Monday, December 15, 2014
Theories of the distribution of power in democracies
After reading C. Wright Mills excerpt from "The Power Elite" I agree with his idea of how the power in the government functions. One part of his theory explains that the people with the biggest jobs and control the biggest industries(73) in the country have more power over the elected officials in our system. I agree with christe's idea about "This is because of their huge connections to money and therefore can create interest groups or factions that back their opinion on issues." I would however edit this conclusion to include that these influential people can also assemble staff to see their intentions accomplished. One example of this is Bill Gate's foundation creating the new common core curriculum that Mr. Balanda loves so much. This goes along with Mills' idea since Gates oversees Microsoft, which is the biggest technology company in the US so therefore his intrest are to be put into policy more than the average American. Mr. Gates is also likely to contribute to those who support his Common Core when it comes time for re-election. The people with the biggest positions in this country get the biggest say in New policy making. The second part of this theory explains that the politicians come next in line which is somewhat scary because the politicians should be regulating these people and not the opposite way around. Part of the way our system was designed in the US was to not give too much power to a single person in government. However there is a flaw in Hamilton's work because it allows for wealthy members of society to have more power in politics than those who we would call politicians. The amount of red tape these congress men and women go through to get a bill to become a law is extravagant, so outside resources are often quite appealing. The "elitist" in society have more freedom than the policy makers, and therefore can see that more of their intentions are put into place. Another part of the theory that is very similar to government today is the quote that says, "They (politicians) allow their fears and their hopes to affect their assessment of their own power. No matter how great their actual power, they tend to be less acutely aware of it than of the resistances of others to use it."(74) Many politicians in government today do what the public favors rather than what they believe will be best for the country and try to blame others because they are scared of not being re-elected. They tend to be more cowardly. Therefore, Mill's theory of the power in government today is very similar to how the system works today. Below is a clip of Glen Beck tearing Bill's address on the common core apart. Is this a way of Microsoft being able to establish a monopoly in education?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I first like to start off by saying that I completely agree with your argument, Craig. The idea that Elites or wealthy people in this country have the greatest influence on policy making is very accurate. Bill Gates and his creation of the common core curriculum was a great example in explaining of how the second wealthiest man in the country had the power to implement his own curriculum for education all across the country! If this is not concrete evidence that wealth affects the amount of influence a person has then i don't know what other evidence would be sufficient to support the Elite theory. However, I would just like add that i do not think that people without wealth do not have the ability to create. A great example of this is the National Campaign for Jobs and Income Support in which some of the lowest income people in this country banded together to influence there policy makers in providing welfare for these people for the poor by other means besides the clever work of money. Though I believe in the fact that money has a tremendous influence on who is able to create policy and in the matter that they are able to do this, I also say that it is not possible for a high majority of Americans to influence there policy makers as well.
ReplyDeleteI'd like to point out that the theory does nt exclude all of the non-wealth population, rather it pints out how the wealthy are the most influential fact of in government. Also, there are more examples such as obamacare being written by the pill pharmaceuticals as well as the military contacting companies (such as Sikorsky here in CT lobbying in washingon for government money to be given to their companies.
DeleteI agree with you, Craig, but Brian also has a valid argument. Your (Craig's) analysis supports the hyperpluralism theory, stating that groups, or just wealthy individuals, have become too powerful and the government is just trying to appease these interests. Conflict and a dysfunctional government results from the fact that politicians come second. Brian said the use of money isn't necessarily the only way interest groups create or influence public policy, and he supports this by using the job support interest group as an example. Yes, they did pass legislation and accomplish their goal to an extent, but if that group had money, the outcome would have been far more beneficial. Money is the prime factor for achieving success and maintaining it. Everyone knows the NRA and they hold a lot of power, because of their money. Essentially, money equals power and only a few large groups or corporations hold this power, similar to what the elitist theory states.
ReplyDeletesee my comment on Bryan's comment
DeleteI disagree with the majority of both of your arguments, being that elites control our democracy to such an "extravagant" extent. It is true that wealth equals power, and not everyone is financially equal, however as I stated in my post, it does not then create political result as simply as Bill Gates demonstrated. Bill Gates and common core does hold up a strong argument that money can create outcome, however he as an individual is an exception to the overall way our government is run. He had a very single-minded opinion on education and being one of the most highly ranked on the hierarchy of elites, he was able to get such a plan passed. This does show and prove like both Brian and Craig argued that money and the ones controlling it have the largest say in policy making but when looking at the grand scheme of things, policy is created by influences of many lobbyists, corporations, politicians, any gathered "association" as de Tocqueville put it, all with differing views on many issues. The network is so wide and complicated, being made of as many groups and "iron triangles" as it is, that the system results in a pluralist, or more accurately hyperpluralist system, where policy is influenced by probably thousands of groups and/or individuals all wanting to get their voices heard. The politicians, especially congressmen, listening to these groups all have opinions of their own when voting or making policy. It does not happen very often a wealthy individual like Bill Gates comes along and puts something drastic like common core on the table along with the amount of money he has in his bank account. If this example were erased from history, it would be a lot harder to back up the elitist theory that your'e both siding with. It is not uncommon for something like the Anti-Meridian group viewed in the video to come along and influence policy either. It's important to keep in mind that they were made up of average citizens from an average town, without the kind of money Bill Gates or any wealthy corporation has. As an organized faction of people, they pushed their opinion into policy, being that the highway was not built. This obviously doesn't compare to common core's affect of the whole country as Brian exclaimed but it does show promise to the theory of pluralism. In my own opinion, I would consider the power in our democracy "hyperelitism" or hyperpluralism among the elites, however I'm cautious to use the word elite because the system is so complicated and made of such a wide range of groups that some of the so-called elites aren't truly elite anymore. Going through the scavenger hunt, I found so many different companies, corporations, groups, etc. all being multi-million dollars into the political system, that what an average citizen would consider elite isn't even elite anymore. The clash of all this money being thrown against each other in the congressmens' faces results in little policy activity and the slow government we have. The system has too many factors playing into it aside from interest groups for it to be actually controlled by elites.
ReplyDeleteWow wrote alot more than I thought... also did not see Susan's comment before I published
ReplyDeleteNice job Ry!
ReplyDeleteI agree with what Susan said. I don't think it's really the elites are the ones with the power necessarily it's the one with money and the will power to do it. Bill Gates had the money and the will power to get what he wanted to get done and he did get it done. The Common Core which is educational reform is now being used in 44 out of the 50 states in America just shows if you have the money and the heart to do something, then most of the time the rich and powerful will get what they want done. Small groups who don't have a lot of money can't necessarily get what they want done because they don't have the resources to do so or they might get small victories, but not get what they completely want. For example, in the video we watched, NCJIS wanted reform on social welfare policy, but they don't have much for financial resources so they could not get what they wanted done, but they did get a small victory. In this country, money equals power if you want to use your money. Justin Bieber, for example, he has a ton of money, but he does not use any of it to help reshape anything in American politics, so you cannot really say the elites have the majority in the influence of government.
ReplyDelete