Blog Discussion Group Four
Blog post due at 11:55pm on Sep. 26 and comment due at 11:55pm on Sep. 29.
Political Parties and Party Systems
Political Parties and Party Systems
- Is the
- Are political parties an adequate or inadequate vehicle for channeling political opinions and actions? Is it better to be an independent voter rather than one who identifies with a party?
- Are political parties important to the functioning of a democracy?
Interest Groups
- Discuss evidence for and against the proposition: “All political conflicts—including ethnic, religions, gender, and generational conflicts—ultimately boil down to class conflicts. Rich people tend to be politically favored and poor people are not, regardless of ethnicity, religion, gender, or age.”
- Are interest groups good or bad for politics? Should they be limited somehow?
5. Are interest groups good or bad for politics? Should they be limited somehow?
ReplyDeleteInterest groups are members of the community acted through the legal procedures to affect the government’s policy to achieve the interests of the Group together for their common interests (mainly economic interests). They apply pressure to political parties or governments through a mandatory or non-mandatory way to change or modify their decisions to achieve their own goals (these interests are not all economic interests). In short, their main effect on the political process is through the government departments, political parties, government members, etc. The aim is to change their own decision-making or legal, etc., or in order to achieve their own interests and objectives.
Interest groups are actively involved in the process of determining and balancing interests and maintaining close ties with the government. Administrative system to make all aspects of the decision, from the executive heads to the various departments, all without interest from the interest groups and pressure. Of course,there is a complementary relationship between interest groups and government needs. Politicians allow or encourage interest groups to intervene in their decision is “because the interest groups can provide incentives to politicians, but also have the means to sanction them”.
Interest groups can be both a bridge of political communication and an obstacle to political connection. They can become both a factor of social stability and a source of political turmoil. The key depends on whether the political system itself is sufficiently inclusive and depends on political culture. The degree of integration depends on the degree of political civilization. In the rule of law society, the existence of interest groups can often play a positive political function. The existence of interest groups is both the threat of the highest ruler itself, but also the incentives of social unrest, political conflict .
ReplyDeleteAre interest groups good or bad for politics? Should they be limited somehow?
Interest groups are what make politics, politics. They most certainly have their advantages and disadvantages; therefore it is difficult to classify them as good or bad. They are just essential components of our capitalist democratic system. Some of the good attributes of an interest group include the change that they can affect. The women's right movement mentioned by Bashevkin on page 138 was comprised of women's interest groups and also divided into separated into women's interest groups. These different groups evolved in different countries to help women get elected as well as gain rights. Women interest groups are necessary for things like equal pay an equal job classifications in employment. Interest groups gain the ear of politicians. But the drawback tends to be that those who gained the politicians in the best of those with connections, money, and influence. Bashevkin dresses how there are pro-business biases in politics and voices for the poor and childcare are usually less effective due to the influence, connections, and wealth. (P. 153) I personally believe that lobbying, where people are actually paid to influence politicians, has a greater chance of being corrupted then a social movement. Social movements tend to gather people around a social idea such as the treatment of women or the treatment of minorities. Interest groups like lobbying tend to gather around a particular policy that can be changed, and that's not necessarily in the best interest of the social movement. Regardless without interest groups many politicians may not receive money for their campaigns, there may not be a voice towards certain policies, and government would be at a stalemate. So good or bad interest groups are absolutely necessary.
Interest groups should not be limited in the number that are created. They should be limited in their access to politicians. If finances can be removed from the influence and true consideration of what's best for the public interest may be the motivation for affecting policy, then that would be the ultimate solution. But as long as capitalism runs our democracy, then that possibility is nearly impossible.
I agree with you about your comment about corruption. Social movements bring together a large amount of people based on a common goal and are usually for the improvement of those certain people, no exterior motives. Your comment on money and corruption is interesting and important to analyze especially relating to the reading we had last week about the money in campaigns in the United States. I think good examples of social movements also include Black Lives Matter and groups trying to reduce oppression of marginalized folks like the ones you mentioned for women's rights. All in all, I completely agree with you about the limitations of interest groups. It is too simple to just say they should be limited period, but limited in what ways? They need to be limited in their access.
DeleteIs the United States dominated by a “power elite”? If so, who constitutes it? If not, are there any groups or individuals who have exceptional influence? Do the masses matter at all? Are perhaps all democracies dominated by some power elite?
