Response one
Anyone who has spent any time studying U.S. government and politics is familiar with the three commonly-held theories regarding the proliferation of interest groups-pluralism, hyperpluralism, and elitism. While generally referred to as "theories," the research included in the readings from this week confirms that Elitism is alive and well in the American political landscape.
This reality explains (in part) how growing inequalities among minority groups continue to occur in spite of considerable gains in the area of combating institutional discrimination.
Although, as mentioned, America's history is one wrought with substantial advancements for subgroups through increased enfranchisement and civil rights, in the past several decades there seems to be a backtrack in policies that were helping bring an equal playing field to achieving "the American Dream."
While women continue to make gains, other groups do not. Americans living in poverty and those in minority groups are finding that government is less and less inclined to champion programs in their favor (such as cuts in GI Bill and Pell Grants (APSA 2004, 16) resulting in "disturbing inequalities (5)," according to the APSA Task force on Inequality and American Democracy.
These inequalities include widening wage gaps between whites and minority groups in the past decade (Kochhar and Fry 2014) and fewer policies that favor lower SES groups (APSA 2004, 16).
The reason for this strange contradiction (more rights but more inequality) seems to be rooted in a combination of factors but all emanating from a single source-money (or the lack thereof). To prove this point, we return to the Elitism Theory of interest group activity.
For those unfamiliar, the Elitism theory states (just like it sounds) that wealth is the basis of power, and that upper class, professionals, and "big business" control most policy decisions (Edwards, Wattenberg and Howell 2018, 14). In the past few years, there have been a virtual inundation of interest groups on the scene, as numbers of groups have more than doubled since 1970 (Berry and Wilcox 2018). These groups are mostly growing in the area of professional and corporate organizations (APSA 2004, 9), as these groups are showing the most dividend.
In fact, research shows that interest groups are credited with more than half of congressional legislation, and around 40% of executive and executive agency policies (Grossmann 2012). This proves the power of the "iron-triangles," or "subgovernments," in which interest groups operate. Interest groups also can control government through candidate selection and access to elected officials gained by the large amounts of money spent in electioneering and lobbying (APSA 2004, 12). The outcome of this power is the elite controlling the policy agenda, which results in policy that favors the elite.
But the wealthy control of government is only part of the problem. The other side is in answering the question: "how has this been able to occur?" The answer is in the lack of voting among lower SES groups and minority groups. Those with college degrees and who are white vote as much as double compared to those who are less educated, and those who are members of minority groups (Edwards, Wattenberg and Howell 2018, 268). In 2008, around 80% of Americans making more than $150,000 voted, while (again) half that rate voted among those making less than $10,000. While there are many factors that go into this, such as lack of transportation and a greater opportunity cost, and laws that unfairly disenfranchise minority groups (Mauer 2002), a major contributing factor is the lack of political efficacy among these groups.
Political efficacy has long been considered one of the most important psychological factors in voting (Morrell 2003). With fewer policies benefitting lower SES and minority groups, these groups do not feel that voting is giving them anything in return. Lacking a voice in government (via not voting) results in a government that cannot hear their "whisper" for the "roar" of the wealthier and more organized interest groups (APSA 2004, 1).
This becomes a vicious cycle-the less they vote, the less government responds, and the less, in turn, these groups vote because of the ever-growing lack of political efficacy. If these began making their voices heard once again at the polls, the cycle could be broken over time. Elected officials would eventually have no recourse but to respond with favorable policy because, at the end of the day, it takes votes-not money-to get in to office. And there is definitely one place that money does not prevail-and that is the sanctity of the equality of each person's votes at the polls.
What will happen in the future? As an optimist who continues to teach high school students the importance of voting, and the high value we place on tenets of the American democracy such as egalitarianism and populism, I continue to hold that the dormant American electorate will once again awaken. As Aristotle stated, inequality spawns revolution.
We can look to the lessons of women's rights advocates. Women are voting at higher rates than men, and are, in turn, making amazing strides in improving the gender income gap, are voting more women into public offices, and becoming more empowered in the workplace. I would like to believe that Americans from other minority groups will take this lesson to heart, and make their voices heard through increased participation so that government will develop policies that address the needs of the entire population-not just those of the elite.
Attachment:- Response paper.rar