Politics by Other Means

1. American Politics Has Shifted from Elections to "Politics by Other Means"

As the twentieth century draws to a close, America is entering what might be called a postelectoral era.

Elections' diminishing role. For much of American history, elections were the primary arena for popular choice and political combat, with high voter turnout reflecting intense competition. However, in recent decades, elections have become less decisive in resolving conflicts or constituting governments. This shift marks a significant change in the conduct of American politics.

Rise of alternative warfare. Contending political forces increasingly rely on "institutional combat" rather than all-out competition for votes. These non-electoral weapons include:

• Congressional investigations
• Media revelations
• Judicial proceedings
  This means that political struggles are now more frequently waged outside the traditional electoral realm.

Consequences for governance. This development has profound implications, as electoral success often fails to confer the capacity to govern effectively. Political forces can exercise considerable power even if they lose at the polls, leading to fragmented government and difficulty in achieving collective national purposes. The system often produces a government that cannot govern.

2. President and Congress Engage in Institutional Combat to Undermine Rivals

Rather than mobilize voters to attempt to overpower their foes in the electoral arena, over the past thirty years politicians have perfected alternative weapons of political combat.

Weaponizing branches. Both major parties have strategically used the elective institutions they control to weaken and disrupt those controlled by their rivals. This dynamic intensified during periods of divided government, where one party held the White House and the other controlled Congress.

Examples of executive power plays:

• Nixon: Impounded billions appropriated by Congress, sought to centralize executive agencies under White House control.
• Reagan/Bush: Tolerated budget deficits to preclude new congressional spending, increased presidential authority over executive agencies, sought line-item veto power.
• Reagan: Circumvented legislative restrictions like the War Powers Act.

Examples of legislative counter-offensives:

• Democrats (1970s): Expanded congressional committee staffs to monitor executive agencies, increased control over fiscal policy via the 1974 Budget and Impoundment Act, enacted foreign policy restrictions (Foreign Commitments Resolution, Arms Export Control Act).
• Democrats (post-Watergate): Launched major legislative investigations to embarrass Republican presidents (Watergate, Iran-Contra).
• Republicans (post-1994): Used control of Congress to launch inquiries into the Clinton administration (FBI files, campaign finance).

This institutional struggle is most pronounced when major branches are controlled by hostile political forces, leading to a continuous battle for power outside the ballot box.

3. The Judiciary and Media Have Become Potent Weapons in Political Warfare

Contending political forces have sought to use not only Congress and the presidency but also the federal judiciary and the mass media as instruments of political combat.

Judiciary's expanded role. The criminal justice system has become a powerful non-electoral weapon, with a tenfold increase in federal indictments against public officials between the early 1970s and 1996. The federal judiciary now resolves major policy issues like race relations and abortion, and plays a significant role in social welfare and economic policy.

• Increased litigation: Civil rights, environmental, feminist, and conservative groups increasingly use lawsuits to advance policy goals.
• Judicial confirmation battles: The growing importance of the judiciary makes these battles intensely fought.

Media's rise to power. The news media's political power has dramatically increased through "adversarial journalism," adopting a hostile posture toward government and public officials.

• Post-Vietnam shift: The Vietnam War shattered the press-presidency relationship, leading to critical coverage and a commitment to adversarial journalism.
• Alliance with liberals: Liberal political forces and national news media often found their interests overlapped, leading to a de facto alliance.
• Conservative media complex: Emerged in opposition, including newspapers, magazines, and talk radio, publicizing charges against liberal politicians.

These institutions, not directly subject to electoral control, have become increasingly significant players, shaping political narratives and influencing outcomes.

4. The "RIP" Weaponry (Revelation, Investigation, Prosecution) Defines Modern Conflict

The acronym for this, RIP, forms a fitting political epitaph for the public officials who have become its targets.

A new form of combat. The expanded political roles of the national news media and the federal judiciary have given rise to a major new weapon: Revelation, Investigation, and Prosecution (RIP). This weaponry was initially forged by opponents of the Nixon administration and later institutionalized.

