The Death of Freedom

I saw this picture, called the The Death of Freedom, featured on an art account on Instagram a few days ago, and I recognized the elitist theory in it. Thought I should share with everyone and see what your opinions are!

Homework Video: Organizing to Influence

Here is the video needed to complete your homework. Enjoy!

Interest Groups: Organizing to Influence

The questions have been posted in the class materials section if you need an extra copy.

I agree with mills that the group of power elites does have a large influence on policy making in america. as mills states" some men come to occupy positions in american society from which they can look down upon, so to speak , and by their decisions mightily affect, the everyday wolds of ordinary men and women. " he means that these people who are in such positions make important decisions that do impact everyday Americans, and most of the time they do not realize what they are really doing, because they do not live normal american lives the most of the population. also these celebrities and CEO's do have enough money to influence policy making but they are not in the position to actually make policy. all in all money does not equal power, but money equals influence.

Theories of Power in Democracy

In the exert from C. Wright Mills book From the Power Elite there are some valid points made by the writer but all in all I do not agree with the overall views of Mills on the power distribution within our democracy.  The Elite group does play a large part in our political system but like Hannah said Mills is trying to say that our country relies on these people, we do not.  These people make influences and impacts on the government that many times does  not benefit the general public (not the one percent).  So lots of time we do not rely on these people but resent them.  In the first paragraph of the reading from Mills he gets straight to the point when he says, " Changes now press upon the men and women of the mass society, who accordingly feel that they are without purpose in an epoch in which they are without power".  People now do think that their voice has little effect, but everyone has some power.  Some may have more influence than others when it comes to money, like Zach previously said with Bill Gates and how he was able to implement the common core however there power is limited.  Bill Gates' influence helped him to implement this but he could not have done so without the political backing of the government.  I agree with Kayla when she says that hyperpluralism is the way that our power distribution is split right now.  There are so many group right now that are not incredibly large but are still affecting and trying to have an influence on the government.  Due to the fact that there are so many of these groups giving the government money the government feels is necessary to try and please everyone but compromising on policies that then in reality leave no one happy.  This causes some displeasure with our government but it is indeed how our it works. 

Theories of Power in Democracy

        The reading by C Wright Mills, "The Power lite", made some very adequate points but also had some false ideas as well.  I agreed with Sarah and Zach about the influence of the wealthy and large corporations.  Money equals more influence, not power.  They are able to sway peoples' decisions with their money, but are not able to directly create and alter policy.  So the wealthy don't necessarily have more power than the average American because everyone gets one single vote and is equal in that sense.  The sole way to have power in government is to be directly involved with policy and lawmaking.  Celebrities and CEOs have extreme amounts of influence, as stated in the article,"Government is dominated by a few top leaders, most of whom are outside the government and enjoy great advantages of wealth."
      Mills also goes on to say that the elite only use their influence and power to benefit themselves.  However, I believe this is not true because they are still apart of America as a whole and everyone always has a certain sense of pride in their nation.  No American wants to see the U.S. in ruins.  So I believe that they may use their power to sway things that help them in some cases, but it doesn't always hurt the American people.  

Theories of Power in a Democracy

These seem to be 5 advantages the power elite has
 (although I would reword coercion).

