Hello. My name is Angie Sykeny, and in this video I’m going to argue that America’s contemporary politics reflect the pluralistic theory of elite power.
Pluralism, in short, means that power lies not in the hands of one dominant person or group, but rather is disbursed among many. This is because each group has a different set of expertise and resources. We can refer to this system as a polyarchy, a term coined by renowned political scientist Robert Dahl in his 1956 book A Preface to Democratic Theory. This is in contrast to a hierarchal system, which is structured like a pyramid where all groups are ranked above or below others. However, even in a polyarchy, we should not conclude that there an elite is completely non-existent. Sociologist Susan Keller believed that there is pyramid structure, yes, but a myriad of pyramids rather than just one.
But what are these said groups and where do they come from? These multiple competing groups are only possible because we live democratic society where citizens have the right to assemble, and to speak freely in opposition to the elite. These rights are solidified in the First Amendment of the constitution and cannot be taken away, even by the elite. Thus, the constitution contributes to a pluralistic system by keeping the powerful in check so that they can never hold all of the power.
Many of these assemblies we can call voluntary or interest groups. A few examples of these types of groups include labor unions, banks, corporations, environmental activists, civil rights activists, and trade associations. These groups work to sway the public for or against certain issues, as well as lobby for political candidates who will represent those views.
Let’s look at some of the most influential ...
... middle of paper ...
...e see that there are several factors which contribute to America’s pluralistic society. The influence, openness, and competition of interest groups put power in the hands of a diverse selection of people. The democratic elections and multi-party system allow people to choose from a number of candidates who they want to represent them as the elite. Lastly, America’s three branches and the bounds of the constitution help ensure that there is balance of power. Pluralism is a system which has worked for the country. Since its birth, the public has always been able to influence politics. Never has there been a threat of domestic tyranny. As long as the elite adhere to the constitution and work as activators for the people’s views rather than their own, America will be a free, democratic nation—a place where everyone coexists to share power, responsibility, and rewards.
Lani Guinier, in her essay titled “Tyranny of the Majority” (1944), justifies her political ideas and explains that as a result of these ideas, she has explored decisionmaking rules that prevent The Majority from “exercise[ing] power unfairly or tyrannically.” She supports her justification by incorporating childlike anecdotal stories, quoting loved American patriots, and creating conceptual analogies. Guinier’s purpose is to convince her opponents, as well as Americans with moderate political orientations, that her views and ideas aren’t too radical, in order to convince them that in order to make America a “true democracy,” they must consider her methods and strategies for desegregating The Majority. She adopts a patriotic, idealistic tone
William Domhoff, explains how the power in the United States is controlled by a certain group of powerful people. The owners and top-level managers in large income-producing properties are far and away the dominant power figures in the United States. He begins to explain how corporate entities come together and form a “corporate community” that dominate Washington D.C. As a result of their ability to organize and defend their interests, the owners and managers of large income-producing properties have a very great share of all income and wealth in the United States. Even though the wealthy exercise a great deal of power, it is false to say the lower social class is powerless. When the working class organize into unions have the power structure through sit-ins, demonstrations, social movements, and forms of social disruption. In the excerpt, he explains that due to Pluralism, it may seem that there is no one dominant power group but we later on find that to be false. Domhoff begins to explain how the power elites dominate government stating that, “Lobbyists from corporations, law firms, and trade associations play a key role in shaping government on narrow issues of concern to specific corporations or business sectors.” In conclusion, he identified the corporate rich and their power elite as the dominant organizational structure in American society. He gives the reasons that they determine who sits high positions in Congress, how the wealth is
An interest group is any organization that seeks to influence public policy. Interest groups are found in many societies, America being no exception. Theodore Lowi, Political Science Professor at Cornell University, explores the effects interest groups, or liberal pluralism, has had and will continue to have on politics in the United States. Lowi authored the work in the late 20th century but his arguments are still plausible today. The work is split into four parts, beginning with the origins and background on liberalism in the Unites States, then moving into issues with liberal governments, and lastly the book deals with other government systems beyond liberalism. Lowi himself describes his work as a textbook inquiry into the character of
Interest groups are an interesting part of politics that usually gets overlooked. The term interest group is self-explanatory but the definition can be a bit more politically thorough: An organized group that tries to influence the government to adopt certain interests, policies, or measures also called pressure group. Interest group refers to virtually any voluntary association that seeks to publicly promote and create advantages for its cause. America is a melting-pot of races, religions, languages, cultures, beliefs, and ideas, yet it only
In our contemporary times the founding fathers would not see a problem with faction, because now we have a very strong central government. Factions today can be consider any type of groups that has an objective such as AARP, NAACP, Occupy wall St. and many others. Over the years factions have become larger and more powe...
The pluralistic scholar David Truman notes that “the proliferation of political interest groups [is] a natural and largely benign consequence of economic development” (Kernell 2000, 429). That is, as American economic development increases, in the form of industry, trade, and technology, factions are produced in order to protect special interests. Factions have a large platform on which to find support from various political parties, committees, subcommittees, and the courts, as well as federal, state, and local governments (Kernell 2000, 429).