ReplyDeleteI think the US is dominated by a "power elite" and this happens to be based on race. In our society people who pass as white are able to hold the most power, and among those white people, the rich remain in power. In Hague & Harrop they say, "American campaigns are uniquely expensive" (178). While on the surface this may seem like a purely classist issue, it is irresponsible to not examine the intersections of class, race and even gender. While we know after reading this chapter, that the rich have a greater opportunity to gain power, we have to think about who in our society has the ability to acquire such wealth. Although an extensive history lesson would have to ensue in order for the full point to come across, the history of slavery and then share cropping, and then convict leasing, and then the New Deal, white flight, and many more phenomenons allow for black people to remain in a position of inferiority. While the rhetoric in America and in politics is that anyone can "pull themselves up by their bootstraps" and pursue the American dream, this is not really the case for marginalized groups who have had barriers put up along the way.
While it may be easy to look at Obama and assume that he did it and so can everyone else, that is also irresponsible because allowing one black man to represent the entirety of the population of people of color is not representative of the entire systematic racism pervasive in our institutions. My point is further enhanced by looking now at the current president who has few qualities I would want in a president like an education in politics or government, but has still managed to use his money to create a campaign to convince a large population of people to vote for him.
I totally agree with you idea about ‘US is dominated by a "power elite" and this happens to be based on race’. Obama is just a single person, who can not stand for the race actually. In the United States, racism seems like a political taboo, but the white still have more opportunities. Forbes magazine had a survey published last year, showing that the typical white family wealth is 16 times the average black family. In absolute terms, the median household wealth in 2011 was $ 111,000, while the black family was only $ 7113. A US multicultural group last year's survey showed that the US company’s top is “more and more white.” Last year in February, among the top 500 US companies, only five black CEOs. Silicon Valley Elite, Wall Street Bank employees are more white men.
Delete3. Are political parties important to the functioning of a democracy?
ReplyDeleteI side with George Washington in the idea that political parties are detrimental to the country as a whole. He was well known for having a genuine fear of one party having power over the other. During this time of consolidating power, they could abuse the power to take revenge upon the other party. Washington feared that this tendency of revenge on one another “…is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism.” An America where one most choose one party or the other results in a division amongst the people.
As Washington expected, bitterness and open aggression resulted from the constructed party lines and loyalty. During his time as president, he saw the consequences of the political parties firsthand. The newly born country was fragile to begin with. The political parties would only serve to weaken it. The parties were concerned with growing in power and were becoming a problem to the state as a whole.
During the modern day, it seems as though Washington’s fears have come to fruition. The division amongst the American people is worse than it ever has been. The political parties are the source of this division. They deploy rhetoric used to make enemies out of the other. People who follow the party begin to see their fellow Americans as the enemy. Eventually, we somehow became a country where people seem to desire to make enemies out of their fellow countrymen. For God’s sakes, people are at each other’s throats because athletes are kneeling during their National Anthem. If that does not convey a divided country I do not know what does.
Washington knew the problems that a party system would have. They would serve to distract the people by arbitrarily dividing them into groups. As time has gone on, the parties have continued to make enemies out of the other. Political parties are not essential for a democracy. Ideologies and people who support them are what is essential.
The more political parties in a democracy the stronger the democracy. Political parties assist in assembling "diverse groups of people and ideas under the umbrella of an ideological mandate." (O'Neil, p 146) These groups promote competition and negotiation. The fewer parties that are able to participate in the political process, then the more the political system leans towards an authoritarian regime. The lack of any political parties leaves the system too "fragmented and it would be impossible to enact any policy" (p 146).
DeleteI agree with Washington's philosophy that one party having too much power is detrimental to the political system but that is why liberal democracy has a checks and balances system and limited terms and parliamentary democracy has distributed representation. Both systems require politicians are accountable to the people they serve.
Just like any ideology, political parties in its purest form are perfect and essential in a democracy yet in practice there is some flaws and corruption, but the solution is not to eliminate the parties.
Interest groups are a natural manifestation of human self-similar bonding and the desire for the ideas of that group to be realized and put into action. If they do not focus on the greater good, and the representative becomes a profiteer of the group, they are bad for politics. James Madison called Interest groups "Factions" which he defined as "a number of citizens, whether amounting to a minority or majority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community." (Fed. Papers, No.10) He thought that it was a duty of government that a legislature composed of "rational" elected representatives would keep dueling factions in check to focus on the "great and aggregate interests" of the people: basically a happy medium of a democracy and a republic.
