Chapter 1 Political Comp
Introduction
The dynamics of state change and political power struggle are articulated by Steven Skowronek in Building a New American State, emphasizing that institutional positioning—the existing governmental structures like federalism, separation of powers, and the established norms or precedents—heavily influences political competition. For example, the institutional requirement for Senate confirmation of judicial appointments significantly shapes the nature of judicial selection and the types of candidates considered.
The Structure of Political Competition
Mediation by State Structure
Political competition is critically influenced by the organization of the existing state, which dictates the rules of engagement and the pathways to power. For instance, the US system of checks and balances means that no single branch can unilaterally enact policy, requiring extensive negotiation and coalition-building across the legislative and executive branches.
Challengers to a regime do not operate in isolation; their actions must be shaped around established norms and institutions, such as constitutional frameworks, administrative procedures, and federal arrangements. A new social movement, for example, must decide whether to pursue change through congressional lobbying, judicial challenges, state-level initiatives, or direct action, all within existing structural constraints.
Historical Context
The conservative legal movement's development can only be understood by examining the previous liberal political frameworks that shaped political competition, including New Deal legislation (e.g., Social Security Act, National Labor Relations Act) and Great Society programs (e.g., Medicare, Medicaid, Civil Rights Act of 1964) that expanded federal power and created a large administrative state.
Impact of Liberal Reformers
The establishment of a comprehensive range of policy commitments from social insurance to civil rights, environmental protection (e.g., Clean Air Act, creation of the EPA), and consumer safety has transformed the political landscape by creating new governmental responsibilities and programs.
A premium was placed on expertise and professional qualifications during this transformation, leading to the 'legalization' of society characterized by extensive regulatory systems, administrative law, judicial review, and litigation frameworks. For example, the creation of regulatory bodies like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requires a vast network of legal and technical experts to draft and enforce regulations, and necessitates ongoing litigation to interpret and apply these rules.
The Rise of Policy Networks
The Effects of Professionalization
As the national government promoted the professionalization of various sectors, this fostered closer ties between different government levels and civil society, often through federal grants, joint projects, and the circulation of personnel among government agencies, universities, and non-profits. An example is the proliferation of federal funding for academic research, which created a direct link between universities and governmental policy goals.
Growth in higher education, especially in graduate programs in fields like public administration, economics, political science, and urban planning, supplied the workforce necessary for the expanded liberal policy goals and intricate bureaucratic tasks. This led to a shared professional language and approach among policy actors.
Fragmentation of Responsibility
The fraying of separation of powers and federalism resulted in overlapping governmental programs, complicating accountability for policy outcomes as roles and responsibilities became less clear. For instance, a complex issue like education policy can involve mandates from the Department of Education, funding from state legislatures, and implementation by local school districts, making it hard to pinpoint responsibility for successes or failures.
The shift towards low-visibility incremental policy change diminished the electoral significance of large-scale policy reforms, as many decisions occurred within specialized bureaucratic channels rather than through broad public debate. Regulatory changes, though impactful, often receive less public attention than new legislation.
Expertise and Political Sensitivity
A heightened sensitivity to expert opinions emerged, with liberal accomplishments often linked to a professionalized bureaucracy adept at navigating a transformed political environment. For example, economic policy decisions frequently rely on analyses from expert bodies like the Congressional Budget Office or Federal Reserve economists.
The role of interest groups and media in guiding policy cycles became more pronounced, showing that political outcomes could unfold independently of electoral results and instead be driven by sustained lobbying, public awareness campaigns, and engagement with administrative agencies. An environmental group lobbying the EPA for stricter emissions standards, supported by media reports on climate change, can influence policy without a direct electoral mandate.
The Transformation of the Democratic Party
Emergence of a New Democratic Party
By the mid-1970s, instead of diminishing political parties, the evolving state resulted in new forms of competition, fundamentally altering the Democratic Party's internal dynamics. Traditional party machines waned, replaced by more ideologically driven factions.
Social movements and interest groups that were once adversarial to the party system—such as the civil rights movement, the environmental movement (e.g., Sierra Club), and the women's rights movement (e.g., National Organization for Women)—became integrated into the Democratic Party’s operational fabric through caucuses, delegate quotas, funding mechanisms, and tailored policy platforms that reflected their causes.
The Role of Activist Networks
The incorporation of activists and organizations into the Democratic Party led to new coalitions and shifted the essential dynamics of political engagement, emphasizing grassroots mobilization and ideologically driven politics rather than patronage.
George McGovern's 1972 nomination symbolized this new coalition’s distinctiveness, emphasizing organizational innovation over traditional electoral strategies and representing a primary victory driven by grassroots activism and new party rules that reduced the power of traditional party bosses in favor of a more democratic, but also more ideologically aligned, delegate selection process.
Informal Partisan Alignments
American political activity often remains informal, differing from the more rigid, top-down organizational ties seen in European political systems where party membership and structures are often more formally defined and disciplined. In the US, many advocacy groups align with one party without being officially part of it.
Cooperation fosters a perception of partisanship among organizations aligning with the Democrats, despite their formal independence, creating a broad, diffuse network of support. For example, labor unions and specific environmental groups might consistently endorse Democratic candidates and support their policy initiatives without being formal party organs.
