DC Then & Now
What Happened to Official Washington?
Opinion by Ben Everidge for Thomas
Image: Adobe Stock By Katherine Welles
There are two ways to study Washington. You can read about it. Or you can live inside it.
For those who worked on Capitol Hill in the late 1970s and 1980s as I did, Washington was never gentle, never polite in the modern sense. But it was, in a deeper way, functional.
Democrats and Republicans argued fiercely. They fought, maneuvered, and competed for advantage.
And then, more often than not, they governed.
Today, the argument remains. But the governing is now a rare breed.
The Washington That Was
The earlier era was not a golden age in any sense. But it operated on a different set of assumptions:
Conflict Was Expected & Resolution Was Required | Members of Congress clashed on policy, sometimes bitterly. Yet there remained an underlying expectation. At the end of the fight, something had to get done. This was evident in moments like the budget agreements between Ronald Reagan and the Democrats. Between Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich, which helped produce the last balanced federal budget – something that now feels almost historical. Even earlier, fiscal discipline approached balance during the Jimmy Carter administration.
Budgets Reflected Priorities, Not Paralysis | Budgets were debated intensely, but they were often completed through regular order. Continuing resolutions existed, but they were more the exception, not the norm. Today, they have become a governing habit.
Foreign Policy Spoke with Greater Clarity | Presidential foreign policy, whether one agreed with it or not, tended to present a clearer strategic direction. The Cold War imposed discipline. Allies and adversaries understood the American posture. Ambiguity existed, but not to the degree it regularly does today.
The Constitutional Process Was More Widely Respected | Congress guarded its institutional role more aggressively – even at all. The executive brand advanced its agenda, but generally within a more clearly negotiated framework with Congress. The system was not perfect. But it was observed.
Public Trust, While Imperfect, Was Higher | Media institutions carried weight. Figures like Walter Cronkite, David Brinkley, and Tim Russert were not universally trusted, but they were widely regarded as credible arbiters of information. There was disagreement, but less fragmentation.
The Washington of Today
Today’s Washington is no less intense. It is more so. But its intensity is channeled differently:
Conflict Has Replaced Resolution | Disagreement remains, but the expectation of resolution has weakened and often disappeared. Legislative outcomes are often delayed, narrowed, or abandoned. Victory is increasingly defined not by governing success, but by preventing the other side from succeeding.
The Rise of Permanent Crisis Governance | Continuing resolutions, last-minute negotiations, government shutdowns, and brinkmanship have become all too routine. The system operates in a near-constate state of managed instability. This is not how the constitutional system was designed to function.
Information Has Fragmented | The Media environment has changed dramatically. Where once a handful of voices shaped national understanding, today there are hundreds – each with its own audience, perspective, and incentives. The result is not simply diversity of thought. It is often a divergence of reality.
Institutional Norm Have Weakened | Many of the guardrails that once guided behavior – informal norms, expectations of restraint, deference to process – have eroded. What remains are the formal rules. And formal rules, without shared commitment, are often insufficient.
Public Trust Has Declined | Confidence in institutions – Congress, the presidency, our courts, the media – has dropped significantly. The erosion of trust affects not only politics but the legitimacy of outcomes themselves.
The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
The Good:
Greater transparency in government actions.
Expanded participation and civic engagement.
Broader representation across society.
Faster access to important information.
The Bad:
Legislative dysfunction and delayed governance.
Overreliance on executive action.
Declining trust in institutions.
Increasing polarization in both politics and media.
The Ugly:
The normalization of institutional breakdown.
The weaponization of law and distrust.
The erosion of shared civic understanding.
The temptation to bypass the constitutional process for short-term gain.
What Has Stayed the Same
Not everything has changed. Issues like illegal immigration remain persistent, complex, and unresolved across administrations of both parties. This continuity reminds us that some challenges are not new. They are only more visible.
What Was Lost and What Can Be Recovered
The difference between then and now is not merely a matter of policy. It is a political culture.
What has been lost is not disagreement, but:
The expectation of resolution.
The respect for institutional roles.
The discipline of process.
The willingness to see opponents as participants in a shared system,
Restoring Common Sense and Political Decency
The path forward does not require nostalgia. It requires intentional restoration.
Intentional restoration that looks like:
Recommitting to Regular Order | Budgets, authorizations, and legislation must return to structured, predictable processes. Process is not bureaucracy. It is legitimate.
Rewarding Governance, Not Just Messaging | Voters and leaders alike must value results, not only rhetoric. Political success should be measured by what is accomplished, not merely what is opposed.
Rebuilding Institutional Respect | Congress must assert its role. The executive must respect it. The courts must interpret, not substitute. The system works when each branch does its job and only its job.
Elevating Civic Standards | Public discourse need not be polite to be effective. But it must be grounded in reality and fact, and in a shared commitment to the republic.
Encouraging Leadership Over Performance | There is a difference between leading and performing. The former builds institutions. The latter often erodes them.
Washington has always been a place of ambition, disagreement, and struggle. That has not changed
What has changed is whether those forces are ultimately directed toward governing a republic or merely contesting it.
The founders assumed conflict. They designed a system to manage it.
The task before us now is not to eliminate disagreement but to restore the ability to resolve it in the service of the American people.
The Thomas Take
At Thomas, we do not suggest that the past was perfect. It was not.
But it operated within a framework that expected governance to follow conflict.
Today, that expectation must be rebuilt. Not by one party. Not by one leader. But by a renewed commitment to the constitutional system itself.