ReplyDeleteBut fast forward to modern day where issues have grown exponentially in size and complexity as a result of a highly developed economy and affluent society. With a rise in economic development, "various economic resources usually become more widely distributed and the number of economic interest groups increases." (Hague, Harrop, pg.49) Since most elected representatives come from the law field and are trained on how to win arguments, not on the issues of interest themselves, the interest groups (who are generally more expert in their respective field) can be a close source of information to the representative if they don't know enough about the issue. "Lobbying—a citizens' right to speak freely, to affect decisions and petition the government—is a crucial right, and an important part of the legislative process." (National Conf.of State Legislatures) But the danger comes when the interest group comes too close with money in hand, gains more influence with the representative as monetary gain is noted, and the group's lobbyist becomes the mouthpiece for the elected official because of financial gains. This is corruption and defeats the purpose of "objective" representative. All fifty states have lobby laws in attempt to curtail this. On the federal side in the House of Representatives, there is the "Lobbying Disclosure Act."(2 U.S.C. § 1601)
5. Are interest groups good or bad for politics? Should they be limited somehow?
ReplyDeleteSylvia Bashevkin writes an excerpt that has many good points on interest groups. She [Sylvia] does a really good job summarizing interest groups and their ideologies. In her writing she quotes David Truman, who states, "As used here, 'interest group' refers to any group that on the basis of one or more shared attitudes, makes certain claims upon other groups in the society for the establishment, maintenance, or enhancement of forms of behavior that are implied by the shared attitudes... These afford the participants frames of reference for interpreting and evaluating events and behavior." You can take this exact definition and apply it to interest groups today. There are more interest groups fighting for various causes, more than one would like to believe, in today's society. They fight hard for what they believe in.
Another point that Sylvia mentioned in her writing, was that " interest groups can be differentiated from parties in that the former try to shape government policy without seeking themselves to hold formal state power." This really stood out to me, as being very accurate. I think one of the biggest issues we see with today's interest groups is that they want someone else to physically solve their problems, and themselves take credit for the movement, because they spent hours protesting, walking, fighting, etc. for their specific ideology. On the contrary to that, there can be upsets to this tactic.
I am not saying that what interest groups believe in is not important, because we all have the freedom of speech to express our opinion on matters that sit close with us. Or maybe you are really in to social activism. Whatever the case may be, you are free to speak your mind about your beliefs.
With everything I have said, up to this point, is where I tie in my belief on interest groups. I do not think that they need to be limited, but I think they should educate themselves in other areas of problem. They have to become aware of more than just their social ideologies. I know that, that is easier said than done. From a politics stand point, I think it is best if interest groups don't influence government, but should be free to share their beliefs anywhere else.
2. Are political parties an adequate or inadequate vehicle for channeling political opinions and actions? Is it better to be an independent voter rather than one who identifies with a party? At one time in history, having two distinct parties may have been adequate in channeling opinions and actions of the American population. However, it seems that the American political system has displayed a certain level of cultural lag in responding to the evolution of the demographic, social and economic needs of Americans today. There has been significant evidence of increased divisiveness following the results of our most recent election, with many Americans remaining staunchly committed to one party or the other. However, those same people can likely identify with, or find reason in some ideals that, the opposing party represents. In other cases, Americans fail to understand how the opposing party’s platform could be more beneficial to their circumstances; resolving to respond to media coverage and the theatrical components that inherently surround elections, instead. America is known as the proverbial ‘melting-pot’ of the world. Assuming there is some truth to this, it’s difficult to see how the representation of only two parties can adequately respond to the varying requirements of all Americans. However unimportant it may seem though, as Hague and Harrop (2013) point out, “a party’s share at a previous election is usually a good predictor of its support at a current election … at an individual level, too, stability of electoral choice remains substantial” (p. 213). Understanding the nature of politics in this sense is important is determining target demographics and subsequently, campaign strategies for political candidates. Still, the purpose of political parties and the platforms they intend to implement, should reflect the needs of American citizens rather than that of the political parties, themselves. Therefore, it might be better to identify as an independent voter than as a supporter of one party over the other.
ReplyDelete2. Are political parties an adequate or inadequate vehicle for channeling political opinions and actions? Is it better to be an independent voter rather than one who identifies with a party?
ReplyDeleteIn today's political climate I believe that it is better to be an independent voter rather that one who identifies with a specific party. It is terrifying to think that people are voting simply based on whether a person falls within either the "blue" party or the "red" party. In the latest election people voted simply to prevent the "other side" from winning. This type of politics is not based on political opinions or actions. Politics have become too polarized where individuals are being forced into falling within the democrat or republican boxes. Too often I have heard individuals state that they are voting for a certain candidate just because of their party affiliation. They have no idea what these candidates stand for or support. They simply vote either a straight democratic or republican ticket. I think in the past that the system was a good way for channeling political opinions and actions. It encouraged individuals to get involved with the party that they identified with and encouraged a more public approach to politics. However, recently it has become more of an "us and them" mentality where members of either party are not encouraged to be 100% all in with the party's opinions. I prefer to think for myself and not lock myself into a specific party "box".
I agree with your statement that people nowadays are just voting for a candidate just because of their party affiliation. However, I believe that being an independent voter and a voter who identifies with a party have no difference in voting. Most of the people you are referring to are what most people considered "uneducated" voters. Identifying with a party does not make you different from independent voters. Identifying with a party just makes you part of a group. the idea of voting for a your particular party in election is a concept that is slowing dying in today's world. in today's society I think that its more common that people to see people vote for candidate that they see fit.
