Randall Strahan is a professor in the political science department. In 2009 he received the Emory Williams Distinguished Teaching Award, Emory University’s highest award for teaching excellence.

1) There was a lot of talk after last Friday’s televised discussion between President Obama and the Republican House caucus about establishing an institutionalized “question time,” similar to what they have in the British parliament. Is this a feasible idea?

No. It is very unlikely that the White House is going to agree to do this on a regular basis. Also, the idea that such a practice would somehow contribute to greater bipartisanship is misplaced if question time in the British Parliament is the model. Question time is almost always a spirited partisan sparring match between the prime minster and the opposition parties. Great fun to watch but not very conducive to encouraging cooperation across party lines.

2) How do the attitudes of congressional Republicans toward Obama compare to what George W. Bush and Bill Clinton faced from the opposition party?

Partisan polarization in Congress has been increasing in Congress since the 1990s. However, there will always remain opportunities to build bipartisan coalitions in some areas. A good example right now would be the trade agreements President Obama called on Congress to approve in the State of the Union address. Whether bipartisanship will be possible on health-care reform or the budget remains to be seen. I am not very optimistic about bipartisan cooperation on these issues in the near term.

3) The Village Voice drew laughs by claiming Scott Brown’s Senate victory gave the GOP a “41-59 majority.” How has the filibuster evolved to become what it is now?

In the past there was informal agreement among senators to limit use of the filibuster to issues of greatest concern. Now, as the Senate has become more individualistic and partisan, use of the filibuster — or more often the threat of a filibuster — has become a routine parliamentary tactic.

4) Do you think significant institutional reform either modifying or eliminating the filibuster is even a remote possibility?

Not right now. Reform of the filibuster will probably take 67 votes in the Senate and could only occur if the filibuster were being used to block some measure that has overwhelming public support.

5) Do you see any merit to the idea that the Democratic senate leadership should force Republicans to stage actual filibusters, phonebooks and all?

This might restrain some of the filibuster threats, but if done very often it would cause legislative business to back up even more than it has right now. It also would quickly become a burden to Democrats who would constantly have to be coming to the Senate floor to maintain a quorum.

6) Is it possible for Harry Reid to effectively lead the Senate while he’s fighting for his political life in Nevada?

It is certainly a difficult situation for a party leader to try to do both. This situation is why members of the House and Senate usually try to select leaders who hold safe seats.

7) If Reid loses, how do you see a potential leadership battle between Sens. Dick Durbin and Chuck Schumer playing out?

Both are strong partisans who will move very aggressively to begin lining up support within the Senate Democratic party if Senator Reid’s political situation at home does not improve fairly quickly. I might give a slight edge to Sen. Schumer because he has been such an active fundraiser for the party.

8) Aside from Lyndon Johnson, which past majority leaders have set models of effective leadership?

The Senate is an extraordinarily difficult legislative body to lead because the rules give each individual senator — including those in the minority party — so much power. Among the most effective recent leaders I would include Bob Dole of Kansas, George Mitchell of Maine (who gave the Emory commencement address a few years back), Tom Daschle of South Dakota, and the current Republican minority leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. Reaching back a bit further, Emory alum Alben Barkley of Kentucky was an able leader of the Democratic majority during World War II.

9) During last week’s Senate debate over “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) drew ridicule for saying repeal could lead to “alcohol use, adultery, fraternization and body art.” Do you think comments like that — and former Sen. Ted Stevens, then-chairman of the Science, Commerce and Transportation Committee, calling the Internet a “series of tubes” — hurts the Senate’s credibility?

Relatively few Americans, with the exception of political science professors, journalists and a few other assorted political junkies, pay much attention to these kinds of comments from individual senators. Recent polls show that only about half of the American public even know who Democratic Senate Leader Harry Reid is, or are sure enough about who he is to have an opinion of him. Public opinion about the performance of Congress is driven much more by the state of the country and the tone of Washington politics than by comments of individual senators.

10) Which members of Congress do you think may rise quickly to national prominence, as Obama did four years ago?

It is very hard to say. Senator Scott Brown of Massachusetts has become very visible, very quickly because of the unusual circumstances of his election. Al Franken of Minnesota is quickly developing a reputation as an outspoken member of the Senate. Senator Mark Warner of Virginia could play a larger role in national politics in the future. Another talented new member to keep your eye on is Senator George LeMieux of Florida, Emory College class of ’91.

— Interview by Editorials Editor Asher Smith