The Political Competition Landscape
Challenges Faced by Republicans
Republicans faced disarray in the transformed political context, lacking elite organizational structure to counter the Democratic advantage in expertise and professional linkage, struggling to build robust intellectual and institutional infrastructure. In the 1960s and 70s, the Democratic Party had a clear lead in think tanks and academic affiliations.
Many conservative policies did not elicit organized challenges, indicating vulnerabilities in conservative counter-mobilization efforts due to a lack of established funding networks, coordination among disparate groups, and a new intellectual framework to counter liberal policy dominance. Early conservative efforts were often more localized and less coordinated on a national scale.
Greater Importance of Non-Electoral Engagement
Political parties now extend their influence beyond electoral systems, reflecting a need to engage in elite network mobilization to sway policy through administrative advocacy, judicial appointments, and deep engagement with regulatory processes. Campaigning for a presidential candidate now includes advocating who they should appoint to agencies or the judiciary.
Modern political battles extend into elite organizational realms rather than being confined solely to electoral contests, highlighting the significance of think tanks (e.g., Brookings Institution for liberals, Heritage Foundation for conservatives), advocacy groups (e.g., ACLU, NRA), and legal foundations (e.g., Legal Defense Fund, Pacific Legal Foundation) in shaping policy and legal outcomes.
The Legal Landscape and Political Change
The Politics of Law and Courts
The intersections of law and politics have become intricately tied to the influence of ideas, information, and organizational networks impacting legal change, demonstrating that legal outcomes are often shaped by more than just precedent. Landmark cases like Brown v. Board of Education were the culmination of decades of strategic litigation by civil rights organizations.
Pure electoral theories fall short of accounting for long-term legal changes, necessitating a broader operational view of the legal landscape beyond mere electoral influence, considering the sustained efforts of legal organizations and advocacy groups. For example, the consistent efforts of public interest law firms can drive legal change over decades, regardless of short-term electoral shifts.
Historical Theories of Judicial Behavior
Robert Dahl's theories on the judiciary's alignment with dominant political alliances indicate the constraints judges face in legal interpretation amid shifting political alliances, suggesting courts rarely stray far from the preferences of the elected branches for long. For example, during the New Deal era, the Supreme Court initially resisted but eventually came to accept New Deal legislation after judicial appointments realigned its ideology.
Subsequent interpretations argue that a response from the courts to political stimuli has been overstated and lacks the nuance to encompass ongoing institutional conflicts, emphasizing the judiciary's distinct institutional role and internal dynamics. Scholars note that courts can sometimes act counter-majoritarian, as seen in some civil rights decisions that faced public resistance.
The Role of Institutional Entrenchment
Institutional characteristics often hinder or require a prolonged timeline for judicial responsiveness to political shifts; thus, coordination in legal mobilization is crucial for enduring legal change, as established legal doctrines (stare decisis) and procedural rules act as significant barriers. For example, overturning a major precedent often requires multiple cases over many years, with consistent arguments from well-coordinated legal actors.
Mobilizing for Change: Organizational Challenges
Countermobilization Dilemmas
The challenges faced by conservative countermobilization in the legal sector exemplify the complexities of building organizational infrastructure against entrenched policies, including difficulties in sourcing sustainable funding, building a cohesive intellectual framework, and coordinating diverse groups. In the post-New Deal era, conservatives struggled for decades to build institutions comparable to those supporting the liberal legal establishment.
Both political opportunity structures and resource mobilization frameworks highlight barriers to effective counteraction in institutional settings, explaining why launching a successful challenge against a well-established liberal legal regime is resource-intensive and often requires a favorable political climate. For instance, creating new legal organizations like the Federalist Society required significant financial backing and a clear ideological vision.
Formation of an Alternative Governing Coalition
Effective counteractions to entrenched political regimes necessitate forming an alternative governing coalition featuring intellectual, political, and network entrepreneurs who can challenge the status quo and build new institutional capacities. The rise of the New Right in the late 20th century is a prime example of such a coalition combining these elements.
Intellectual entrepreneurs serve a vital role in challenging the status quo by framing issues, developing new policy ideas, and enabling collective action by providing a coherent ideological vision. For example, scholars and writers at conservative think tanks provided the intellectual ammunition to critique liberal policies and propose alternative solutions.
The Role of Patrons
Patrons are essential in supplying necessary resources, support, and strategic coordination within alternative coalitions, enhancing their capacity to navigate entrenched environments by providing financial backing, institutional legitimacy, and access to key networks. Wealthy individuals or foundations, such as the Olin Foundation for conservative causes, often play this critical funding role.
Components of an Alternative Coalition
Intellectual Entrepreneurs
They help to challenge existing norms, provide alternative frames for issues, and unify disparate groups towards common goals by developing new ideas and communicating them effectively. For example, economists who developed supply-side economic theories provided an intellectual alternative to Keynesian economics.
Network Entrepreneurs
Network builders facilitate connections among political players, important for developing coalitions in fragmented political domains by creating channels for communication, resource sharing, and coordinated action among various organizations and individuals. Figures like Paul Weyrich, who helped establish conservative organizations and facilitate alliances, are key examples.
Political Entrepreneurs
They recognize political opportunities, engage with existing structures, and drive funding towards sustainable initiatives that align with long-term political strategies, often by translating intellectual ideas into actionable political programs and securing necessary resources. Ronald Reagan, as a figure who successfully campaigned on conservative principles and effectively utilized the emerging conservative infrastructure, exemplifies a political entrepreneur.
Conclusion
The nuances of political and legal competition define the