Pluralism vs. Elitism free essay sample

The term lobbying conjures up visions of a cigar-chomping interest group representative, his arm around the shoulder of an important senator or representative, advising him how he ought to vote on some obscure provision of the Tax Code and slipping an envelope, fat with currency, into his jacket pocket. Or it conjures up images of favors given: paid vacations to exotic locations, honorarium payments for brief speeches at association meetings, and other exchanges verging on bribery. These images both reveal and confuse. These things surely happened in the past, some continue to happen today, and some will surely happen in the future? (Greenberg Page 192). But what these images don’t help us understand are the intricacies of the inside game that do not involve bribes but are more the politics of insiders and the old boy network. In the United States, There are two basic theories regarding political decision-making within the government. We will write a custom essay sample on Pluralism vs. Elitism or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page They are called the Pluralist Elitist theories. The Pluralist Theory, also known as the Interest Group Theory, suggests that political decision making is the result of the interaction, conflict, and bargaining of a diversity of interest groups both large and small. The Elitist Theory on the other hand claims that political decisions are influenced by a small group of individuals within government; individuals being defined as big business, military and academia. Academia meaning think tanks, research institutes etc. egardless of which theory you may identify with, you must never discount the very special place of business within the government. They are by far the wealthiest lobbyists and thus wield much influence. Mark Green’s article entitled, â€Å"The Evil of Access†, not only highlights this very point but also brings to light the fact that money has direct correlation to political appointment. According to Mr. Green, the candidate with the most money wins? And how does a candidate get his money? Political coffers are mainly filled via the donations acquired from big business such as Enron’s 1/2 million dollar contribution to George W. Bush’s presidential campaign. Some people point to President Bush’s inaction to protect Enron from its implosion as proof positive of the division between business and politics. These same people fail to recognize the indirect assistance that was given to Enron through legislation such as the opposition to price caps on electricity. These price caps allowed Enron to gouge hundreds of millions of dollars from California’s consumers. Parry, 2002) Another facet of Green’s argument is that the daunting task of raising the finances needed to seeking election discourages worthy candidates from competing. This marks the point that if it is the donations from business that fatten coffers, and it is fat coffers that dictate success, it is not a far stretch to see how donations from business have a direct impact upon th e success of gaining office. And once in office, in order to remain in office, you must continue to attract those same donations. As Mr. Green put it, incumbency attracts money and money entrenches incumbency. This may also be argued as the underpinning to George Pillsbury’s article entitled, â€Å"Laws for Sale? † (Green, 2002) Since we do not enjoy a true direct democracy in the Athenian sense but live under a republican form of government, a government where we rule only indirectly through representation, the pluralist theory seems to be the perfect form of representation for our citizenry. Practice is rarely, if ever, the same as theory. In my opinion, Elitism seems to prevail. As Mr. Green wrote, â€Å"Ever wonder why polls show that so many Americans strongly favor higher minimum wages, prescription drug benefits for Medicare, quality daycare, publicly financed Congressional campaigns and stronger environmental protection, even at the cost of higher taxes, yet the political system can’t produce any of these. † The pay-to-play system is a circuit breaker between popular will and public policy. (Green, 2002) The elite theory points out that all systems are dominated by elites. Some say the number is 15-25 thousand, others say 150,000- 250,000, but whatever the number, a small number of people, because of their positions (their jobs), have a tremendous impact on government and society. This circuit breaker that Green mentions is of course the political body that leans toward the wishes of business and not the people. With closer inspection though, we can see that this same political body is comprised more and more of the business people themselves. We all already know the intimate relationship between business and government at the highest levels of government, but have not considered the impact of people at the local levels. More and more wealthy people are entering the ranks of government and in so doing, it is argued, are losing sight of the priorities of the average citizen. Representatives that create policy no longer represen t the average citizen but the wealthy class or better said the class that does not need government services. Fairness in access to the public used to be guaranteed through legislation such as the Equal Time Provision of the 1934 Communications act. This act required that except for news programs, stations that granted (or sold) air time to any one candidate for public office had to grant (or sell) other candidates equal time? (Greenberg Page 175). With today’s revenue hovering at approximately 1 billion dollars for political commercials, as in the 2000 elections, it is highly doubtful that the media, if I were on the ballot, would donate to me equal air time. They would go bankrupt. Money again prevails. Public financing of candidates, expenditure ceilings, and free TV are three reforms that are offered to circumvent our current situation. But it must be remembered that reforms must pass through government. Again, as stated by Green, â€Å"535 campaign finance experts in Congress do not want to change the rules that got them there and have kept them there; and there are hundreds of large interests who invest thousands [in campaign finance] and reap billions [through legislation], and who like things as they are. Green, 2002) The current situation of government seems to be a win-win situation for business at the expense of the average citizen. Although the average citizen may argue that he or she is doing fine, proof of which may be found in the number of new pairs of Nikes they may own, the reality is that wages and the standard of living have not substantially risen as compared to the financial gains of the wealthy class. The rich are g etting richer and the poor are getting poorer. Green also writes that the history of America shows a â€Å"capacity for self-correction. † If I am correct, America self-corrected her independence through rebellion against the powers that were internal disagreements between the North and South was self-corrected with bloodshed and the injustice of racial inequality was self-corrected via revolution. If we maintain this train of thought, we the working class of America, the waged people, should unite, as is our unalienable right, and self-correct our government? In closing, pluralism defines two key factors that ensure representation of all interest groups as competing political parties providing a choice of government policies and pressure groups influencing political decisions. Pluralists view the state as necessary to maintain democracy by promoting political liberty. For example, freedom of speech and holding regular free elections provides everyone in society with the opportunity to express their opinion on political issues. Dye, 2002) Many major sociological theories are concerned with the distribution of power in society and view those with power as controlling the society; this ideal is based on the examination of the way pluralism and elitism view the distribution of power in society. Pluralists believe that direct democracy is impractical in modern, complex societies and that representative democracy is the best way to ensure all interest is represented. Therefore, pluralism can never exist in its purest form, when discussed with r eference to elitism.