ABSTRACT
Former Senator Fred Harris targets the public, politicians, and pundits as his audience; Leroy Rieselbach targets his fellow political scientists and their students. Harris's "defense" of Congress incorporates many telling criticisms of the institution's limitations, along with his recommendations for needed reforms. Harris's political and partisan purpose might benefit greatly from Rieselbach's more principled political science. Harris's stated purpose in his book In Defense of Congress is to "stand up" for Congress and to suggest some improvements. The author provides a somewhat journalistic account of recent scandals that have prompted calls for reform, to the point, for example, of almost wallowing in the John Tower and Clarence Thomas nomination episodes. Harris concludes that Congress in the 1980s and early 1990s was more representative and responsive than the pre-reform Congress of the 1950s. He summarizes his proposed congressional reforms in the epilogue, including some substantial reforms in legislative rules, and budget process, and an overhaul of the campaign finance system.