Delete
ReplyDeleteAre political parties an adequate or inadequate vehicle for channeling political opinions and actions? Is it better to be an independent voter rather than one who identifies with a party?
Personally, I find it obnoxious and irrelevant to have political parties. Yeah this was probably a good idea when our Government was formed, but is now outdated. One reason I don't like political parties is I think that too many people vote for a certain party only because their parents do, and their parents before them did also. I think that we are all socially apt to do be influenced by our family, and taking away political parties would be a step in the right direction. In the most recent election, I think that if the candidates would all of been independent, then they would of been judged more on policy as apposed to what party they are from. Imagine having elections where people have no bias going into them, people would get judged on substance and it would force people to actually pay attention to what is going on in their Government.
I spoke with my grandma about this issue a few months ago, and she insists that even if she wasn't affiliated with a party, she argued that she would still have the same political beliefs. I totally disagreed with that theory, if she was never exposed to a party system, then I believe some of her views would be different. The biggest problem with being an independent is the inability to vote in primaries, unless it is for an independent candidate. So being an independent you cannot affect the election process unless it is done so in the actual elections after the parties have "slimmed down" who they want to represent their party. This would never be an issue if we didn't have political parties.
I Agree with you Jake. I remember from my US history class that after the revolutionary war before George Washington returned to his home he left the American people with advice. He said roughly, not to form a two party system because it will cause conflict between Americans. There is something to add to the impact of families, I've found that individuals who are close to their family or rely on them for support that they tend to vote to what their family wants in order to stay on good terms and receive the support of their parents. Also i feel that growing up in a family that represents one party causes children's views to be isolated and one sided.
DeleteDo you think that there is a way to dismantle the two party systems?
3. Are political parties important to the functioning of a democracy?
ReplyDeletePolitical parties give the people of the country a basis of ideals of how they want the country to be run. Without political parties elections would just consist of politicians just joining sides of their particular crowd on certain issues. The people would not have a safe and judgement of whoever they would be voting for. With political parties there is a sense of order within the democracy and helps the public understand who they would be voting for in the upcoming elections. Political parties help the public come together and find others who have the same views like you. Without political parties I feel as if the country would be more divided because the public would be divisive on every topic. The process of picking a leader would take immense time that as a country we do not have. Political parties are a thing that us as a democracy don’t realize how important it is. If we took out the system of political parties in the United States we would not be able to accept a leader. We would have too many different ideas being represent to the point where our country might fall apart.
But do political parties actually bring people together? With the way our political parties are at the moment and the ideology behind each party, many people could side with both parties, but not like either candidate that has been chosen. What do we do then? Do we take no interest at all in sharing our opinion? Or do we vote for the person that is running against that party? I see what you are saying, but if the people actually had a say in who was in office, it would be a whole different situation.
DeleteI agree with both Daniel and Makayla. I believe that political parties, especially when it comes to nominating candidates are important because otherwise we would have so many different people trying to run and too many different ideas being represented. However, I also believe that the current system in our country has become too divided and that the parties are no longer a means to unite like minded people together but instead has created an "us vs. them mentality. Individuals are simply voting for someone because they represent a specific party or or voting against someone because they are against the party that person represents. We have lost sight of voting for people because of what they stand for and whether or not they share our ideals, now it is simply a matter of whether or not they are red or blue.
DeleteAre interest groups good or bad for politics? Should they be limited somehow?
ReplyDeleteI feel that interest groups can be a bad in politics. As we talked about in class tonight that Doctors organizations can put together the rules and regulations. They do not ask the people what they would like to have. They do what benefits them as providers. They then can rule what happens as in the example that George gave in class tonight that his friend came here and needed a prescription for his eye drops and he had to go to see a doctor that costs 300 dollars and the drops were 5 dollars. The doctors make the rules that in order to get medication that you must have a prescription and the regulate how much the cost is. In other countries they can go into the drug store and by the medication over the country as they do not have interest groups there in their country. We have the same things in the Dental Physicians, Lawyer associations and Vision Doctors. I feel like the interest groups are out for their professions and that they are able to manipulate what they want to happen. The people's actions are not asked what they want and they are not able to add what they would like to happen with the interest groups.
I feel like these should be limited because they have so much power over what the people do. Everything that we need medically and legally are controlled by the ones that we have to go to get guidance or counsel. How is it fair for them to regulate all that we need and want. They have the last say in everything that we do. We should be able to have more say in what we do and what legal counsel says we can and can't do.
There are interest groups that are looking for equality. They want to make their rights and it is not based upon money. To me those are the kind of interest groups that are needed. Everyone believes in something and it doesn't impact the people based on an economical value but a personal value. Those to me are okay. If we need to believe in something and support something it doesn't always have to be about money.
