Julian Zelizer's book joins a number of others that have been taking up the issue of congressional reform. Recent books by political scientists E. Scott Adler (Why Congressional Reforms Fail, 2002), Nelson Polsby (How Congress Evolves, 2003), and Eric Schickler (Disjointed Pluralism, 2001) are among a growing list that seeks to explain the success or failure of congressional reforms during the twentieth century. One of the interesting aspects of these books is that they are authored by mostly younger scholars who are reassessing, and sometimes seriously challenging, a genre of scholarship that was pioneered during the seventies by such scholars as Lawrence Dodd, Bruce Oppenheimer, Barbara Sinclair, and James Thurber, to name a few, many of whom were American Political Science Association Congressional Fellows working in Congress during the period of substantial congressional reform in the 1970s.

Zelizer's work is quite different from these other works, which emanate from political science, for several reasons, not the least of which is that he takes an historian's approach to the topic. As an historian, he does not employ a mode of explanation that relies on individual behavioral assumptions (e.g., the reelection goal employed by Adler): “In order to understand the institutional changes that shaped Congress, it is essential to look beyond the motivations of legislators—the subject that has dominated the attention of political scientists” (p. 3). On Capitol Hill relies on rich descriptive detail to support the main thesis of the book, rather than on quantification, interviews, and other methods familiar to political scientists. Zelizer has collected archival documents from the papers of former members of Congress, interest groups, and other sources. While the use of archival material is standard operating procedure in history, it is far less common in political science. Political scientists, especially congressional scholars, may well be impressed by the richness that these documents can impart to research, and may want to consider how the use of archival sources might improve their own work. Archival documents provide a portal into the world of the politician and provide data (in this case qualitative) for better understanding politics from the perspective of the participant.

The central theoretical idea that Zelizer develops is that congressional reform is “a thoroughly historical process that is messy, slow, and involves multiple institutions” (p. 3). Congressional change did not occur in a linear and predictable manner, he argues; rather, the “narrative about congressional reform takes place in fits and starts. The changes were not inevitable or automatic; they resulted from a fierce and protracted struggle” (pp. 3–4). The body of this work seeks to advance the view that “change takes a long time and does not tend to occur in the dramatic bursts of innovation often depicted in high-school and college textbooks” (p. 264). While scholars in the American political development tradition will be familiar with this approach, it is an observation that those outside of its literature would do well to consider deeply.

More contemporary reforms have been well studied by other scholars; readers seeking new revelations about congressional reform will not find them here. What is at the heart of Zelizer's book is a different intellectual approach to the study of change that is augmented by new archival material; and this is its significant contribution. The difference in approach orients the outstanding description of battles within Congress, and between Congress and external actors (e.g., presidents and interest groups), to control and change the policymaking machinery in Congress. It also allows the author to highlight the unintended consequences of institutional change and connect prior historical changes to contemporary developments in Congress.

For example, early in the book, Zelizer focuses his attention on “Bomb-Throwing Liberals” in the 1950s who were interested in promoting the cause of Civil Rights and other progressive legislation. Early on, these members identified the congressional committee system, which was controlled by southern conservative Democrats, as an obstacle to progressive legislation and as a source of fragmentation in the policymaking system. Beyond the opportunity to advance progressive legislation, reformers argued, were potential gains in legislative efficiency through a more centralized legislative machinery, and opportunities to assert congressional power vis-à-vis the executive branch. They focused on the closed nature of congressional decision making as a major prop for the restrictive and conservative committee system. They built coalitions outside and inside Congress in support of their reform aspirations.

In the 1950s, these reformers existed on the edges of political power in Congress, but by defining what they saw as the major impediments to advancing their progressive agenda, “they slowly laid the foundation for an alternative to the committee process” (p. 35). While many of the reforms they championed did not show results until the early 1970s, they “launched the critical agenda-setting stage” (p. 35) of the battle for reform and thereby significantly influenced the reforms that resulted. In short, it is important to understand the impact that the reform advocates in the 1950s had on the reforms of the 1970s. The “problem definition” offered by early reformers shaped the reforms that were eventually put into place. Reform advocates sought to open Congress to public scrutiny as a means of pressuring the committee system to become more responsive to the demands of progressive policies; they also sought to purge the influence of money in politics.

To some extent, the reformers were successful, but the new political reality that reformers created for themselves and their successors resulted in unintended consequences. A reformed Congress provided opportunities for partisans to further undermine the committee process, develop new political targets, and develop attack strategies against other members. When the Republicans were in the minority, they used this new institutional environment to frustrate Democrats' legislative initiatives. With a substantial change in the American political mood toward conservative ideas, and with the Republicans in control of Congress, conservatives seized on reformed institutional arrangements to press their own agenda in Congress: “Republicans paralyzed the Clinton administration during its second term. When the era of divided government ended with the election of President George W. Bush, the GOP used the process to severely weaken the fiscal infrastructure of the American state” (p. 267). Reforms conceived in the 1950s (though an argument could be made that a similar reform impulse goes back even further) shaped the politics of the future, our present. Herein lies the broad contribution of this book and some potent lessons for political science.

On Capitol Hill has potential appeal to a diverse readership. It is accessible to a general readership interested in American history. The primary obstacle for many potential readers, however, will be the price tag. Cambridge has not, to date, offered this book as a soft cover; it should. The volume should be required reading in graduate courses on Congress in political science; both its methodology and its substance are necessary for future congressional scholars. It easily could be used in undergraduate courses, depending on the faculty member's approach to the course. Finally, all serious scholars of Congress should have this book on their book shelves. It will quickly become the standard source for those seeking a history of the modern Congress.