I agree with C. Wright Mill's stance on the existence of the power elite and the fact that this group, made up of corporate, political, and military leaders, is extremely influential in terms of policy making in America. These groups consist of people who hold positions that allow them to make major, influential decisions - and our country relies on these people to make decisions. Many people refer to history when considering the elite, and reference events such as the dropping of the bombs on Japan during World War II without the people's consent. This event shows how policy is oftentimes held in the hands of a small group of people, and as a result, an elite faction is able to have much power over governmental occurrences. Even today this remains true, with much policy being decided on in a very centralized system. For example, I agree with Emily completely, and think that high-profile citizens like Beyonce or Bill Gates , who have a large fan following, have a heightened ability to get policy that they desire passed, because of the amount of influence the have over mass amounts of citizens who will  help collectively push for reform.  If they want something done, all they have to do is publicly advocate for the cause and they will very likely gain sweeping momentum, which will then be a source of pressure and influence on policymakers, who will most likely listen to what is being said by these prominent figures. Ultimately, there is a relatively small group of people, who all have a place in the triangle of power created by the three big institutions, who have an ability to push policy through, and this as a result begin to influence life of the citizens. For example, Mills stated that "Religious, educational, and family institutions are not autonomous centers of national power...increasingly shaped by the big three...". What we can garner from this statement is that the elite has such a tremendous influence on policies that what ends up occurring is influence over other basic institutions. This is proven in the following lines in which it is said that religious institutions provide chaplains to armed forces, schools train people for corporate and army jobs, and extended family is influenced by economic and military factors that pertain to them. These examples show that the big three institutions have power not only over policy, but also on other administrations as well. The linkage of the big three creates a huge force that has tremendous influence on so many aspects of life. And because many people do not know or care about policy in the government and who is behind it all, people give the elite the power to make decisions because they themselves do not want to get involved - what happens in the end is that many citizens end up handing over their power to the elite, which ultimately gives it more control and more power to make the influence it desires.

Here is a more recent article on the elite theory:
Forbes Article

Theories of Power in a Democracy

Reading the excerpt from C. Wright Mills' The Power Elite and hearing the discussion in class pertaining to the different theories of power in democracy causes me to overall disagree with Mills. While he makes strong points about Elitists and their control of government, he emphasizes their power to an extent that I would consider over-exaggerated. I do not completely disagree with everything he wrote; he makes a good point when saying "they allow their fears and their hopes to affect their assessment of their own power" which basically is arguing that the elites of our democracy are not cynical, and while they may only be considering their own values, Bill Gates being a strong example, they do not realize their power as much as some may believe. While everyone is obviously not equal, and economically strong individuals hold greater political power than the average citizen, it's critical to understand that even though money may equal power, it does not then simply equal policy and political result (Bill Gates being an exception, he is an individual with extremely large amounts of money and influence that no one has truly achieved before) . I agree that the big three as Mills mentioned is evident, and has strong influence on our politics, but the competition between opposing corporations, interest groups, unions, etc. causes the system to slow down to such a rate that the voice of each influential group, in whatever form it may be, is no stronger than the next. Not to say each and every one of them are equal, but rather there is such a vast range of influence on the government that none create the result they all hope for. As Wilson states in his Four Theories of Elite Influence, "no single group, even if it had many political resources, could dominate most, or even much, of the political process." To conclude, C. Wright Mills makes strong and reasonable points on the elites behind our democracy, however he over dramatizes their control.

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?

Theories of Power in a Democracy

I agree with Emily that Mill’s theory that the elites have the greatest influential power in regard to our government is true. As she mentioned, Bill Gates is the perfect example. Although he is a citizen of the United States like you and I, he is a very wealthy person with many followers and uses that influence to get policies created or changed. Other than wealthy people, there are also those who are extremely popular through media and for that, they become wealthy. An example of this is Beyoncé. She has an extremely large base of fans that can be easily influenced by her decisions. If she wanted to make or change a policy, she could easily do so because a political party would want to show that they support one another so they could get supporters of Beyoncé to be supporters of their party. I also disagree with Zach when he says elites are not working for themselves with different types of reform like welfare. Some of these wealthier people may be a supporter of these various causes and want to create reforms; sometimes these reforms also work in their favor. These people normally do not complain about these reforms because it does not affect them and also because they know that there are other people who aren’t as privileged that need the programs formed from these reforms. Of course, going back to theory, by creating the program the people who they are helping become supporters of them, giving them more power than before. These people now feel obligated to support them because of what they have done for them. This gives them a larger support system; also meaning they now have more influence over the people than they did before. Overall, I agree that Mill’s theory that the elites have the greatest influential power in regard to our government is true. 

