Politics and Governance: Conflicting Trends in the 1990s?

Abstract

The American political system has changed markedly in recent years, with important consequences for the conduct of intergovernmental relations. Historically, the noncentralized structure of political parties provided important avenues of state and local influence in Washington. Since 1974, however, dramatic changes in the parties have altered traditional relationships. Most striking has been the growth of the national party organizations, which in the last 15 years have evolved from weak and episodic entities to innovative senior partners in the party system. Nationalization has occurred as well in the interest-group arena, despite the overall expansion of public-interest-group activity. These and other developments have tended to erode state and local political influence over national policymaking. Ironically, however, such centralization stands in marked contrast to the increased innovation and assertiveness of the states in the 1980s. Reconciling these conflicting trends in politics and governance will be an important feature of intergovernmental politics in the 1990s.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

1. Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority, 469 U.S. 552 (1985).

2. E. E. Schattschneider , Party Government (New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1942), p. 129.

idem , The American System, ed. Daniel J. Elazar (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1966), p. 254.

4. Austin Ranney and Willmoore Kendall , Democracy and the American Party System (New York: Harcourt, Brace, & World, 1956), p. 160.

5. Cornelius Cotter and Bernard Hennessey , Politics without Power: The National Committees (New York: Atherton, 1964).

6. Xandra Kayden and Eddie Mahe, Jr. , The Party Goes On: The Persistence of the Two-Party System in the United States (New York: Basic Books, 1985), pp. 3, 4.

Cornelius Cotter and John Bibby , “Institutional Development of Parties and the Theory of Party Decline,” Political Science Quarterly 95:5 (Spring 1980).

See also Cornelius P. Cotter et al. , Party Organizations in American Politics (New York: Praeger, 1984).

9. See A. James Reichley , “The Rise of National Parties,” in The New Direction in American Politics, ed. John E. Chubb and Paul E. Peterson (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 1985), p. 193.

10.

10. Frank J. Sorauf and Paul Allen Beck , Party Politics in America (Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman, 1988), pp. 98-99.

11.

See also Richard J. Fenno , Home Styles: House Members in Their Districts (Boston: Little, Brown, 1978), pp. 113-114.

12.

12. Norman J. Ornstein , Thomas E. Mann , and Michael J. Malbin , Vital Statistics on Congress, 1987-1988 (Washington, DC: CQ Press, 1987), pp. 92-93.

13.

13. Representative Jim Leach, quoted in Elizabeth Drew , Politics and Money: The New Road to Corruption (New York: Macmillan, 1983), p. 34.

14.

14. Calculated from Kay Lehman Schlozman and John T. Tierney , Organized Interests and American Democracy (New York: Harper & Row, 1986), p. 75.

15.

Charles H. Levine and James A. Thurber , “Reagan and the Intergovernmental Lobby: Iron Triangles, Cozy Subsystems, and Political Conflict,” in Interest Group Politics, ed. Allan J. Cigler and Burdett A. Loomis , 2d ed. (Washington, DC: CQ Press, 1986), pp. 214-215.

16.

16. Donald H. Haider , When Governments Come to Washington (New York: Free Press, 1974), pp. 110, 111.

17.

17. Sorauf and Beck , Party Politics in America, p. 133.

18.

18. Barbara G. Salmore and Stephen A. Salmore , “The Transformation of State Electoral Politics,” in The State of the States, ed. Carl E. Van Horn (Washington, DC: CQ Press, 1989), p. 186.

19.

19. See David R. Beam , “Washington's Regulation of States and Localities: Origins and Issues,” Intergovernmental Perspective, 7:8-18 (Summer 1981).

20.

U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations , “Federal Preemption of State and Local Authority” (Draft report, Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, Aug. 1989), p. 2.

21.

21. Interview with Jim Martin, 28 July 1986, Washington, DC.

22.

22. John Herbers , “The New Federalism: Unplanned, Innovative, and Here to Stay,” Governing, 1:34 (Oct. 1987).

23.

23. David B. Truman , “Federalism and the Party System,” in American Federalism in Perspective, ed. Aaron Wildavsky (Boston: Little, Brown, 1967), pp. 92, 107.

24.

24. David Truman , “Party Reform, Party Atrophy, and Constitutional Change,” Political Science Quarterly, 99:640-647 (Winter 1984-85).

25.

25. Harold Wolman and Fred Teitlebaum , “Interest Groups and the Reagan Presidency,” in The Reagan Presidency and the Governing of America, ed. Lester M. Salamon and Michael S. Lund (Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press, 1985), pp. 313-314.

26.

26. Tom Watson , “Dale Florio: A Lobbyists' Middleman Who Helps Business Navigate State Capitol Halls,” Governing, 2:32-33 (Feb. 1989).

27.

27. Ibid., p. 32.