Late twentieth century congressional leaders as shapers of and hostages to political context: Gingrich, Hastert, and Lott

Most contemporary explanations of congressional leadership postulate a version of contextual theory that typically places greatest emphasis on the strength of party and downplays the personal skills of individual leaders. By analyzing the leadership of just three recent individuals—Gingrich, Hastert, and Lott—this essay demonstrates the extent to which these leaders' different styles, skills, and characteristics interacted with changing political contexts and strategic environments to impact political and policy outcomes. Context matters, but so does leadership skill. Most graphically, Gingrich—a rare transforming leader in Burns' typology—demonstrates the importance of the right person and the right conditions being in place at the same time and the ability of an individual imaginative leader to intervene exogenously to have a significant effect on policy outcomes. Yet the essay also demonstrates that even where leaders adopt more conventional transactional styles, as Hastert and Lott did, the skill and success with which they juggle political pressures emanating from different, often conflicting, contexts—skills in context—also matters.

Presidential power and congressional acquiescence in the "war" on terrorism: a new constitutional equilibrium?

US presidents have expanded executive power in times of war and emergency,sometimes aggressively so. This article builds on the application of punctuated equilibria theory by Burnham (1999 and Ackerman (1999). Underpinning this theory is the notion that rapid changes in - or external shocks to - domestic and international society impose new and insistent demands on the state. In so doing, they produce important and decisive moments of institutional mobilization and creativity, disrupt a pre-existing, relatively stable, equilibrium between the Congress and the president, and precipitate decisions or nondecisions by the electorate and political leaders that define the contours for action when the next crisis or external shock occurs. The article suggests that the combination of President George W. Bush's presidentialist doctrine, 9/11 and the 'war' on terror has consolidated a new, constitutional equilibrium. While some members of Congress contest the new order, the Congress collectively has acquiesced in its own marginalization. The article surveys a wide range of executive power assertions and legislative retreats. It argues that power assertions generally draw on precedent: on, for example, a tradition of wartime presidential extraconstitutional leadership extending to presidents, such as John Adams and Abraham Lincoln,as well as to Cold War and post-Cold War presidentialism.