Bad for politics when, say, the interest group's quest for power overshadows the interest that the group is pushing? Or money, like you said? So it becomes the marketization of a "cause" where ideas of a greater good are bought and sold. "American politics is the politics of interests." (Petracca, 1992 pg.3) The most economically powerful interest groups gets more attention from their respective committee or governmental department which in turn becomes an "iron triangle." If the group becomes notable enough in a national sector such as defense or agriculture, it can become a veritable institution of its own and become indistinguishable from official government agencies. So that becomes the "bad" when interest groups who are selling "ethical positions" simply cannot compete in a marketplace against interest groups who are selling "industrial capital."
Delete3. Are political parties important to the functioning of a democracy?
ReplyDeleteI do not believe political parties are important to the functioning of a democracy because political parties skew the ideas of the general population. I completely agree with Jean-Jacques Rousseau when he said that "the moment a people gives itself representatives, it is no longer free. It ceases to exist." (Hague & Harrop, 46) This idea of needing representation for our Two-party system is ruining the original idea of a simple democracy, meaning it is incapable of extending past the primary means. It ruins the idea of a society controlling who will be in power and who will not. The electoral college is the secondary means to the people who actually do the deciding. Political life is available for those who have interest in it, while those who do not share political interests can turn their attention to monitoring the government and voting at elections. This shows how elected rulers are held accountable for their decisions. My question for you is: how serious would our commitment to a free society be if we decided to make political participation mandatory for the people who would rather spend their free time on other activities?
I really like what you have to say here. Your quote from Jean-Jacques Rousseau does a nice job at answering this question. I agree that our bipartisan government is what has created the issues that are circling around today. I feel as though I can speak for the majority of society, when I say that both Democrats and Republicans put their own personal beliefs above the well-being of our country. With that being said, that is what ultimately creates the feud between the supporters of both parties, thus creating bigger issues.
DeleteRegardless of which party one stands for, BOTH take the absolute extreme beliefs, and place them as the basis of their party's belief system. The far left is extremely liberal and the far right is extremely conservative; therefore, leaving everyone at an impasse with one another. To make this whole two-party system work, we need a happy medium. However, as much as I hate to say it, that will be very hard to come by. It seems as though it is hard for people to compromise. Everyone wants to fight and create unnecessary hatred towards each another.
We will probably never see any kind of compromise between two political parties during our life time. Sadly enough, I think they are just going to separate even father from each other. Furthermore, to go along with what you said about our two-party system taking away the idea of simple democracy, is very well stated. We cannot have democracy when two different sides of the same nation are fighting against each other.
I agree, with political parties, the general population do not fully have control over their ideas. But, political parties encourage people to get out and vote which is important in a democracy. Also, Political parties create identification. People feel connected to a party that stands for the same beliefs they do. Overall, parties provide links between citizens and government.
DeleteGreat job answering the question. All keys parts were touched on and the piece from Jean Jacques Rousseau was used perfectly to answer the question. I agree with what you said 100%. They way that our world is going right now the political party’s aren’t helping the cause at all. We are supposed to be one nation and it feels like there is a war between the left and right side. I’m not sure if anything will ever change especially in the near future. Of course we wouldn’t be able to get rid of our political parties but, we need to come together as one instead of being so divided.
DeleteAnd I don’t think that we would be able to make political participation mandatory. We live in a free country and people have the right to vote if they would like to. We can’t make people participate.
Are interest groups good or bad for politics? Should they be limited somehow?
ReplyDeleteWell interest groups are big factors that form politics. Interest groups have definitely have their advantages and disadvantages depending on what you believe in and what you think is right and wrong. From our article readings from last week is says that there are many different types of interest groups. Interest groups are a key part in election campaigns. If a certain group believes in something that a candidate stands for and says they will help to change. Then for sure that interest group will be backing that person up. Personally I do think that interest groups should be limited because I don’t believe in what everyone stands for so if I don’t believe in them all then I don’t think we should have any. I can’t like some and not like others. I have to be fair and equal. But I don’t think much will ever change because these groups will always stand up for what they believe in and not much would change their mind.
A point that Sylvia mentioned in the text from the article was that “interest groups can be differentiated from parties in that the former try to shape government policy without seeking themselves to hold formal state power." In today’s time we see all types of issues taking place and groups are wanting things to happen without them doing anything. I think this is wrong and I think that these groups should be working hard and do everything they can do to change things themselves. I am not a fan of people taking credit for others people hard work.
