Congressmen and Their Communication Practices
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Copyright by Dorothy Hartt Cronheim 195 d CONGRESSMEN AND THEIR COMMUNICATION PRACTICES DISSERTATION Presented In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By DOROTHY HARTT CRONHEIM, A.B., M.A. ****** The Ohio State University 1957 Approved by: Department of Political Science PREFACE In developing the picture of congressional communi cation practices portrayed in this study, I drew upon the survey replies received from the offices of 25 per cent of the senators and representatives who served in the 2d Session of the 84th Congress. Interview answers from 138 members or their assistants were also primary sources of data. Other facts, ideas, and anecdotes were garnered during numerous coffee breaks with several of their staff members, half a dozen Washington correspondents, and various participants in the congressional interneship program of the American Politi cal Science Association. On the basis of the Interview and survey,replies of a geographic cross section of the 96 senators, I also sought to learn whether or not their activi ties in the communications area are affected by certain conditions inside and outside of Congress. Despite the widespread cooperation I received, certain limitations on this kind of study must be recognized. It is limited to answers about practices that congressmen are will ing to acknowledge, even though some of their most important practices may thus be excluded. It Is limited by the skill of the interviewer, the representativeness of the sample, and the responsiveness of those interviewed. Given these re strictions, the defense of the study and its methods turns upon the fact that surveys and interviews are the chief re search tools available to persons interested in this aspect - li - iii of congressional behavior. Furthermore, even if the find ings prove incomplete, they may serve as exploratory land marks for future investigators. The months of research spent on this study have been brightened in countless ways by the help and encouragement I received from those who participated in it as respondents or advisers and from two friends who cheerfully tolerated my musings about it over many a cup of afternoon tea. The senators and their administrative assistants, the repre sentatives and their secretaries— all on Capitol Hill were as kind and helpful as any investigator could wish. My thanks go to each of them for willingly supplying the raw data which made the study possible. Like all new political scientists, I owe much to the faculty members under whom I have studied en route to the Ph.D. degree. The list of their contributions is too long to record, but I am grateful for all of them. However, I would like to acknowledge the special assistance of the members of my dissertation committee: 1. To Professor E. Allen Helms, its chairman, my appreciation both for his willingness to assume this extra-burden after the study was well under way and for his thoughtfulness in making himself available for consultation during the months he was "off-duty." 2. To Professor Lawrence J, R. Herson, for numerous profitable discussions about how to avoid methodological roadblocks and for helping me spot several rocky spots in the road before I passed the detour signs. 3. To Professor Harvey C. Mansfield, for his kind support when the paper was at a critical stage and for his suggestions about its objectives which helped me bring it into focus again and carry it on to its conclusion. Finally, I will always be indebted to the late Professor Dayton E. Heckman, under whom this study was begun, for his inspiring example as a teacher, for his many kindnesses both as adviser and friend, and for his sense of justice, which was exceeded only by his thoughtfulness. TABLE OP CONTENTS Chapter Page I. CONGRESSMEN AND THEIR COMMUNICATION PROBLEMS . 1 II. TOOLS AND OBJECTIVES......................... 8 III. COMMUNICATION PRACTICES OP THE MEMBERS OP THE 84TH C O N G R E S S .............................. 19 IV. INFLUENCES ON COMMUNICATION PATTERNS.......... 38 V. ECOLOGY: THE CONGRESSIONAL ENVIRONMENT .... 67 VI. ECOLOGY: THE STATE E N V I R O N M E N T ............. 86 VII. PATTERNS AND AFTERTHOUGHTS.................... 94 APPENDIX .............................................. 105 BIBLIOGRAPHY .......................................... 139 - v - LIST OP TABLES TABLE Page 1. STATUTORY PROVISIONS FOR CONGRESSIONAL COMMUNICA- 10 TIONS, 1956 .................................. 2. TELEVISION AND RADIO RATES, SENATE RECORDING STUDIO, 1956 12 3. METHODS OR MATERIALS USED REGULARLY............. 20 4. TECHNIQUES OF COMMUNICATION CONGRESSMEN USE MOST. 29 5. SOURCES USED IN SELECTING S U B J E C T S ............ 