Posted by
hwalker on Friday, April 04, 2008 1:05:49 PM
As a member of the electorate, I am a stakeholder in American Politics. That means I am directly affected by, and concerned with, public policy decisions made in Washington by our so-called elected officials. To utilize the notion of a small "r" republican, as a stakeholder it is not only my responsibility to become involved in these decisions, but it is also virtuous to do so in that it upholds and infuses democracy. I challenge you to name one thing that trumps democracy when it comes to universal American values. The smallest, easiest way one can do this is by voting. In previous blogs, we have engaged in discussion about whether or not our votes count, and if they do how much they have been manipulated by the kind of information we receive, or don't receive through the media. This is a serious issue, as all theories of democracy rely on an informed public. I propose a slightly time-consuming, and thus more effective, way of getting involved: Interest groups.
Don't stone me yet, hear me out. In the 1830's a man by the name of Alexis De Tocqueville (Pronounced toke-vill. Don't giggle, you druggie!) tramped across the American country side and came out beaming at our alleged accomplishments. De Tocqueville (wipe that smile off your face!) cited the right to assemble as one of the most inalienable of all human rights, next to liberty, and as essential to the ensurance of liberty. He viewed the ability to associate as the greatest check against government tyranny, and furthermore, as a check against the majority. If you don't like what the elected government is doing, associate with like-mided people and petition the government to reform. Furthermore, if you don't like what the government is doing, get together with some like-minded people, go convince the majority over to your side and vote in a new government. This is how interest groups originated and the right of association is why they survive with such ferocity. We could conclude, also, that the right of association in combination with universal sufferage is the greatest tool of the people against the Government, and embodies the flavor of democracy.
Conversely, one could argue that in a society that builds on capitolism, indeed in a society that designs it's policies around the support of the system of capitolism, the ability of people to associate and influence government in a way that is meaningful is a privilege of those with resources. Furthermore, even if you have resources, your voice is not as loud as the party with greater resources. In other words, in a true democracy representation is impartial, and interest groups function in the way De Tocqueville (I'm not kidding around here, stop laughing!!) views them. But when the government supports the Market, as the U.S. government does, the system favors those with the most resources, therefore breeding inequality of representation. Inequality of representation equals a broken democracy.
This brings us to the discussion on conflict management. In E.E. Schattschneider's essay "The Contaigousness of Conflict," Schattschneider outlines what he calls a basic pattern for all politics. This so-called basic pattern is one in which the "outcome of all conflicts is determined by the extent to which the audience becomes involved in it," and in which it is assumed that those directly invovled in the conflict realize this and therefore try to contain it's scope and maintain control. In other words, if the audience, or those not directly involved in decision making, decided to widen the scope by becoming involved, they in effect steal control from the original players and influence the outcome of the conflict. When applied to political theory, it could be argued that in spite of lack of resources, by becoming involved in the process, you widen the scope of conflict and are able to contribute through agenda setting.
When we look at the nature of interest groups, in possibley what was their purest form when De Tocqueville was writing about them, we discover that they, by the right of association, are vital to a healthy democracy. There is an arguement that could be made that says that the only effective voice is the voice with the most resources, but Schattschneider's theory of conflict would say that any kind of invovlement what so ever succeeds in widening the scope of conflict, and that therefore power naturally lies in the hands of the people. I would further conclude from this theory, that in deciding not to get involved, one religquishes what little power they might have had and they do so by choice. Voting is the easist way to get involved, but as we have already discussed it might not be the most effective way because of inaccurate information that reaches the electorate by way of the media. Interest group involvement is therefore a greater way to prop up democracy. Get active!
"For that matter, it would help alot if intelligent, well-meaing people like Bill Clinton would just quit the hysterical denial. If they would think twice before framing diabolically complex new programs that feed zillions of lobbies, can't adapt, and 'can never be taken away,' that in itself would be a step in the right direction." - Jonathan Rauch, Demosclerosis