Institutional Decline and Reform in Glorious Rivals: The Unintended Consequences of Good Intentions

The central thematic claim of Glorious Rivals is that the U.S. political system suffers not from a lack of reform, but from a cascade of well-meaning reforms that have inadvertently destroyed the collaborative institutions and personal relationships necessary for governance. The book argues that the path to repair lies not in more grand overhauls, but in rebuilding the culture of committees, restoring procedural norms, and reclaiming the bipartisan ethos that once made Congress functional.

The Erosion of Committee Power: From Laboratories to Lobbies

The book traces the rise and fall of congressional committees as the engines of bipartisan policy making. After the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, committees were reduced in number and given exclusive jurisdiction, which fostered deep expertise and cross-party camaraderie. Members spent years together on the same panels, traveling, dining, and negotiating in ways that made party affiliation secondary to committee identity. This system produced hundreds of laws per Congress through the 1970s.

But this golden age had a dark side: entrenched southern chairmen used their seniority to block civil rights legislation. In response, the Democratic Study Group pushed a “committee bill of rights” in 1965, limiting chairmen’s power. Then the Watergate Babies of 1974 went further, stripping appointment authority from the Ways and Means Committee and deposing three long-serving chairs. These reforms were intended to democratize power, but they inadvertently shifted authority upward to party leadership rather than to the rank and file.

The culmination came under Speaker Newt Gingrich, who handpicked committee chairs and later under Majority Leader Tom DeLay, who made clear that chairmen who defied leadership would lose their gavels. By the 2000s, committees had become shells. The result, as the book details, is that members no longer invest time in committee work because it has no real impact on outcomes. The immigration reform markup of 2013 briefly showed the old muscle memory, but it remains an exception.

The Unholy Trinity and the Real Culprit

Chapter 2 of Glorious Rivals identifies three familiar villains: partisan media, gerrymandering, and campaign money. Yet the author argues these are symptoms, not causes. The true driver of gridlock is the erosion of collaborative norms and personal relationships among lawmakers. When committee members no longer eat together, travel together, or negotiate face-to-face, they lose the trust needed to compromise.

The book offers a stark metaphor: a house battered by a storm. The external winds—media polarization, safe districts, vast campaign funds—are real, but the house collapses because its internal structure—the committees, the friendships, the unwritten rules—has rotted away. Reforms aimed at transparency and ethics, such as those championed by John Gardner’s Common Cause, succeeded in exposing corruption but also created an environment of perpetual suspicion. Every interaction became a potential scandal, driving legislators apart rather than together.

Backfired Reforms: The Toothpick Rule and the Earmark Ban

One of the most vivid illustrations of institutional decline is the “toothpick rule,” a post-Jack Abramoff ethics regulation that prohibited gifts of any value, even a $12 coffee mug, and produced absurdities like banning toothpicks. The book argues that such over-regulation stifled the informal socializing that once greased legislative wheels. Similarly, the elimination of earmarks—earmarked spending for local projects—removed a critical tool for building coalitions. Without the ability to trade favors, party leaders had to rely on whip counts and threats, further polarizing debate.

The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 also backfired by driving political money into Super PACs and dark money groups, which are harder to trace and more negative. The book’s phrase “immaculate dysfunction” captures the paradox: reforms designed to clean up government made it less functional without making it truly clean.

Complexity and Contradiction: The Watergate Babies’ Legacy

The analysis resists simple hero-villain narratives. The Watergate Babies were right to challenge racist obstruction by southern chairmen. Common Cause advanced transparency that citizens demanded. The 1970s reforms curtailed genuine abuses. Yet each reform created new problems. Power shifted to leadership, which then prioritized party messaging over policy substance. The book acknowledges that reform is a double-edged sword: every gain in openness or equity can come at the cost of efficiency or collegiality.

The Conclusion drives this home by contrasting the Bipartisan Policy Center’s gala for Howard Baker and Bob Dole—a moment of genuine bipartisan respect—with the cynical remarks of Senate leaders Reid and McConnell, who blamed the Founders. The author argues that the Founders’ design is not the problem; it is the loss of the informal, interpersonal side of lawmaking. The proposed solution is incremental: more committee deliberation, less camera scrutiny, reformed campaign finance to reduce fundraising time, and allowing earmarks with transparency.

Character and Symbol Connections

• Howard Baker and Bob Dole represent the old bipartisan ideal. The book’s conclusion highlights the gala honoring them as a model of personal respect that transcended party. Their methods—negotiating in private, building trust over time—are held up as essential.
• Newt Gingrich and Tom DeLay embody the centralization of power that destroyed committee autonomy. Gingrich’s selection of chairs and DeLay’s “hammer” tactics are direct causes of decline.
• John Gardner represents the well-intentioned reformer whose efforts inadvertently fueled distrust. His Common Cause increased transparency but also contributed to a culture of suspicion.
• Symbols: The toothpick rule epitomizes absurd over-regulation; the filibuster has become a routine obstruction tool, not the rare exception it once was; C‑SPAN cameras turned floor speeches into performances for cable news rather than genuine debate; the Monocle Restaurant and other informal gathering places represent lost spaces for off-the-record compromise.

Study Questions and Answers

1. How did the 1974 reforms intended to weaken committee chairs paradoxically strengthen party leadership?
   Answer: By shifting appointment power from the Ways and Means Committee to the Speaker, reformers gave the Speaker direct control over committee rosters. Subsequent leaders like Gingrich and DeLay used this power to demand loyalty, turning chairs into agents of the party rather than independent policy makers.

2. Why does the book argue that the “unholy trinity” (partisan media, gerrymandering, campaign money) is not the primary cause of gridlock?
   Answer: The author contends that these factors have always existed in some form. The real cause is the erosion of personal relationships and committee norms, which once allowed legislators to cooperate despite political differences. External factors only became paralyzing after the internal collaborative structure collapsed.

3. What specific reform backfired by eliminating a tool for building coalitions, and what was the unintended consequence?
   Answer: The ban on earmarks removed a mechanism for trading support on unrelated bills. Without earmarks, party leaders lost a flexible incentive, making it harder to assemble bipartisan majorities and leading to more partisan, up-or-down votes on leadership-crafted packages.

4. How does the immigration markup of 2013 serve as evidence for the book’s thesis?
   Answer: The Senate Judiciary Committee held a multi‑day markup of immigration reform, considering over 300 amendments and producing a bipartisan 14–4 vote. The book uses this example to show that when committees have real authority, members engage substantively, and bipartisanship becomes possible—even after years of dysfunction.

5. According to the Conclusion, what should citizens and leaders do to restore institutional health?
   Answer: Citizens must demand incremental, pragmatic reforms rather than sweeping overhauls. Leaders should empower committees, reduce the time spent fundraising, allow informal negotiation, and resist the urge to turn every procedural issue into a partisan spectacle. The tools for repair, the book insists, already exist within the current system if used with discipline and a commitment to personal respect.