34 6 . MOST EFFECTIVE METHOD OF COMMUNICATING WITH CONSTITUENTS ................................. 6l 7. COMPARISONS OF QUANTITIES OF METHODS USED WITH SENIORITY POSITIONS ........................ 70 8 . COMPARISONS OF QUANTITIES OF TECHNIQUES USED WITH SENIORITY POSITIONS .................... 71 9. COMPARISONS OF QUANTITIES OF METHODS AND TECH NIQUES USED BY JUNIOR AND SENIOR SENATORS . .72-73 10. COMPARISONS OF QUANTITIES OF METHODS AND TECH NIQUES USED BY SENATORS WHO CLASSIFY THEMSELVES AS LEADERS OR FOLLOWERS...................... 75 11. COMPARISONS OF QUANTITIES OF COMMUNICATION METHODS AND TECHNIQUES USED BY LEADERS OR NON LEADERS OR NATIONAL OPINION .................. 76 12. COMPARISONS OF QUANTITIES OF COMMUNICATION METHODS AND TECHNIQUES USED BY LEADERS OR NON LEADERS AMONG SENATORS . .................. 77 13. RELATIONS BETWEEN STATUS OF SENATORS AND METHODS U S E D .................................80-81 14. RELATIONS BETWEEN STATUS OF SENATORS AND TECHNIQUES U S E D ...............................82-83 13. COMPARISONS OF THE METHODS AND TECHNIQUES USED BY SENATORS FROM STATES WITH DIVERSE POLITICAL SYSTEMS........................ .87-88 - vi LIST OP TABLES (CONT'D ) TABLE Page 16. COMPARISONS OF THE METHODS AND TECHNIQUES USED BY SENATORS PROM STATES WITH DIFFERENT POPULA TION CHARACTERISTICS ........................ 89 17. RELATIONS BETWEEN THE STATE ENVIRONMENTS OF THE SENATORS AND THE METHODS THEY USE REGULARLY . 92 18. RELATIONS BETWEEN THE STATE ENVIRONMENTS OF THE SENATORS AND THE TECHNIQUES THEY USE MOST .. 93 LIST OF TABLES IN APPENDIX TABLE Page 1. REGIONAL DISTRIBUTION OF UNITED STATES SENATORS (SEE APPENDIX V ) ........................... 130 2. SENIORITY POSITIONS OF MEMBERS OF THE SENATE (SEE APPENDIX V I ) ............................... 132 3. DISTRIBUTION OF SENATORS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE NUMBER OF METHODS AND TECHNIQUES OF COMMUNICA TION USED (SEE APPENDIX V I I I ) ...............136 - vli' - CHAPTER I CONGRESSMEN AND THEIR COMMUNICATION PROBLEMS The thinking citizen who witnessed the presidential uses of radio during World War II and the congressional uses of television during the post-war investigations of security problems knows full well that the national leader who speaks effectively can have a tremendous effect upon both the attl- y tudes and the behavior of the American people. Because he felt the nationwide impact of the "trials by television" of the 1950's, because he saw Senator Estes Kefauver become a national figure almost overnight as a result of the tele vision coverage of his crime investigations, he realizes how much modern methods of communication have increased the public official's ability to influence the thinking of those he was chosen to serve. Therefore, he and his fellow citi zens have cogent reasons for seeking information about the communication practices of their elected representatives. In Congress, all members share the legislator's age- old concern about keeping in touch with his district. The reasons they communicate may vary as much as their methods, but all of them realize that the member who loses contact with his constituents will also be likely to lose their support. - 1 - 2 In addition, the long history of congressional pro visions for written and oral correspondence between the national legislators and the public bears witness to the im portance Congress Itself attaches to such informational activities. The inclusion of provisions for such items as the joint House-Senate radio-television facility, stationery allotments, telephone and telegraph services in the annual appropriations for the legislative branch also suggests that at least a majority of the members still consider these practices both necessary and valuable. Therefore, they, too, may wonder: What are the communication patterns of contempo rary congressmen? The student of politics also has reason to be inter ested in this aspect of congressional behavior.. He knows that much of the public's impression of its congressmen is a by-product of the images the members create of themselves in the pursuit of their duties. In corresponding with their constituents, for example, they do much to solidify these impressions. Moreover, he knows that tomorrow's congressmen like their predecessors will probably continue to make ample use of letters and other methods of communication, for, as de Tocqueville observed, the representative in a democracy must incessantly court the voters in order to retain his position.1 Finally, if public interest in the Democracy in America, ed. by Phillips Bradley, Vol. II (New York: Knopf, 1 9 ^ )* PP. 89-9 0 . 3 activities of Congress has been declining in recent years, as many have said, the student of politics has reason to ask: Are the members' communication practices contributing