Versions of this debate extend to the modern day. Scholars such as David Mayhew (1974) have contended that contemporary representatives, in their paramount concern for reelection, act as a group to generate particularistic and perhaps inefficient public policies. They may focus on short-term gain at the expense of the "national" good. Alternatively, for Richard Fenno (1978) it is the local and personal connections between legislators and constituents which form the core of the representational relationship. 

In fact, it was Fenno's now classic Home Style, which shifted the attention of the "local"/ "national" debate to the "local". His emphasis on the dominant role played by the district in the representational process has since become the backdrop that shapes how modern political scientists understand representation. Through a combination of unique methodology and keen insight, Fenno provided evidence in support of Tip O'Neill's adage that "all politics is local." His work reminds readers that congresspeople have a constituency career fully as important as the one they pursue in Washington. In fact, members allocate considerable resources to serving their constituents, spend large portions of time in their districts so as to present themselves personally to constituents and explain their Washington activities in ways citizens will deem appropriate. Out of a combination of constituency characteristics and the member's own preferences, each member of Congress fashions a home style. However, the home styles of the legislators Fenno analyzed had several commonalties: they were generally characterized by a strong "local" presence, an emphasis on personal connections and trust-building relationships 

We agree with much of Fenno's work and with his discussion of the factors (constituency and personal) shaping a representative's home style. At the same time, we argue that the 1990s are a good time to reexamine the home styles of U.S. House members because many fundamental facts of political life have changed since Fenno's analysis. For one, there seems to be on the political landscape a more "national"atmosphere which members of Congress must take into account as they develop their home styles. Second, and consequently, the "local" and the "national" are more interconnected than scholarly work has thus far suggested.

Thus, our analysis of home styles represents a break with Fenno. First, we believe Fenno understated the "national" material in his book. A close reading indicates that national issues played a key role directly or indirectly in the home styles of many of his congresspeople, that the representatives he studied sometimes played important national roles, and that several constituencies actually wanted their representative to have, at least in part, a national focus. Yet, the more important reason for why our analysis differs is because the political environment has changed since the 1970s. National parties and interest groups have come to play a much greater role in the lives of representatives through electoral activity, money, and party discipline. The growing number of women and minorities within Congress raises the potential for new styles of representation interlinking constituencies across the nation. Finally, a proliferation of media, both national (C-SPAN, nationwide talk shows) and local (the Internet and Web sites) offer new challenges and opportunities for members of Congress as they make choices about how to focus their activities and present themselves to constituents. The 1990s is therefore a good time to reexamine Home Style and to rethink the local/national distinction. 

With these considerations in mind, we have undertaken an extensive study of the home styles of twelve New York representatives (we chose New York for its wide diversity of districts and members). We have garnered our material from a variety of publicly available sources as well as interviewing representatives. In addition to substantive conclusions, one of our most striking findings has to do with the incredibly large amount of publicly available material (media, the Internet, publications covering Congress, etc.) from which to glean information about Congress members. >From such material, we were impressed with how good an approximation to home style could be assembled.

We have organized our congressional profiles to highlight both the political changes which have taken place since Fenno wrote and the real world dilemmas modern day representatives face. Thus, our project includes chapters highlighting the distinctions between representatives who have "gone national" (Maloney, Boehlert) and those who have chosen to "stay local" (McHugh). A chapter dealing with national partisanship demonstrates the tradeoffs made by three other congresspeople (Kelly, McNulty, McCarthy) as they balance party and constituency concerns. Finally, two chapters are devoted to recruitment, considering how in the 1990s a representative's background impacts on his/her district oriented activities. We profile four representatives, the first two (Houghton and Walsh) contrast the home styles of an amateur/businessperson and a career politician. The second two (Velazquez and Engel) demonstrate not only the importance of recruitment but emphasize the new opportunities for the representation of minority interests given an increasingly multi-racial political environment. The last chapter returns full circle to Fenno's work, focusing on the continued existence of tensions prevalent at the local level and a congressperson's continued efforts to balance the reelection and primary constituency (Hinchey and Quinn).

While a vast array of material is the inevitable result emerging from the "soaking and poking" type of research, here, we highlight two conclusions. First, we are impressed with how well Fenno's model explains the behavior of contemporary representatives, even in a very different time period. Any analysis of representation in congressional districts must begin with an appreciation for the local, the ways members cultivate their constituents and develop trust. We have uncovered any number of illustrative examples of this: congresspeople fighting to keep military bases and jobs to preserve their district economies, representatives working hard to become visible presences in their districts through town meetings, radio call-in shows, and an incredible variety of local events (even a congressperson who literally brought a toilet plunger to a constituent), these 1990s legislators developed strong and personal district connections. Fenno is correct: if we seek to understand representation, we must begin by appreciating the importance of the local. 

At the same time, our second conclusion is that there are innumerable ways congresspeople have found to interconnect the local and the national. We have found it useful to conceptualize "national" in terms of three interrelated ideas. First, national and regional factors can serve as the backdrop for the development of many home styles. Thus, the declining economy throughout New York State has led some members (Quinn/minimum wage; McHugh and McNulty/preservation of military bases) to highlight employment related concerns. In 1992, the nationally hyped "year of the woman", a strong Democratic tide and extensive redistricting impacted politics in many congressional districts (Maloney actually capitalized on all three trends to pull off an upset victory). The centralizing force of party was apparent in the importance of partisan targeting (Hinchey) and, of course, member reactions to the Contract with America. Still, Republican Kelly jumped on the bandwagon; Republican Walsh did not. Though member responses to these extra-district forces may differ (depending on constituency and personal factors), most must in some way take them into account.

Second, members of Congress can integrate their Washington activity into their home styles though scholars (Fenno) typically see a zero-sum relationship between home and Washington (you can't be in two places at once), our representatives often found very positive ways to interconnect the local with the national. Representative Boehlert not only has the "fit" with and the trust of his constituents, but he is a nationally recognized environmental expert. Though the issue has no particular relationship with his district, he has made it a centerpiece of his campaign style. And his constituents appear to take pride in his issue leadership. While Sue Kelly served as a nationally visible spokesperson for the freshman class of the 104^th Congress, Michael McNulty has been an active insider in Democratic Party politics. Each style has had positive district effects. Other members (Engel/rental car discrimination; Hinchey/credit fraud) have developed issues of local level concern into national legislation or taken national concerns (The Contract with America) to the local level.

Finally, many representatives (Walsh/Irish affairs; Maloney/waste in government; Mcarthy/gun control) appear to have a long standing interest in particular public policies and a related vision of what they consider the common good. These legislators have expressed their interests as they have represented different constituencies or progressed through different levels of public office. Though these conceptions sometimes square with constituency considerations, sometimes they do not. Thus, in many cases, one could do a good job of representing these constituencies by emphasizing other concerns besides the ones these legislators have chosen to highlight.

In sum, while the local may come first, and while there may be considerable individual variation in how members react to common external forces, we argue that there are a surprising number of interconnections between the local and the national. Fenno is right: the local is unquestionably a preeminent part of the story. But national elements make their presence felt in the development of home styles.

Fenno, Richard F., Jr. 1978. Home Style: House Members in Their Districts. Boston: Little, Brown.

Mayhew, David. 1974. Congress: The Electoral Connection. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Storing, Herbert J. 1981. What the Anti-Federalists Were For. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.