Adding this all up, I have concluded that the United States democracy is unhealthy, yet I still believe there is hope. If I had to give the current condition of democracy a letter grade, I would give it a C. I got this grade because even though the United States maintains many civil right and liberties, a strong number of interest groups, and diverse political parties, it just isn’t enough to carry the poor conditions of ideologies, voter turnout, education, economics, and media. Democracy is surly not thriving in America, but at this point, there is still hope.
For Americans, the word “democracy” itself is strong enough to conjure up notions of a nation unhindered by an oppressive government where citizens are able to engage in the freedom of speech, press, and religious choice and practice. So powerful are American pro-Democratic sentiments that it is a common thought that any other country that does not prescribe to a liberal democracy is somehow inferior. Yet as time marches on, the feelings of superiority by American citizens become more and more unfounded. For, right before our eyes, the very notion of democracy, that Americans become braggarts about, is disappearing. While the U.S. government boasts of the freedoms it affords its citizens, it corrupts such an image through repeated non-democratic actions. While citizens cherish the affordances of a liberal democracy, many do not make the effort to support such a system; taking it for granted that no matter what, a democracy is a self perpetuating entity. In this paper I will argue that the liberal democracy that supposedly defines American government is a declining entity due to overt acts against the principles of democracy by the United States government and also due to the decline of civic engagement by United States citizens. The fact is, no system of government can be perpetuated if the government and its citizens do not work to keep their ideals alive and in practice.
Pluralism and Elitism go hand in hand because pluralism argue that interest groups are good for American and Texas democracy. Dominant interest groups in Texas influence many public policies as well as act as an avenue for democratic political participation. Dominant interest groups include the Texas Association of Business (TAB), Texas Medical Association (TMA), Texas Taxpayers and Research Association (TARA), National Rifle Association (NRA) and so forth. These interest groups work to influence policymakers and policy implementers. Pluralism is
Essentially, interest groups use many different tactics to accomplish their central goals but this paper will detail 2 of them. The first being lobbying, which is the act of persuading businesses as well as government leaders to help a specific organization by changing laws or creating events in favor of that group. Interest groups use this technique by hiring someone to represent them and advocate their cause to on the behalf of the entire group. These hired representatives usually have more than enough experience within the political field and are able to persuade connections within the government for help with their concerns. This method gets a lot of criticism because although lobbyist offer their input to government officials on pending laws, they only look at what is favorable for their cause. When trying to make a difference you have to not only reflect on your argument but on the side affects of that argument as
Sociologists examine power in the political, economic, and military institutions of America, as C. Wright Mills describes the shift in national power to advantage those who are part of these three institutions. The “power elite” (1) are those who are from similar social backgrounds and interests, therefore those in the top of hierarchy are interchangeably making decisions for other social institutions, in which they have no power to do so. For example, “the corporation executive whose company was one of the two or three leading war material producers is now the Secretary of Defense” (3), therefore the rise in power of the power elite have caused those who are not belonging to the power elite to lose all form of democratic rights. Many of the
. Factions can be present in many different settings in society. They can be a passion for different opinions on religions, government, or war. Madison claims that "the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold and those who are without property have ever been formed distinct interests in society." The modern government includes factions as necessary operations, and the regulation of these interest groups form the foremost assignment of legislation.
Pluralism is essentially a theory in favour of distributing power equally amongst individuals rather than having power remain within the hands of one individual (Heywood, 2003; Schwarzmantel, 1994; Dunleavy and O’Leary, 1987; Crowder, 1994). This theory is predominantly associated with Robert Dahl, who had researched how the state behaves and amongst whom power is exercised in New Haven (Heywood, 2007; Dahl, 1961). However, it has been argued that this theory is too idealistic, and that it is impossible for there to be an equal distribution of power because realistically power is likely to only be exercised by a minority, as in accordance with the elitist view (Heywood, 2007; Schwarzmantel, 1994).
The “advocacy explosion” in the United States in the 20th century has been caused by the extreme increase in the number of interest groups in the United States. The general public views the increase and the groups themselves as a cancer that has come to the body of American politics and is spreading. The explosion in the number of interest groups and interest group members and finances has had an effect on the decline of the American political party and partisanship, the effect on democracy and the public interest, and the bias that has come with interest group competition.
...top positions in the governmental and business hierarchy from communal principles and beliefs. Majority come from the upper third of the salary and professional pyramids, their upbringings were from the same upper class, some attended the same preparatory school and Ivy League universities. Also, they belong to the same organizations. The power elite have the power to control programs and actions of important governmental, financial, legal, educational, national, scientific, and public institutions. The ones in power influence half of the nation’s manufacturing, infrastructures, transportation, banking possessions, and two thirds of all insurance possessions. The occupants take essential actions that could affect everyone’s’ life in American society. Rulings made in meetings of significant corporations and banks can influence the rates of inflation and unemployment.