The most striking aspect of congressional life is the sheer independence of those that work on Capitol Hill. All but the very rare exceptions (such as Bernard Sanders of Vermont) are a member of one of two political parties party, yet partisan discipline is minimal by European standards. The reasons for this will be briefly addressed later. Without some form of partisanship, it could be expected that such a group of politicians (the word 'politicians' implying forthright views and consciousness of the electoral effects of their actions) would be almost impossible to lead. This, however, is not always the case. There are factors that can allow a congressional leader to successfully organise partisan action. Peabody suggests that Congress can be led when it wishes itself to be led. Strong leaders are able to act in times when there is partisan support for measures anyway. For this reason, it is difficult to evaluate the success of Congressional leaders themselves without putting them into the context of the factors which will encourage them to succeed or fail. These external factors will be addressed near the conclusion.

Before discussing what can be seen as successful Congressional leadership, it is necessary to first identify who the 'Congressional leaders' are. This is especially important because different factors can allow for the dominance of a particular post. As I have already implied, leadership will invariably be along partisan lines, rather than as leadership for Congress or a particular chamber as a whole. Except for in the rare cases of consensus in Congress, leaders can be seen as representing only the partisan contingent in their chamber. The differentiation between leadership in the two chambers also cannot be ignored, even when both are controlled by the same party.

In the House, the typical figurehead leader of the majority party is seen as the Speaker. The Speaker is elected on partisan lines from two candidates. The loser, the representative of the minority party will typically then become the Minority Leader. Unlike in the Senate, the House Speaker does have some constitutional powers, such as the ability to recognise members to speak and some say in legislative time-tabling. This gives some extra potential for influencing proceedings. As shall be discussed, other powers of the Speaker have fluctuated according to various reforms of the system. In addition to the Speaker, there is also the Majority Floor Leader and whips. Their role is equivalent to that of a minority leader and whips who help to organise partisan support and develop parliamentary strategy. The floor leaders are particularly relevant in persuading members to support the party, with the whips generally described as important in gaining information and being a link between representatives and the leadership. For this reason it is useful to link these centralised party positions together as they contrasts with the other centre for leadership, in the committees.

Committee chairs have power. They have the ability to set the timetable of legislation, to grant favours to other members and are central to the steering through of legislation; their legislation. There is little doubt that those on the Appropriations, Rules and Ways and Means Committees are able to have a large effect on Congress's agenda. Such power allows them to rightly be seen as being the focus of attention and so have a base to lead from. Although, through party's Committees committee the Speaker or minority leader has some say in appointments, the conventions of seniority allow members to build up their power bases generally unopposed. Party leaders must therefore acknowledge the ability of others to lead from committee posts. In addition to their potential power, committee chairs see themselves as important in leading their legislation through the legislative chamber. The equivalent can said of ranking members (the leading minority member of the committee) in trying to gain their amendments. In such cases, because of their personal interest in passing through such legislation they will often substitute the role of the floor leaders. This means that even those who chair less prestigious committees or even subcommittees can be seen at particular times be seen as taking a lead in Congress. They feel they are better informed to lead through legislation on their speciality than the general party hierarchy and may even seek alliances outside the party.The Senate lacks the constitutional position of leadership given to the House Speaker. In addition to this, six year terms and decades of political experience means that the average Senator is even more independently minded than even House Representatives. To lead such a group is not an easy task. There are, however, still the posts of minority and majority leaders and some whips. With a membership of less than a quarter of its sister chamber this process obviously requires less people. The role of committee leaders is equivalent to that in the House, with the important committees able to have a major say in the passage of legislation.Now that the political leaders have been identified, it is important to have a discussion of what constitutes successful leadership. This will therefore highlight what exactly the roles of the various leaders are. The most obvious measure of leadership success is the ability to get members to do as you wish. This can be seen as legislative support and for party leaders, as party cohesion. Externally, however, leaders can also be measured. Especially in a media age where personalities are used to best represent groups, the leadership (this goes for both parties and both houses) must be the public face of the their group. It would be impossible for the media to differentiate over five hundred individuals, so instead they seek the select band of 'leaders'. The ability of leaders to use such media is not only a power that can be used in Congress (in the art of persuasion that will be discussed), but also shows success in itself. This is particularly in regards to electioneering as they come to symbolise their party. In the era of the permanent campaign this role should not be ignored. Also, it must be noted that whilst the leader is leading, they must also be able to represent the state or district that they have been elected to serve.It is now possible to begin to try and discuss what determines the political success of Congressional leaders. In order to understand the methods of the shepherd, it is vital to understand the workings and motivation of his flock. Whilst it is true that members stand for one of two parties it is not true to state that each party stands for a coherent platform of policies. It would be hard to unite a New York Democrat with a Mississippi Democrat on issues of race (unless of course the Mississippi member had a largely minority constituency). This is the extreme, but in a country as vast and with as diverse interests as the US yet only two political parties, it is not hard to see how policy consistency would be difficult. Further, although members do invariably stand on party platforms, campaigning is largely individually centred. Coupled to incumbency returns exceeding ninety percent, this suggests that members do not need their party in the way that a European politician would. The realities of election mean that the interests of members are best served by moving towards support for the issues that effect their constituents (or at least enough of their constituents to gain them a majority). For this reason most members would see their concerns being primarily towards their constituents rather than their parties. Important also are those groups that help fund their campaigns, such as through political action committees (PAC's) or local party support.

