The Politics of Sabotage
Who broke Congress and how do we fix it?
Newt Gingrich didn’t invent partisanship, but he weaponized it at scale. In the 1980s and early 1990s, the Georgia congressman, who would later become Speaker of the House, led a political insurgency within the Republican Party that prioritized confrontation over cooperation, and media attention over policymaking.
Gingrich trained Republican candidates to speak about Democrats not as opponents to debate, but as enemies to defeat. In a now-infamous 1990 GOPAC memo titled “Language: A Key Mechanism of Control”, Gingrich encouraged Republicans to use words like “corrupt”, “traitor”, “sick”, and “pathetic” when describing their political adversaries. The goal was to frame Democrats as not just wrong on the issues, but illegitimate, immoral, and dangerous as leaders.
This was part of a larger strategy to nationalize politics. Traditionally, congressional campaigns were local affairs. But in 1994, Gingrich helped launch the Contract with America, a PR-savvy, 10-point platform that promised sweeping conservative reforms. It became a successful messaging coup that shifted political strategy away from bipartisanship and towards party loyalty. Republicans, speaking with one voice, flipped 54 House seats and took control of the House of Representatives for the first time in 40 years. Gingrich was elected Speaker.
Under his leadership, Washington changed.
Governing Took a Back Seat to Messaging
Gingrich viewed government shutdowns not as breakdowns of leadership, but as strategic weapons to force political concessions. In 1995 and 1996, he led efforts to shut down the federal government during budget standoffs with President Bill Clinton, pushing brinkmanship as a form of power politics.
The Gingrich era ushered in a new norm; zero-sum politics. Compromise wasn’t just discouraged; it was framed as betrayal. Bipartisanship began to vanish, replaced by a culture of permanent campaigning and media spectacle. Cable news and C-SPAN helped amplify the drama. Political debates became more about performing for the cameras than solving real problems.
As congressional scholar Thomas Mann put it, Gingrich’s approach was too, “delegitimized the opposition and weakened the institutional fabric of the House.” (1) Since then, Congress has rarely recovered. Legislative gridlock has become a feature, not a bug. And American voters have grown more cynical, more polarized, and more disengaged from a system that often feels broken by design.
Can the Two-Party System Correct Course?
More than 30 years later, the legacy of this shift is clear: America is still governed by a two-party system that rewards division, discourages innovation, and prioritizes short-term wins over long-term solutions.
The question isn’t just whether Democrats or Republicans can do better, but whether the two-party system itself is capable of reforming from within. Can a structure that rewards polarization be expected to produce unity?
Or is a new path required?
Questions we must think about:
As the next generation begins to inherit this political landscape, we must deliberate on these foundational questions:
Is the two-party system the best form of government for a modern America to thrive?
Who benefits from the current gridlock—and who pays the price?
Can new electoral reforms like ranked-choice voting, open primaries, or independent redistricting help return power to the people?
Is it time to build new political coalitions beyond party lines?
The good news is, more Americans than ever are identifying as independent, and a rising generation is less attached to party labels and more focused on outcomes. If we want a government that works, we have to start by rethinking how we choose those who govern.
The future of American democracy will depend on how we answer these questions, and whether we have the courage to challenge the structures that no longer serve us.
