The growing power of factions in Congress

As partisan polarization in Congress increased over the past two decades, both Republicans and Democrats focused new energies on building their respective partisan brands. Finding procedural and policy party unity is always hard work, but two developments will make it increasingly difficult in the future.

Changing communications tactics is the first factor. What happens after next November’s election is the second. Political experts believe the 2018 election will produce a more closely divided Congress. This means internal factions in both parties will play an even more pivotal role going forward.

{mosads}Congress has always included internal party groups, some more organized and effective than others. In the 1980s the House had Boll Weevils (Conservative Southern Democrats) and Gypsy Moths (Moderate Northeastern Republicans). More recently some liberal Democrats organized The Progressive Caucus, while conservative Republicans formed The House Freedom Caucus. There are many others with varying degrees of size and power.

Yet today there is something new. The organizing and communications power of the Internet along with closely divided majorities have increased the influence and leverage of both conservative and liberal factions within their respective parties.

Political Scientists Andrew J. Clarke and Ruth Bloch Rubin (who published a book titled Building the Bloc: Intraparty Organization in the U.S. Congress) have done some ongoing research on factions in the U.S. Congress. Clarke, who is an Assistant Professor of Political Science at Lafayette College, identified why factions form and how they exert power.

He argues that the Republican or Democratic “national brands” are not always an optimal way for politicians to present themselves to their local activists. Sometimes creating “sub-brands” (e.g. The Progressive Caucus or The Freedom Caucus) provides a platform to get the best of both worlds: tailor a political style and message to appeal to the folks back home without the costs of leaving the national party.

As Clarke writes, “…ideological factions in the U.S. House of Representatives provide candidates with complementary party sub-brands, and candidates use these sub-brands to appeal to party activists, media officials, and political donors.” He continues, “Because American electoral institutions typically preclude politicians from looking beyond their political party, entrepreneurial legislators create new ideological institutions beneath the traditional pockets of congressional power. As a result, members of Congress have created an assortment of factions that largely mirror political parties.”

In many ways, technological changes have helped facilitate the influence and prevalence of ideological factions. Prior to the advent of the Internet and modern communications platforms, lawmakers depended on traditional institutions like national parties and congressional leaders for fundraising and other forms of legislative and political support.

No more. As Clarke writes, “Factions create party sub-brands to target donors, party activists, and the media to capture political resources.”

Digital media is an ideal tool for achieving these goals. It allows members to identify and claim credit with targeted supporters in their districts; it provides a platform to pinpoint potential opinion leaders that can amplify a lawmaker’s unique message; and, it offers members an opportunity to recruit new local or even national allies. In short, digital media gives entrepreneurial politicians new resources to paint a positive profile of themselves distinct from the downsides of a national political brand.

Looking ahead, factions like the Freedom Caucus and the Progressive Caucus, will likely play an even greater role following the 2018 election. Most pundits believe majority control in the next Congress is a toss-up. Either party could control the House in 2019 by as few as 5-10 votes, or less.

That means faction members – on the right and the left — face a balancing act. In an environment where every vote counts, will they support their party’s potential narrow majority on procedural and policy matters? Or, will they find ways to further distinguish themselves from their party, maintain a pure sub-brand identity, but cause organizational chaos and policy failure? The answer will influence the ability of each party to advance a policy agenda.

When factions deny their party legislative victories, it often results in driving their leaders to seek accommodation on the other side of the aisle. Both Speakers John Boehner and Paul Ryan faced this tough calculus, especially on appropriations matters where legislative failure meant a government shut down. When factions’ tactics are uncompromising, it usually results in an outcome worse than if the party was unified. Yet that’s sometimes precisely what the faction members want because it bolsters their sub-brand.

The methods and motivation of sub-brands will flourish and expand in 2018. Members of factions will likely reap political benefits back home, but cause continued headaches for their leaders and perpetuate even more policy uncertainty inside our nation’s capital.