Institutionalization of RIP:

• Ethics in Government Act (1978): Created the Office of the Special Prosecutor (later Independent Counsel), independent of the executive branch, with broad powers.
• Independent Counsel's power:
  • Not appointed to investigate a specific crime, but to determine if a crime has been committed.
  • Generously funded by Congress, allowing extensive probes.
  • Broad leeway to expand investigation scope to seemingly unrelated matters.

Case studies:

• Watergate: Began with media revelations, led to congressional investigation, special prosecutor, indictments, and Nixon's resignation.
• Iran-Contra: Assumed Congress would hold televised hearings and an independent counsel would investigate, despite officials in other democracies merely resigning.
• Whitewater/Clinton investigations: Multiple independent counsels (Fiske, Starr) probed financial dealings, official conduct, and personal morality, expanding to "Travelgate," "Filegate," and the Lewinsky affair.

The RIP process has become a routine feature of American politics, allowing political forces to discredit opponents and disrupt administrations.

5. Persistent Electoral Deadlock Fuels the Rise of Institutional Combat

Under these conditions, inconclusive elections and divided government are likely to be the norm in American politics.

Divided government as the norm. From the 1960s to the 1980s, Republicans often controlled the White House while Democrats controlled Congress. This pattern reversed in the 1990s, with Democrats holding the presidency and Republicans controlling Congress. This consistent division of power makes elections inconclusive and encourages both sides to seek other means of securing power.

Democratic presidential struggles (1968-1992):

• Liberal activism: Anti-Vietnam War and civil rights movements empowered liberal activists, leading to presidential candidates perceived as "too liberal" by the general electorate.
• Racial arithmetic: The party's reliance on both African American and white voters (some of whom were alienated by civil rights) created a difficult balancing act for candidates.

Republican presidential dominance (1968-1992):

• "Southern strategy": Exploited racial divisions (opposition to busing, affirmative action).
• Conservative issues: Emphasized school prayer, anti-abortion, tax cuts, increased defense spending.
• Media campaigns: Successful in presidential races, but less so in local/congressional contests.

The 1994 Republican "revolution": The GOP gained control of both houses of Congress by discrediting Democratic leadership, mobilizing grassroots conservatives (Christian Coalition, NRA), and using conservative talk radio to "nationalize" local races. This shift further solidified divided government.

6. Democrats Entrenched Themselves in the Domestic Social and Regulatory State

The Democrats’ base has its roots in the events of the 1930s and 1960s and, reinforced by the party’s hold on Congress, has become so well established that it can withstand Republican control of the White House.

Building a bureaucratic base. Since the New Deal, Democrats have systematically entrenched themselves within the "domestic state," comprising federal social service, labor, and regulatory agencies, as well as state and local government bureaucracies and non-profit organizations that administer national social programs. This institutional base provided stability even when the party lost the presidency.

Mechanisms of Democratic entrenchment:

• Personnel loyalty: Employees in agencies like HHS, DOL, and EPA, and their state/local counterparts, often hold Democratic loyalties due to shared commitment to public sector goals.
• Bureaucratic networks: Federal programs channel benefits to a wide array of interest groups (unions, minorities, middle-class homeowners), creating strong political links that supplanted traditional party organizations.
• Administrative resistance: Career employees in these agencies, committed to public sector programs, often resist Republican efforts to redirect or limit their activities, working with congressional Democrats to protect their programs.

New Deal origins: Franklin D. Roosevelt's creation of "alphabet agencies" and direct links to mass constituencies (Wagner Act, Social Security Act) began this transformation. While FDR sought to centralize power, his partial failure allowed executive agencies to cultivate independent alliances with Congress.

1960s and 1970s expansion: A coalition of middle-class liberals and blacks further expanded federal social and regulatory programs, reformed governmental procedures, and weakened traditional party organizations, making the Democrats more reliant on their bureaucratic bastions.

7. Republicans Launched a Multi-Phase Offensive to Dismantle Democratic Bastions

Beginning in 1981, the Republicans worked to weaken social service and regulatory agencies in which the Democrats were entrenched.

Phase 1: Disrupting Democratic institutions (Reagan/Bush). Republicans aimed to reduce the extractive, distributive, and regulatory capabilities of institutions linked to the Democrats.