Theories of Power in a Democracy

I have to agree with C. Wright Mill, that most of the people have the same amount of influence in the politics of democracies, but the top famous and rich people have a whole lot more of a say then the rest of the population. The author of this passage makes it obvious on what his status is on whose voices are actually heard and whose voices are just said to be heard, but are rarely heard. Some examples of people who might have big influence are people who head big companies like Bill Gates and Tim Cook, CEO's of Microsoft and Apple, respectively. The money these people have is what got them to the position to have the big influence they have now. As we talked about in class, Bill Gates had a huge influence on the passing of the Common Core. Before that he donated $200 million across the political spectrum so everyone had a piece if Bill Gates. Apple CEO Tim Cook has also contributed to America lately, he has contributed millions of dollars to help pass legislation to progress gay marriage. He has been somewhat successful which proves Mill's point if money equals influence in democracy.
http://www.carolinajournal.com/cartoons/display.html?id=10981

Theories of Powers in a Democracy

 I agree with Brian. C. Wright Mills' theory of elitists, and that they have control of the government.  Furthermore, I agree with Joe in saying that the 1% has a majority percent in the government.  A man like Bill Gates is a perfect example for this theory.  Bill Gates is not a Congressmen or a President, but an ordinary America.  By this definition of Bill Gates he has a fair and equal amount of power in the government as any American citizen does. Once you add the money Bill Gates has and the influential impact he has, he quickly transforms from a common American to an Elite. Mills' definition of an elite is someone who rules the big corporations, run the machinery of the state, direct military establishment, and "occupy the strategic command posts of the social structure, in which are now centered the effective means of the power and the wealth and the celebrity which they enjoy".  Bill Gates aliens perfectly with Mills' argument about the elite.  Gates has money, which gives him power, which gives him influence among others, which simply continues to give him more power.  The cycle of the elite is endless.  It is also determined that money equals power, so Bill Gates has just about or more power than a Congressman simply because he has more money than you.  The elite don't only have money, but they have influence too, so if the government doesn't accept their money for a law they can influence their followers to push for a law.  The elites cause corruption to what Americans call a democracy.  A law would need to be passed to turn this "flood" back into a "leak" but the people who would pass this law are among the elite, which makes this task seem almost impossible.  Furthermore, even if a law was passed that could limit the money the elite put into the government to get what they want, they would just go to their followers and use their influential power, which is what celebrities have.  Overall, I agree that the elitist have the most power in a government, and there is almost nothing to be done to change this.

The Accurate Elitist Theory

I completely agree with Mill's Elitist theory and how the government is controlled by the certain top population and positions. As much as some people may wish to deny it, the government is greatly controlled and influenced the The Big Three: the rulers of big corporations, the runners of state machinery, and the military leaders. As Mills said, these people are the ones who are in the positions that allow them to have control in the government. In a way, what Alyse and Kayla all said is true, there are many interest groups and famous figures that can have an influence on policy-making within the government. However, in no way is their power close to the impact of the big three. There is even other institutions that Mills mentions that Susan mentioned and that I found very interesting and reasonable, "Religious, educational, and family institutions are not autonomous centers of national power...Families and churches and schools adapt to modern life; governments and armies and corporations shape it" (Mills 73). The reason this was interesting to me is because if one thinks about it, the things he says after this one statement are surprisingly accurate. For example, the excerpt talks about how a man is brought up in a certain family, school, or religion, but even after these institutions have an impact on the man's life, the state he lives in, the job he lives off of, and the army that disciplines him will still affect him the most because they set the guidelines in rules through their power in the government. Another interesting point was how people can feel the impact of this theory. The people live through times where big decisions are made during crisis's within the nation and even everyday policy decisions. However, they see these decisions being made, but know that the people are not the ones making the decisions. This is because the elite of power is taking care of that. One perfect example provided was how the bomb on Japan was dropped and though everyone knew about it, the people were never asked their opinion. This is tricky because the people are the ones that are supposed to hold the most power, not ht elite. All in all, these are just a few good points made to prove the elitist theory.