I can see your point on not limiting the interest groups but I debated this earlier in my blog. I wondered if we limited the interest groups for the medical field then would it make a difference on the cost of medication and treatments that patients receive. As in the story the George discussed in class that his friend over seas could but his prescription eye drops over the counter as the interest groups don't have the same process and implicate the interests of the doctors that see patients and the patents on the pharmaceutical agencies. I personally do not know if it would make a difference or not if we limited the interest groups with Doctors of medical, vision, and dental would it make a difference in the cost of health care and the cost of prescriptions. I think it would be worth a shot based on the healthcare that other countries have.
Delete4. Are interest groups good or bad for politics? Should they be limited somehow?
ReplyDeleteInterest groups have the ability to impact politics in a negative and positive way. Interest groups are non-governmental organizations that try to influence public policy. Sometimes interest group seek to influence policies that will benefit them. There are also promotional interest groups that advocate ideas, identities policies, and values. Interest groups can be good for government because they represent many diverse interests in society. Another positive impact interest groups can have on politics is knowledge. Experts who pursued policies based off of what they are very knowledgeable about can benefit society. Although interest groups can be good for politics, wealthier interest groups can be detrimental to politics. Wealthier people have more resources to influence the government. they can be dangerous because they have to ability to influence policies based off what best suits them. Interest groups also takes away from the influence of the general populations. Interest groups can place more pressure in government officials than the general population.
I believe that interest groups should be limited because it can create inequality. Wealthier peoples have more of an advantage and they also take away from the general population. I believe they can be limited by creating boundaries.
Hague & Harrop, Political Science: A Comparative Introduction, ch. 9
I definitely agree with your post. I think it is important to acknowledge the positive and negative impacts that interest groups have. I definitely agree they should be limited in power but not in number. It is important to have a diverse collective of interest groups because that increases the ways people can feel represented in a democracy. Interest group numbers can also give a indicator of a healthy economy because with larger economies exist "various economic resources usually become more widely distributed and the number of economic interest groups increases." (Hague, Harrop, pg.49)
DeleteI think interest groups, when being solely relied upon in the decision making process, can be bad for politics. As defined in A Comparative Introduction, page 150, "Interest groups (also known as 'pressure groups') are non-governmental organizations which seek to influence public policy." Interest groups are a serious channel of communication between society and government but they pursue specialized concerns, seeking to influence without becoming the government. There influence is generally seen in high-income liberal democracies. You really have to consider the title, 'interest groups'. Often times it is their interest that they are fighting for or trying to push for and not the peoples interest. We have to be very careful not to allow someone's private agenda/personal gain to draw us into a decision that will ultimately hurt us in the end. The example given in class tonight about the doctors and the pharmaceutical companies was an excellent example of interest groups. The doctors do not bother to give patients a holistic approach to treating or curing symptoms because of the kick backs received from the pharmaceutical companies when they push medications instead. The doctors and pharmaceutical companies continue to work together to stay rich while the middle class is steadily decreasing and the poor stay poor.
DeleteInterest groups should definitely be limited because often time they do not speak to the people as a whole only what concerns them. Keeping in mind that within interest groups there are different types of groups like: protective groups which are often the most influential of all groups and promotional groups that want to possess a material stake in how it is resolved. We have to be careful which groups we allow to lobby for us a people and limit there influence.
Hi Joy. Your statements grabbed my attention once again, specifically, “Often times it is [the interest groups’] interest that [the interest groups] are fighting for or trying to push for and not the peoples interest”. The way you phrased that provoked issues in my mind about exactly how people do in practice organize, associate, and defend or promote their interests. The portion of the First Amendment that makes interest groups possible is “Congress shall make no law [. . .] abridging [. . .] the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
DeleteThat the constitution jointly guarantees the rights of the people to ASSEMBLE AND PETITION government within the SAME AMENDMENT indicates its drafters recognized that the two are symbiotically linked. One cannot effectively happen without the other. For example, during the first attempt to pass SOPA (the Stop Online Piracy Act), I petitioned my Congresswoman, as an individual Internet professional, with my grievance that SOPA would interfere with my right to act freely on the Internet by allowing ISPs to essentially become highest bidder gatekeepers of te Internet. She (her staff or an automated system) replied with a useless form letter. This illustrates that I have the right to petition my representative, but as the Supreme Court decided in “Minnesota Board for Community Colleges v. Knight”, Congress has no obligation to listen to or even respond to my grievances [1].
