal of Politics.

[15]  G. King,et al.  Variance Specification in Event Count Models: From Restrictive Assumptions to a Generalized Estimator , 1989 .

[16]  Giselle Toth.  Less than Meets the Eye , 1990, Bio/Technology.

[17]  J. Ferejohn,et al.  Linking Constituency Opinion and Senate Voting Scores: A Hybrid Explanation , 1990 .

[18]  Mathew D. McCubbins,et al.  Legislative Leviathan: Party Government in the House , 1993 .

[19]  S. Ahuja.  Electoral Status and Representation in the United States Senate , 1994 .

[20]  Keith Krehbiel,et al.  Cosponsors and Wafflers from A to Z , 1995 .

[21]  Wendy J. Schiller,et al.  Senators as Political Entrepreneurs: Using Bill Sponsorship to Shape Legislative Agendas , 1995 .

[22]  Richard L. Hall,et al.  Participation in Congress , 1996 .

[23]  L. Sigelman,et al.  The Politics of Talk: Unconstrained Floor Time in the U.S. House of Representatives , 1996, The Journal of Politics.

[24]  Keith Krehbiel,et al.  Dynamics of Cosponsorship , 1996, American Political Science Review.

[25]  Richard F. Fenno.  Senators On The Campaign Trail , 1996 .

[26]  Melissa S. Williams.  Voice, Trust, and Memory: Marginalized Groups and the Failings of Liberal Representation , 1998 .

[27]  Congressional leadership of public opinion , 1998 .

[28]  Pravin K. Trivedi,et al.  Regression Analysis of Count Data , 1998 .

[29]  Frances E. Lee,et al.  Sizing Up the Senate: The Unequal Consequences of Equal Representation , 1999 .

[30]  Jane J. Mansbridge.  Should Blacks Represent Blacks and Women Represent Women? A Contingent "Yes" , 1999, The Journal of Politics.

[31]  J. T. Wulu,et al.  Regression analysis of count data , 2002 .

[32]  Robert L. Mason,et al.  Statistical Principles in Experimental Design , 2003 .

[33]  The Puzzle of Representation , .