Partisan Infighting Among House Republicans: Leaders, Factions, and Networks of Interests

Abstract

Congressional parties are commonly viewed as unified legislative teams, but recent intraparty battles have revealed serious ideological divisions within the House Republican caucus. Using annual ratings from nearly 300 interest groups, we estimate the ideological locations of Republican legislators in order to map their party's factional structure. Based on the distribution of interest‐group support from 2001 to 2012, we detect three Republican factions that we characterize as worker oriented, pro‐business, and ethno‐radical. We find that Republican leaders block bills by legislators in the worker and ethno‐radical subgroups and that they advance bills by members in the corporate faction.

How Local Factions Pressure Parties: Activist Groups and Primary Contests in the Tea Party Era

“…Such findings suggest that the intra-party strife over policy, practice, and adherence to democratic norms under Trump can be understood as a continuation of factional divisions that were exacerbated during the Tea Party era. This work also highlights the importance of factions like the Tea Party in shaping parties' policy platforms, election strategies, communication, and organizational structures (Bendix and Mackay 2017;Bloch Rubin 2017;Blum 2020;Clarke 2020;Cohen et al 2016;Cowburn and Knüpfer 2023;DiSalvo 2012;Kamarck 2014;Masket 2020;Noel 2016;Saldin and Teles 2020;Thomsen 2017).…”

Political Parties and Interest Incorporation: A New Typology of Intra-Party Groups

“…sense of identity (Bendix and MacKay, 2017). Intra-party groups can thus fulfil several purposes (Belloni and Beller, 1976: 545-547;Beller and Belloni, 1978: 437-442).…”

“…], candidates for public office’. When studying parties’ internal divisions or ideological composition, scholars have often been content to simply speak of ‘factions’ when referring to groups that seek to realise their goals within a party (Bendix and MacKay, 2017; Boucek, 2009, 2012; Ceron, 2019; Janda, 1980). In contrast, scholars of parties’ linkages with society often preferred more fine-grained classifications.…”

“…However, many party branches and auxiliary organisations also have their own agenda with regard to selecting candidates and formulating the party’s platform (Poguntke, 2002: 49–51, 2006: 402). In turn, factions have also helped integrate groups (Boucek, 2012: 36; Chandra, 2004: 107; McAllister, 1991: 209), and even loose groupings of likeminded party members can stimulate joint policy initiatives and provide a sense of identity (Bendix and MacKay, 2017). Intra-party groups can thus fulfil several purposes (Belloni and Beller, 1976: 545–547; Beller and Belloni, 1978: 437–442).…”

“…To ensure that these groups are not empty shells, scholars have often looked at activities like organising meetings and rallies (Bentancur et al, 2019: 54–55; Ellinas, 2020: 80–93; Krauss and Pekkanen, 2011: 101–102, 115). This focus on collective action, finally, has been at the heart of studies identifying intra-party groups by looking at party congress motions, roll-call votes or the co-sponsorship of bills (Bendix and MacKay, 2017; Blum, 2020: Chapter 6; Ceron, 2019: Chapter 2).…”