Theories of Power

I agree somewhat with Zach and Sarah. I agree with Mills' theory that the elite have the greatest influential power in regards to our government. Their example of Bill Gates is the best example to give. He's an extremely wealthy person, with a large following, and uses that influence to get policy created. His influence comes from his extreme wealth. There are also the social elite and media personnel that have large audiences and followings. Their influences on large amounts of citizens will allow them to get policy created. For example, Beyoncé has millions of supporters. If she decided that she wanted a policy and had millions of citizens supporting her, a party is likely to pick up Beyoncé's policy because they want her supporters in their coalition. I also disagree with Zach when he says that the elite are truly not working for themselves with welfare and other reform. Some might be seriously a supporter of the cause but creating those reforms work in their favor. A billionaire elite is unlikely to be truly upset that there isn't welfare. But, he knows that there are many people that need programs like welfare. Therefore, when he creates this program, those people begin to be fans of him. He builds up a larger support group this way. A larger following gives him more influence, and more influence gives him more power.

C. Mills Theory Article Response

After reading the article "The Power Elite"  by C. Mills, I agree with Sarah and Zach in saying that his theories on policy influence are correct.  Mills' explanation of how the wealthy and large corporations greatly influence policy make lots of sense.  This is because of their huge connections to money and therefore can create interest groups or factions that back their opinion on issues.  These individuals  and corporations have the means to make a heavy influence in their government and do so.  A commonly used example in the article and in my peer posts is Bill Gates.  Bill Gates has the power to make an influence, but is not directly connected to the government and therefore does not make so much of an influence on policy making.  This is an instance where wealth does not equal total political dominance.  One who is legitimately connected to government, like the president, congressmen, or secretaries (non-elected individuals) all make the biggest impact on policy making especially if they are very wealthy.  These theories align with what C. Mills touched on in the article.  A quote from the article which really stuck with me was when Mills quoted what "most Americans might as well say of their elite "They are all that we are not".  This does seem like something the American public would say because most feel as though elites use their privileged means to make policy that doesn't contribute to the greater good.  Also, I like when Sarah pointed out that "people of the nation are always going to point out the flaws in the system and blame those who have more power and influence rather than pointing out all that has already been done".  This is a good point because there are always going to be factions and a minority of people who feel like they got the short end of the stick.  This is inevitable and further proves that the elitist theory because only certain wealthy people had all the power some minorities would keep being upset about policy making.  Overall, I do agree with C. Mills' elitist theory.
   

Theories of Power in Democracies

I agree with Mills. The best way he outlines his idea of the elitist theory within the excerpt is that the elitists influence the secondary institutions which in turn directly effects the masses. This means that economic powers such as wealthy corporations, political powers, and military domains shape the way that religious, family and educational institutions go about their business and the average citizen works within these institutions just doing whatever business is asked of them. We see that in our very own educational institutions. Common Core was created by the head of Windows, Bill Gates spear headed the new school curriculum and worked his way through the political game to have it implemented. Did anyone else stop to wonder how odd it was that the Common Core curriculum is very computer based and all its programs are run through Windows.....hmmmmmm. Curiouser and curiouser. Anyhow, this is a perfect example. A very wealthy elitist, Bill Gates, used his influence to change the educational system by creating Common Core and now the common man, those within the school system, are forced to conform. 

