This brings us to the third and fourth assumptions of pluralist theory: that there are many competing interests that converge around a given issue and that these competing interests result in policy by consensus. Inherent in this statement is the presumption that those with power have not taken steps to put up road blocks for other parties attempting to utilize their resources to affect change. E.E. Schattschneider explores the idea that those with power can affect the ability of others to act in opposition to them. He outlines a theory of conflict for us which states that “every fight consists of two parts: (1) the few individuals who are actively engaged at the center and (2) the audience that is irresistibly attracted to the scene,” (1975, 62). He continues on to assert that the outcome of the conflict is dictated by how the audience chooses to react. He refers to the “scope” of a conflict as the means by which parties directly involved can maintain control over the outcome (1975, 64). In other words, if the conflict is kept private in the hands of a few people, those people can dictate its outcome. If the conflict becomes public and a greater portion of the audience is included in resolving the conflict, its resolution leaves the hands of the few and is dictated by the voice of the majority. This theory has very interesting implications in terms of elite theory because it suggests, based on the premise that there is an elite class who have managed to coordinate their accumulated power, that this group of people might have a means of a silencing the voices of their opposition through privatizing conflict. Those who have interests contrary to the interests of the Corporate Community cannot be heard because the Corporate Community so dominates the political sphere that no authorized representative would, or could, get it placed on an agenda to be voted on in the first place (Domfoff 2002). This demonstrates the wielding of power beyond the actual decision making process and into the realm of agenda setting. If that is the case, the pluralist assumption that there are many competing interests that result in policy by consensus is false. Rather, there are competing interests but if they have converged around an issue that matters to the Corporate Community, the result is policy in favor of the Corporate Community (Domhoff 2002).  

Alright, I know that was painful, but at least you didn't have to write it. Lets recap: Pluralists make four assumptions when advocating their ideals of how the government responds to interest group involvement. To begin with, it is assumed that power is not centralized, that the state acts as an impartial referee between competing interests, that there are many competing interests that converge around a given issue, and finally that these competing interests result in policy by consensus. By examining elite theory it was revealed that power is, in fact, centralized. Furthermore, a discussion of the state as an impartial referee linked power to resource management, as dictated by the way our government is naturally set up. The combination of these two discoveries makes it unreasonable to assume that policy decisions are reached by consensus. Rather, that claim was qualified with the requirement that the issue not be of interest to the Corporate Elite. This counter argument to pluralism confirms what we already know: The government has too much control over our lives and cares too little about what we think about that. The thing that this study should lead us to recognize is that the issues that we face now, and that we will face in the future, are issues of class. Contrary to what the two democratic candidates would have you believe, prejudice against skin color and sex are possibly gone forever, thanks to those who worked before us. But they have been replaced by prejudice based on economic standing. And why shouldn’t they have been? Capitalism always leads to inequality, and our second favorite thing next to democracy in this country is "the silent hand of the market."

After much reflection, this is my short (incomplete) list:

I want a President who will bring together diverse and divergent points of view, one who won’t be isolated from the real world by cabinet appointees and who will listen to concerns of the people. 

I want a President who will defend the rights and issues of women and children, regardless of color, social status, religious beliefs or influence.

I want a President who will put environmental concerns at least on par with (if not above) big business.

I want a President who will keep as much government intervention and interference as possible out of my daily life.

I want a President who will once again be respected as the leader of the modern world.

I want a President who has a realistic view of life’s risks and who doesn’t have an agenda kept alive by fear.

I want a President who will enforce current laws before enacting others that muddy the water or enacting Executive Privilege to by-pass the laws of the land in the name of National Security.

OK, I admit some of my list is still what I don’t want. But I’ve tried to listen carefully and I recognize that no politician is going to meet every one of my criteria. Initially, my vote was for John Edwards and I hope that he will run again some day. But, now, the field has been whittled down to three Senators – McCain, Clinton and Obama. For me, John McCain is too much of the same ol’ Bush thing. I think I’ve been pretty clear that what I don’t want is another Bush. But would either Senator Clinton or Senator Obama come close to what I want in a President? And how about the issues that matter to me –health care, Veterans benefits, the environment, Medicare and Social Security, taxes and the economy, the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and more?

I have read the issue statements for both Senator Clinton and Senator Obama. While there are differences, I could vote for either one. Again, no one candidate is perfect and - this is a biggie - each will have to compromise with Congress in the end. Rather than list supporting statements here, I’ll suggest that you go to their official websites and read their statements for yourself. Instead, I’m going to explain why I choose to support Hillary Clinton.

As a baby boomer woman who grew up in the middle of second the wave of feminism (see http://www.legacy98.org/move-hist.html if you missed it in a previous comment), I admit I am drawn the Senator Clinton because of her gender. All other things being equal between candidates, this is an historic moment for women. While discrimination is more subtle these days, it has not been eliminated. For example, men in the media consistently refer to Senator Clinton as Hillary, but refer to Senator Obama as Obama when using a one name reference.  They refer to women by their first names as though they have not attained the status of a man.  This may seem like a small thing but it is a subtle form of discrimination, and it is only one of dozens of small examples, not to mention those examples that are blatant.  Discrimination against women is not a thing of the past.

I would like to see a national holiday in remembrance of Elizabeth Cady Stanton who started the women’s movement in 1848 much like the holiday of Martin Luther King where we gather and remember where we’ve been, assess where we are, and bring to the forefront where we still need to be to establish equality for all men and women. Young women today take for granted the very things my generation and generations of women before me fought against, and we have no one to blame but ourselves for not regularly reminding them of the hard fight - a national holiday would help us remember and remind. Towards that end, I see the election of a woman as President as the next giant step in changing the mindset of future generations.

I am aware that people either love Senator Clinton or they hate her. There seems to be no middle ground with the electorate. There are questions of integrity and I’m not belittling the importance of integrity, but I’ve heard all three Senators caught in lies. She has experience, and is well known and respected throughout the world. She’s a fighter, there’s no denying that, and she’s spent her life fighting for issues that affect women and children. I also believe she will be more than competent as Commander in Chief.

I will continue to support Senator Clinton through the national convention and, should she become the first woman President, I’ll hold her to a very high standard. As is always the case for the first woman in any position, she’ll have to work twice as hard to be seen just as competent as her male counterparts. In the meantime, I look forward to an election season where gender and race no longer matter in choosing our elected officials.