Impact of Reform, Money, and Television
The Washington establishment has been blown wide open
.
—Tommy Boggs, lobbyist
The political fault line from the Old Washington power game to the New Washington power game was 1974.
To most Americans, 1974 was the memorable year in which Richard Nixon was driven from the White House by the Watergate scandal. But Watergate is now behind us and what is far less well remembered—even though it is more enduring—is that 1974 was also the year that climaxed a political earthquake. It was an earthquake that shook the established power structure of the American political system.
Forces which had been pulling at the threads of power for several years finally ripped apart the tighter weave of the old power structure. The old political game was shoved aside, and a new game took over. The political context for governing changed. That transformation dramatically altered how power works in Washington. And the impact is still with us today.
After decades highlighted by periods of presidential dominance from Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson to Franklin Roosevelt, Congress finally revolted, and not just for the moment: Changes were made that would affect how we are governed for a long time to come.Angered by Lyndon Johnson’s conduct of the Vietnam War, Richard Nixon’s intentional confrontations over government spending, and Nixon’s abuses of power such as illegal wiretapping and using the Internal Revenue Service to go after political enemies, an assertive Congress rose up to challenge not just Nixon but the presidency as an institution. As
The Wall Street Journal
observed in 1973, Nixon “aroused a snoozing Congress and made it mad.” 1
Congress seized for itself the legal authority and the expertise to insure that its challenge to the chief executive would be permanent. As if that were not upheaval enough, the House of Representatives also assaulted the citadel of the old congressional power system—seniority—and then balkanized its own power: It created scores of “subcommittee governments,” each taking charge of a slice of federal policy.
That same fateful year of 1974 also gave rise to a big class of new House Democrats, who shook the foundations further by throwing out several established power barons.
As these three upheavals were happening in Congress, a fourth change was occurring in the basic power system in Washington: The power of political parties, which had provided a critical glue, a vital force for cohesion in American government, was being dissolved by a highly mobile, independent-minded, ticket-splitting electorate.
The weakening of the parties and the trend toward a more wide-open power system was hastened by the mushrooming importance of television—and of its political offspring, a new generation of video politicians whose medium was the tube rather than the political clubhouse.
Finally, the increased fragmentation of governmental power set off a political gold rush among thousands of special interest groups, all of whom were bent on panning the new streams of power for nuggets, and were well enough heeled to buy their way into the New Washington power game.
To be sure, the fundamental structure of the old political system was still standing and many old habits remained. No one had torn up the Constitution. But within the basic framework, the rules of the power game had been rewritten, and the old power relationships had been dramatically shaken up. What emerged was a more fluid system of power, one which made the American political system harder to lead than just a couple of decades ago.
For one thing, the sheer volume and velocity of political activity became staggering. The profusion of activity took a quantum leap since the 1960s and especially in the phenomenal growth decade from the mid-seventies to the mid-eighties. Everyone flocked to Washington:trade associations, health and welfare groups, labor unions, businesses, environmentalists,
The Washington establishment has been blown wide open
.
—Tommy Boggs, lobbyist
The political fault line from the Old Washington power game to the New Washington power game was 1974.
To most Americans, 1974 was the memorable year in which Richard Nixon was driven from the White House by the Watergate scandal. But Watergate is now behind us and what is far less well remembered—even though it is more enduring—is that 1974 was also the year that climaxed a political earthquake. It was an earthquake that shook the established power structure of the American political system.
Forces which had been pulling at the threads of power for several years finally ripped apart the tighter weave of the old power structure. The old political game was shoved aside, and a new game took over. The political context for governing changed. That transformation dramatically altered how power works in Washington. And the impact is still with us today.
After decades highlighted by periods of presidential dominance from Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson to Franklin Roosevelt, Congress finally revolted, and not just for the moment: Changes were made that would affect how we are governed for a long time to come.Angered by Lyndon Johnson’s conduct of the Vietnam War, Richard Nixon’s intentional confrontations over government spending, and Nixon’s abuses of power such as illegal wiretapping and using the Internal Revenue Service to go after political enemies, an assertive Congress rose up to challenge not just Nixon but the presidency as an institution. As
The Wall Street Journal
observed in 1973, Nixon “aroused a snoozing Congress and made it mad.” 1
Congress seized for itself the legal authority and the expertise to insure that its challenge to the chief executive would be permanent. As if that were not upheaval enough, the House of Representatives also assaulted the citadel of the old congressional power system—seniority—and then balkanized its own power: It created scores of “subcommittee governments,” each taking charge of a slice of federal policy.
That same fateful year of 1974 also gave rise to a big class of new House Democrats, who shook the foundations further by throwing out several established power barons.
As these three upheavals were happening in Congress, a fourth change was occurring in the basic power system in Washington: The power of political parties, which had provided a critical glue, a vital force for cohesion in American government, was being dissolved by a highly mobile, independent-minded, ticket-splitting electorate.
The weakening of the parties and the trend toward a more wide-open power system was hastened by the mushrooming importance of television—and of its political offspring, a new generation of video politicians whose medium was the tube rather than the political clubhouse.
Finally, the increased fragmentation of governmental power set off a political gold rush among thousands of special interest groups, all of whom were bent on panning the new streams of power for nuggets, and were well enough heeled to buy their way into the New Washington power game.
To be sure, the fundamental structure of the old political system was still standing and many old habits remained. No one had torn up the Constitution. But within the basic framework, the rules of the power game had been rewritten, and the old power relationships had been dramatically shaken up. What emerged was a more fluid system of power, one which made the American political system harder to lead than just a couple of decades ago.
For one thing, the sheer volume and velocity of political activity became staggering. The profusion of activity took a quantum leap since the 1960s and especially in the phenomenal growth decade from the mid-seventies to the mid-eighties. Everyone flocked to Washington:trade associations, health and welfare groups, labor unions, businesses, environmentalists,
Similar Books
