Final answer:
In the smaller Senate, looser rules lead to discouragement of intense partisanship compared to the House. Senate leaders encourage wider-ranging appeal and compromise, necessitated by their structure and rule-set, while the larger House's majoritarian system grants greater power to its leaders.
Step-by-step explanation:
In the Senate, which is much smaller than the House, looser rules tend to discourage intense partisanship. The Senate's structure, with its longer six-year terms and larger constituencies, necessitates that senators maintain a broader appeal. This differs from the House's more frequent engagement with the direct demands of constituents due to shorter two-year terms. Senate rules that allow for holds and filibusters mean that a super-majority is often required to pass legislation, encouraging more moderation and compromise. Additionally, the Senate's smaller size may facilitate better opportunities for compromise and less polarized discussions.
With regards to foreign policy matters, House members and senators are often less active than in domestic issues because constituents are more directly affected by domestic policy topics than foreign ones. Domestic issues typically have a more immediate and tangible impact on constituents, influencing the priorities of their representatives in Congress.
It is also notable that House leaders are more powerful than Senate leaders because the House operates under a majoritarian system, allowing a simple majority to control the legislative process. This centralization of power contrasts with the Senate's requirement for a super-majority to overcome filibusters, promoting a more collaborative atmosphere within its smaller membership.