Parties are not, however, irrelevant. Voters often vote along party lines and national parties do contribute to fund-raising efforts. Party successes are also useful tools to members. Politicians are extremely quick to associate themselves with anything that might be seen as successful by the public. For this reason, if their party is particularly popular, they will be more inclined to try reflect this glory towards themselves. This effect can also be reversed as unpopular parties will encourage independence or cross-partisanship of their members.
By therefore understanding this motivation, it is possible to see what resources could be available to the leadership. It is worthwhile quoting the then Senate Majority Leader, Lyndon Johnson when he said in 1960, "The only real power available to the leader is the power of persuasion. There is no patronage; no power to discipline; no authority to fire Senators like a President can fire his members of Cabinet ... It's persuasion with colleagues on both sides of the aisle. Anything the Senate may do requires a majority vote. About all the leader can do is to recommend". Although this is not the only power that leaders can have in the two chambers, this 'power to persuade' is central to the success of any of the leaders identified. Various factors will allow some leaders to persuade better than others and so be more successful.

It could rightly be assumed, for example, that personal abilities are central to this. If a leader can be seen as supportive, reliable and trustworthy they will be better able to move the opinions of members. Tied into this is respect, not for the office that they hold but for their personal statue. Much of this comes with seniority and other member will respect the knowledge of the workings of the Hill that an experienced leader can offer. The example often used to illustrate someone with such expertise is Robert Byrd of West Virginia. Byrd led the Senate from 1977 to 1980 and 1987 to 1988 yet still managed to show his influence during the 1999 impeachment trial of President Clinton. Often also, it can be seen that the most successful persuasive leaders are those which follow a moderate line. Successful persuaders are liked by the consensus or middle of their party and avoid radicalism or confrontation. From such a point it is harder for the party to split into factions. If, therefore, a primary objective of the partisan leadership is party unity, such a tact could be expected.

Perhaps it is part of persuasion but there are also some carrots that leaders are able to put in front of members, particularly near election times. The high profile nature of leaders means that to have them by their side can suggest to voters 'back home' how well connected their representative is. For this reason, the inducement of appearing in a member's district or speaking at a fund-raising dinner can leave a 'debt' to the leader. Leaders who understand and have detailed information of the specific interests of members will be better able to exploit such relationships.These points have been purposely vague as I believe that they can be used to apply to any of the positions of leadership that I have identified. Even a committee chair, who people recognise from television, can be a useful endorsement in a publicity campaign. It is now worth specifically turning to look at the specific leadership roles to see where else their power lies. The first to look at is the person who can be seen as the most identifiable leader in Congress, the House Speaker.

The apex of the power of the House Speaker was at the beginning of the 20th century. Then, the role also included being chairman of prestigious committees, including the Rules Committee. This gave them huge scope for appointments and time-tabling of House business. This gave many more powers to the Speaker than simply that to persuade. In the light of what many saw as the excesses of Speaker Joseph G. Cannon who used his power to greatly affect the flow of legislation, these powers were curtailed. The reforms of 1910 prevented a speaker from sitting on important committees, so lessening the leverage that the position held. It was later, in 1975 that some of these powers were restored in the Democratic party. This was done by allowing the Speaker to chair the party's Steering and Policy Committees. This gave him a greater say in committee assignments. In addition to this, the Speaker was to be allowed to nominate all the members of the Rules committee, including its chairman. This therefore allowed the Speaker to have the patronage that Johnson was claiming to be without in the previous decade. The seniority convention meant that this power of patronage was often limited. Especially because of the one-party states of the South and general incumbency returns, members were able to develop their own committee kingdoms that would be hard for a new speaker to break. This therefore means that it could be assumed that a speaker would have more power over less experienced, and so less entrenched representatives. This could certainly be suggested of the House who elected Newt Gingrich as speaker following electoral success of the GOP in 1994. By definition, the overturning of forty years of one party rule brought new faces onto the Hill. These freshmen had not yet had chance to build their own power bases and so were more susceptible to the will and persuasion of the Speaker.