• Tax reductions: Substantially cut individual and corporate income tax rates (1981, 1986), leading to enormous budget deficits. This limited Congress's ability to enact new spending programs and forced zero-sum conflicts among Democratic constituencies.
• Domestic spending cuts: Pressured funding levels for domestic programs, making it difficult for Democrats to enact new social initiatives.
• Deregulation: Promoted deregulation in transportation, energy, banking, and finance, and curtailed enforcement of environmental, health, safety, consumer, and antitrust laws. This weakened labor unions and disrupted business-labor alliances.

Phase 2: Assault by the 104th Congress (post-1994). After gaining control of Congress, Republicans launched a direct legislative assault.

• "Contract with America": Called for tax cuts, term limits, and a balanced budget amendment.
• House reorganization: Speaker Newt Gingrich centralized power, eradicated Democratic influence, overrode seniority in committee appointments, eliminated committees/subcommittees, and cut caucus/staff agency budgets.
• Budget cuts: Proposed substantial reductions in projected spending for Medicare, Medicaid, and welfare, aiming for a balanced budget within seven years.
• Regulatory reform: Required cost-benefit analyses for proposed regulations, making it harder for federal agencies to adopt and enforce rules.
• Devolution: Proposed converting federal entitlement programs (AFDC, Medicaid) into block grants to states, transferring power from federal agencies (seen as Democratic bastions) to state governments (often more conservative).
• Lobby and tort reform: Targeted liberal public interest groups and their funding mechanisms.

These efforts aimed to dismantle the institutional foundations of Democratic power and reshape the political landscape.

8. Republicans Reorganized Political Forces and Built New Governing Mechanisms

By undermining the governing capacities of institutions over which the Democrats exercised influence, the Republicans also weakened the Democrats’ social base.

Reshaping the political landscape. Republicans actively sought to destabilize Democratic constituencies and reorganize them under GOP auspices, transforming political identities and creating new alliances.

• Reunifying business: Appealed to both big business and smaller firms by promising to trim social programs, weaken labor, relax regulations, and increase defense spending, bridging the "Wall Street" and "Main Street" divide.
• From beneficiaries to taxpayers: Convinced middle-income suburbanites to focus on tax relief rather than federal benefits, linking them to the GOP and undermining support for Democratic expenditure programs. This also divided college-educated professionals, attracting private-sector professionals to the GOP.
• From workers to patriots: Weakened labor unions and urban machines through anti-union policies and domestic spending cuts. Appealed to blue-collar voters on moral/religious grounds (abortion, churches), patriotic sentiments (military force, flag), and race-related issues (anti-affirmative action, Willie Horton).
• From southerners to evangelicals: Exploited the disruption of the traditional southern Democratic regime by civil rights. Appealed to white southerners on race, religious orientations (fundamentalist churches, anti-abortion), and defense spending (military bases).

Constructing new governance mechanisms:

• National security apparatus: Reagan oversaw the largest peacetime military buildup, using military Keynesianism and procurement as industrial policy. Presidents asserted prerogative to deploy military force abroad (Grenada, Libya, Panama, Iraq, Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia), eroding Vietnam-era constraints.
• Monetary and fiscal policy: The enormous budget and trade deficits of the Reagan-Bush years functioned as a "novel revenue collection apparatus." Foreign creditors (especially Japan) purchased U.S. Treasury securities, effectively financing government expenditures without raising taxes.

These strategies allowed Republicans to build their own institutional bastions and governing capacities.

9. Institutional Combat Undermines Effective Governance and Creates Dual Sovereignty

By disrupting the traditional system of shared powers, the increasing prevalence of institutional combat has encouraged the major branches of government to develop various formal and informal means of governing autonomously.

Failure to govern. Contemporary American politics, dominated by institutional combat, undermines governance in several critical ways. Elections fail to definitively determine who will govern or who will not, leading to continuous struggles between "winners" and "losers" that distract from national problems.

Dual sovereignty emerges. The constitutional separation of powers has devolved into a system of "dual sovereignty," where Congress and the presidency pursue independent and often contradictory policies.