What eventually stopped the passage of SOPA was a coalition of well-organized interest groups with petitions from 7,000 small Internet companies, 7 million signatures collected by Google from “the people”, websites going dark in protest, and even illegal forms of petition such as denial of service (DOS) attacks perpetrated against pro-SOPA websites by computer hacker interests groups (“hacktivists”) [2]. Stopping passage succeeded despite the fact that SOPA was promoted as you say by, ‘wealthy interests working together to stay rich’. The pro-SOPA coalition included interest groups for highly influential entities such as,
• Fraternal Order of Police,
• the National Governors Association,
• The National Conference of Legislatures,
• the U.S. Conference of Mayors,
• The National Association of Attorneys General,
• the Chamber of Commerce,
• the Better Business Bureau,
• the AFL–CIO and 22 trade unions,
• the National Consumers League,
• and hundreds of industry associations representing those who stood to profit from controlling the flow of traffic on the internet [3]
Changing government policy does not stop at the ballot box, after “the battle of ideas in election campaigns” (Hague 154). It requires that “people” within or outside of organizations to which they belong or companies for whom they work, organized themselves into groups that voice their interests. That “interest” is not always necessarily some “dark agenda”. As the author put it, after the election influence comes down to ‘weighing interest rather than votes, because policy decisions emerge from discussions between government and groups’ who represent peoples’ interests, regardless of what forms of association “the people” have organized into – be they commercial, social, or communal (155). In fact, ‘over 500 interest groups focus on environmental issues and 100 on women’s issues’ (156).
[1] https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/465/271/
[2] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2087673/Wikipedia-blackout-SOPA-protest-US-senators-withdraw-support-anti-piracy-bills.html
[3] https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottcleland/2011/12/14/sopa-fixes-isolate-opponents-especially-google/#43a34114196d
DISCLAIMER: This is an intellectual exercise, a college assignment. The views expressed here do not necessarily reflect the political views of the author.
Are political parties an adequate or inadequate vehicle for channeling political opinions and actions? Is it better to be an independent voter rather than one who identifies with a party?
ReplyDeleteWhile many folks in the US believe that the party system is "just how it works," and are fully ready to join whichever party they see as "the lesser of two evils," I believe that notion proves exactly how inadequate it is. The viewpoint that choosing a party is still going to be disappointing either way to so many Americans is, frankly, saddening.
The two party dominant system that we have here generalizes our country into two large subgroups, leaving a great many of opinions and voices totally unheard. The parties further tend to cause division among citizens, creating more interest in debate than action.
I personally am a third party voter, which unfortunately is often frowned upon by majority party voters because third party votes are generally seen as a "waste" of a vote-- another unfortunate belief that many citizens hold due to the long-term grip the two party system has had on our country. Yet, if no one ever votes third party, how do we ever expect our voices to be heard? If no one takes the first step towards change, how do we expect it to happen? I think third party voters could be a very important part of our political system, if only people would act upon their beliefs rather than casting a vote for a "winning" party.
An article published in 2014 by NBC News states, "A Pew study this year found the percentage of Americans saying they are consistently conservative or liberal has doubled since 1994 (from 10 percent to 21 percent), while the center has shrunk (from 49 percent to 39 percent). Maybe more tellingly, 27 percent of Democrats and 36 percent of Republicans see the political opposition as a “threat to the nation’s well-being.”" I think that these numbers say a great deal about the inefficacy of the party system we have here in the US, and unfortunately there is little in place to stop the progression of it, and very little that can be done to overthrow the notion without the help of third party voters.
Are interest groups good or bad for politics? Should they be limited somehow?
ReplyDeleteI think interest groups, when being solely relied upon in the decision making process, can be bad for politics. As defined in A Comparative Introduction, page 150, "Interest groups (also known as 'pressure groups') are non-governmental organizations which seek to influence public policy." Interest groups are a serious channel of communication between society and government but they pursue specialized concerns, seeking to influence without becoming the government. There influence is generally seen in high-income liberal democracies. You really have to consider the title, 'interest groups'. Often times it is their interest that they are fighting for or trying to push for and not the peoples interest. We have to be very careful not to allow someone's private agenda/personal gain to draw us into a decision that will ultimately hurt us in the end. The example given in class tonight about the doctors and the pharmaceutical companies was an excellent example of interest groups. The doctors do not bother to give patients a holistic approach to treating or curing symptoms because of the kick backs received from the pharmaceutical companies when they push medications instead. The doctors and pharmaceutical companies continue to work together to stay rich while the middle class is steadily decreasing and the poor stay poor.
Interest groups should definitely be limited because often time they do not speak to the people as a whole only what concerns them. Keeping in mind that within interest groups there are different types of groups like: protective groups which are often the most influential of all groups and promotional groups that want to possess a material stake in how it is resolved. We have to be careful which groups we allow to lobby for us a people and limit there influence.
One of the main problems of the pharmaceutical interest groups is the over-medication that has been plaguing the U.S. recently. Although the interest groups have been the cause for increase in cost of medications, but have been supplying medications for when they are not entirely necessary. The groups insist that doctors use certain medications on patients, as well as providing them as often as they can. These groups can be harmful to our society because they do not seem to care for our well-being, but only care about how they can make a profit.