Gingrich is himself an interesting case study of what determines leadership success. His 'Contract with America' brought the Republicans in from the wilderness that they had been in since Eisenhower was in the White House. Gingrich can be seen as a true leader in the sense that he had a clear agenda which he wished to get his party to follow. What is more, for the first part of the 104th Congress he was extremely successful. The special feature of Gingrich was that he persuaded representatives that they actually had something that is seemingly rare in US politics, a clear electoral mandate for national policies. Whether or not this is true is debatable, but regardless, he managed to show party leadership around a party agenda. His success became in a way self-fulfilling. The party united so that representatives could gain their share of the reflecting glory. He also managed to gain a lot of attention from the media. This perhaps gave him success in being able to be a strong (and ever present) national representative of his party. This later became a hazard as he began to symbolise also what many voters disliked about the Republicans.

The other interesting aspect of the Gingrich reign was that it also showed not only the height of a speaker's powers, but also when they could be limited. When, against many predictions, the GOP lost seats (but not House control) in the 1998 mid-term elections, Gingrich realised that he was a handicap to be associated with. In fact, far earlier had his practical successes been limited (especially by a Democratic President willing to use a line-veto and risk a governmental shutdown). At the point of his resignation, however, his credibility even within his party had been damaged. If anything is vital to the 'power to persuade', it is credibility, the backbone of any description of political capital.

The ability of committee chairs (in both chambers) to exert power depends on many ways on the committee that they chair. In many occurrences in order to lead they have only their personal skills. In other cases their committees have the remit to greatly aid particular constituencies. The placement of military institutions, public works projects or similar Federal spending can be used as both a carrot and stick in relations with other members. This is why the power of a speaker to appoint to such committees which are capable of 'granting the boodle' is so important. The dominance of the Democrats in the South, leading to representatives with greater seniority and so high rankings in committees is suggested to account for the great military presence in this region. They are also better able to gain support from those members who are directly affected by the legislation that they have framed, such as those with rural constituencies more likely to be involved in legislation from the Agricultural Committee.

In the Senate much the same can be said of the Majority Leader as was of the House Speaker. The limit being that it is invariably harder to persuade senators who represent far larger constituencies than representatives, have greater terms in office (so further removed from the changeable whims of their electorates) and, because of their average age, generally have less of a political career ahead of them to worry about. They are therefore highly independent, considered, and less likely to be open to the pressures that can be used by essentially toothless party leaders. Those who know the institution well are still able to have some political successes. It was said of Lyndon Johnson that he was able to know how to deal with senators and understand their particular interests, yet still appear strong as a figurehead.Before concluding, it is necessary to note another series of factors which are vital in determining leadership success. They are to be included together because they are the factors largely external to the control of any leadership, yet their importance possibly dwarfs all those above. The first of these factors is the White House. Although Newt Gingrich tried, it is far harder to lead a party when a member of your party is not residing at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. If for no other reason, a President from your party removes an possible opponent who would have veto (although it must be acknowledged that there are cases of vetoes being used under unified arrangements). A President of the same party requires less negotiating and so less dilution of legislation. This does not mean unified government gives the legislature no executive objections, but it does reduce the possibility of it. Much the same can also be said for the importance of who is in the majority in the other legislative chamber.

The second largely external factor is that of party representation in the chamber that you are leading. A leader with a large majority behind them, such as that enjoyed by Lyndon Johnson after the 1958 elections, would be expected to have an easier time in gaining majorities. Although there is much dealignment in member's voting, on average they are more likely to support their own party's leadership.
The success or failure of a leader over a particular issue can also be greatly affected by public opinion and interest group involvement. As was suggested above, member's loyalties are not primarily with their leadership, but often with those who fund their campaigns or vote for them. For this reason, if there is a major interest that goes against what a leader is trying to gain support for, they are largely powerless. In addition to this is the power of the caucuses that exist in Congress, independent of party control. These sometimes contain members of both parties and it is suggested that the typical House member currently belongs to sixteen caucuses and the typical Senator to fourteen. These competing pressures for the loyalties of members, when relevant, can act to block out traditional leaders.In all, there is both great scope for and great limits to political leadership in Congress. The diversity of possible power bases and lack of disciplinary resources available mean that much is reliant on both the person and the political context that leaders find themselves in. Perhaps in the complex web of personal interactions it is simply difficult to identify when a leader is being particularly successful. What is, however, clear is that the power to persuade and the traits associated with doing so must be seen as central.

The last observation to make is simply to note that in most European legislatures, the primary leader is the chief executive. Whilst there is certainly chance for a President to be seen in such a role, suggesting legislation in his State of the Union address, there are as many limits to his participation as of any of the other potential leaders identified.