• Presidential autonomy: White House efforts to strengthen the presidency (e.g., Reagan's National Security Council for foreign policy, Executive Order 12291 for regulatory control) to act independently of Congress.
• Congressional autonomy: Congress expanded its own policy formulation capacity (e.g., Congressional Budget Office, General Accounting Office, increased committee staffs) and drafted detailed statutes to limit executive discretion.

Reliance on non-governmental entities. Lacking sufficient formal authority to govern autonomously, both branches resort to working through other institutions, including non-governmental entities.

• Fiscal policy: Reagan/Bush administrations used foreign banks (e.g., Japanese) to finance deficits, akin to "tax farming." Clinton proposed using tobacco companies and trial lawyers as "tax collectors."
• Foreign policy: Reagan administration used private firms and free-lance operators (e.g., Secord, Hakim) and foreign potentates to conduct covert operations, resembling "privateering" and mercenaries.
• Law enforcement: Congress authorized "citizen suits" and "private attorneys general" in environmental, consumer, and civil rights law, akin to "bounty hunting."

These expedients, reminiscent of early modern Europe, are inefficient, prone to abuse, and ultimately incompatible with popular sovereignty.

10. The Relentless Scrutiny of "RIP" Deters Capable Individuals from Public Service

In an era when policy disagreements lead to smear campaigns in the media, when independent counsels spend years and millions of dollars probing every last detail of a cabinet secretary’s life, when White House staffers can expect continually to need the services of expensive lawyers, why would any reasonable individual seek a career in public life?

Administrative incoherence. The constant institutional combat exacerbates the administrative incoherence of the American state. Congress's efforts to control administrative processes through detailed legislation, increased committee involvement, direct interest group participation, and expanded judicial intervention lead to fragmentation and disruption within the executive branch.

Devolution's impact. The Republican strategy of devolution, transferring administrative responsibilities for social services from the national government to the states, further robs the national government of significant administrative capacity. While intended to reduce the political power of Democratic-linked federal agencies, it fragments national policy implementation.

A chilling effect on public service. The pervasive "RIP" (Revelation, Investigation, Prosecution) environment creates a hostile climate for public officials.

• Personal costs: High-profile investigations (e.g., Whitewater, Lewinsky) lead to enormous legal bills for White House staffers, even if not charged with crimes.
• Distraction from governance: Administrations become paralyzed, with leaders and aides preoccupied with investigations rather than policy issues.
• Deterrent to talent: The risk of smear campaigns, endless probes, and financial ruin discourages able individuals from seeking careers in government and politics.

This cycle of attack and defense leaves administrations debilitated and unable to focus on policy, turning "RIP" into an "epitaph for democratic politics."

11. Full Electoral Mobilization, Though a Solution, Remains an Untaken Path

Were one of the parties to mobilize and forge organizational links to new voters, it might put itself in a position to gain control of all the major institutions of government.

Historical precedents for mobilization. Historically, political mobilization has been a powerful strategy to overcome governmental paralysis and entrenched interests.

• Lincoln: Mobilized an enormous army and national taxation system to fight the Civil War, relying on extensive party organization and popular support.
• FDR: Transformed the American institutional landscape by creating the modern welfare state, backed by a revitalized Democratic party, increased electoral turnout, and worker mobilization through unions.

The contemporary dilemma. While America's current problems may not be as acute as those of the Civil War or Great Depression, the prevailing political patterns impede adequate governmental responses. Full-scale electoral mobilization could provide a party with a mass base to gain control of all government institutions and achieve collective national purposes.

Barriers to mobilization:

• Organizational effort: Requires massive investment to reach the 50% of potential electorate not currently voting, especially low-income and poorly educated individuals.
• Legal/institutional impediments: Voter registration laws and communications technologies currently work against higher mobilization.
• Political disincentives:
  • Risks for Republicans: Fear of bringing in millions of traditionally Democratic poor and minority voters.
  • Risks for Democrats: Fear of creating uncertainties for current officeholders and diluting the influence of allied upper-middle-class interest groups.
  • Mutual wariness: Both liberal and conservative camps are wary of fuller popular participation (conservatives fear blacks, liberals disdain working-class whites).

As long as these political barriers persist, the path of electoral mobilization will remain untaken, perpetuating America's "undemocratic politics" and governmental incapacities.

Last updated: February 24, 2026