Delete5. Are interest groups good or bad for politics? Should they be limited somehow?
ReplyDeleteI believe that interest groups are good in theory but bad in practice when combined with politics. Hague & Harrop page 155 mentions how government departments operate at a level of detail and large scale that they could not become a subject matter expert on every issue. This is where interest groups are useful. rather it to be a protective or promotional group it is a good idea to have an outside party serve to inform and check government decisions on behalf of the people they represent. The development of "social partnerships" are another way that interest groups can be of value by negotiating policy with government. As for Pluralist systems, interest groups come in every shape size and form and give way for the interest of minorities to gain attention from executive politics in order to have dispersed decision making.
Once the practice of interest groups become a reality the weaknesses outweigh the benefits. Social Coalitions undermine or diminish the role of parliament. Interest groups that gain favor tend to cater to one demographic of citizen, the elite, while the less organize or funded groups are ineffective and unheard. Business relationships are formed with policy makers due to the level of impact that interest group has in the economic landscape. These relationships tend to be financially driven instead of voicing the best interest for the members or people that the group was established to protect or promote. The status quo becomes more prevalent as modest change is promoted over radical pushes for improvement. A level of corruption is present once we taint the decision making abilities of elected officials to do their jobs without bias due to the need of interest group funding or support during reelection periods.
I think that interest groups will always be a factor but i do think that they should be held in restraint. To remove the large financial contributions from the political playing field would be a great start. Influence should be won in sound arguments and facts instead of funding preference. limit the exposure of the lobbyist to bureaucrats so that it doesn't lead to scandal or leveraging decisions unevenly.
Is the United States dominated by a “power elite”? If so, who constitutes it? If not, are there any groups or individuals who have exceptional influence? Do the masses matter at all? Are perhaps all democracies dominated by some power elite?
ReplyDeleteA power elite does exists. They do not dominate, but do wield enormous influence. I list six here, but discuss only four:
1) the Federal Reserve, with a board comprised of regional banking leaders, unaccountable to the electorate,
2) highly capitalized multinational corporations,
2) heads of federal bureaucracies,
4) think tanks,
5) interest groups, and
6) long-term office holders.
1) In 1913, the US Congress ‘transferred control of the money supply into the hands of private industry’. The Federal Reserve wields enormous influence over the economy by expanding or contracting the money supply through the printing and destruction of money and interest rates. This sets the pace of lending and moderates inflation, thus affecting the value of the dollar and the purchasing power and wealth of the electorate. Neither the president, congress, or any other elected official can overrule their decisions (Kesselman, pg 326).
2) By incorporating abroad, on foreign soil, multinational corporations can avoid some oversight by elected representatives and the agencies they oversee, behavior which is facilitated by the fact that Congress does not “regulate the flow [or accumulation] of capital” (pg 327). It follows, both logically and logistically, that the more capital a corporation has access to, the more of its operations it can move abroad, provided that such moves are profitable. They could then have a home office here in the United States which manages their foreign resources throughout the globe, mostly free from congressional oversight, federal regulation, and some levels of taxation. And yet the can still be classed a US-based corporation, with all of the benefits and power that entails.
One indirect influence that unelected corporations have over the electorate is through public policy. They influence Congress to enact public policies, enforced by federal agencies, that “stabilize the domestic and international economy” by promoting efforts that benefit corporations (pg 327). Some of these policies, such as raising tariffs, which restrict goods imported from abroad, ‘raise prices for domestic consumers’, and thus transfer their wealth upstream (pg 327).
3) The President has the authority to appoint senior administrators to prominent Federal departments under his authority, such as “the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, and the Secretary of Defense”, and the heads of security organizations, such as the NSA, CIA, and FBI (pg 339). They manage a workforce in the millions, and operate quasi-independently of both congress and the President, and thus are only somewhat accountable to the electorate (pg 339). Since they’re responsible for developing and implementing broad public policy, the executive branch and Congress are reliant upon their expertise and workforce (pg 340). It stands to reason that while the president can reign in their influence by firing and hiring agency employees and the Congress by approving disapproving their budget proposals, both branches would tread lightly to avoid politically damaging revolts from within these agencies.
5) Federal agencies rely heavily upon interest groups for the information necessary for them to make well-informed and effective policy decisions, most often in the form of public hearings or request for feedback (pg 340). This ‘results in symbiotic relationships between the interest groups and the agencies’, which indirectly grant some access to Congress (pg 340). Through this mechanism, interest groups bypass the electorate, and wield influence over public policy. This implies that they have more post-election influence over elected officials than Individual voters do, and that the electorate can most effectively influence their representatives by forming interest groups.
DISCLAIMER: This is an intellectual exercise, a college assignment. The views expressed here do not necessarily reflect the political views of the author.
Delete