Theory of our Government

I agree and disagree with C. Wright Mills theory on how the government works. First, I think he's a bit over dramatic and is calling for action on something that is not alarming to the extent he believes, but he does make very valid points. Mills states America is ruled by 3 power elites, composing of corporate, political and military leaders. He then provides examples to show how these elites influence life for the ordinary man. Religion, family and education are greatly impacted by the "big three" because, as Mills states, "religious institutions provide chaplains to the armed forces where they are used as means of increasing the effectiveness of its morale to kill. Schools select and train men for their jobs in corporations and their specialized task in the armed forces. The extended family has... long been broken up by the industrial revolutions now the son and the father are removed from the family, by compulsion if need be, whenever the army of the state sends out the call" (73 Mills). Ordinary people don't realize how much their lives are not only influenced, but controlled, by power elites. These corporations are so strong that half of the US budget goes to defense. Moreover, I completely agree with Kayla's example of Bill Gates. Our education system is based off of his idea, solely because he has money and connections to politics. This also goes along with another one of Mills' ideas that "the economy...has become dominated by two or three hundred giant corporations...which together hold the keys to economic decisions" (73 Mills). Bill Gates should have nothing to do with education reform, but through the connections of the power elites and his money, he is making the policy in our nation. Essentially, these three corporations are inescapable and all interconnected.
Like I said before, I think Mills is overstating the situation, and his theory is off, due to his extreme views. He states Americans describe their elites as "all that we are not" and this is insulting and makes everyday people seem inferior (71 Mills). Mills should have emphasized the impact money has on the government more. He includes corporate power as one of the elites, but ultimately anyone in the 1%, regardless of association with a corporation, politics or military, holds extraordinary influence in decision and policy making. Once again, I agree with Kayla that our government aligns more with the hyperpluralist theory, in which small groups control policy and prevent the government from truly doing their job.

The Theories of Power in Democracies

After reading “The Power Elite” by C. Wright Mills I am now even more convinced than I already was after reading Wilson’s Theory of Governance in class today that the Elitist theory is not is not how America’s Democracy is controlled today. I completely agree with Kayla and Hannah that the hyperpluralist theory is much more effective in classifying how America currently operates. Mills writes that “Religious, educational and family institutions are not autonomous centers of national power.” He in turn believes that “-the warlord, the corporation chieftains, the political directorate- tend to come together, to form the power elite of America.” While I cannot deny the fact that those three elites to have a considerable effect on law making and what not, I think that there is many other groups and people that contribute to this just as much. A great example that is also included in the article attached below is that there has been many laws set in place like minimum wage and food and safety inspections. If corporations and the wealthy held all of the power, how would that get passed? It’s also unreasonable to say that religious, educational and family institutions aren’t nearly as powerful as the “Elites” he considers so mighty. There are many interest groups involving all of those things that tend to be the most successful because those three topics are what hits home to many people and causes strong feelings. When people feel strongly about specific topics they tend not to let those go and that’s one way how hyperpluralism, which states contradictory policies result from trying to please everyone, happens. Another perfect example of this is all of the campaign finance laws we just spent a week studying. All of those laws kept changing and over lapping; one overruling another. For example, the public voiced their concerns about political campaign finance therefore policy was made to please the country as a whole. Then corporations influenced the Citizens United case which in tern created a confusing mass of over riding laws. I’m not saying that everyone has an equal voice because that would be ridiculous, but there are various groups like the wealthy, corporations, famous people, interest groups and voters as a whole that come together and effect the policy and laws created in this country. To categorize the Elites as only three types of people is the equivalent to categorizing the world into three types of people. It just simply can’t be done. Here is a short article that includes an outside opinion that I think simply states exactly how I feel: Opinions On the Three Theories

Theory of Power in our Government

I agree with Brian. C. Wright Mills' theory of there being elitists and that they are in control of the government is completely true. Ever since the beginning of the U.S. there have been those rich white dudes in control. The men who founded this country where rich white dudes themselves. These men (and women) are needed to help fund the government. The huge CEO's have all of this money and what do they spend it on? They spend it on congressmen who will help pass laws and bills that will make said CEO even richer. This sadly leaves the common people to just sit by and watch everything happen. That one percent controls a huge percent of the government. Look at Bill Gates. he is the world's richest man having a net worth of about 81 billion dollars. He passed a certain criteria of education called Common Core in the past few years. How did he do this? He doesn't have a seat in Congress so how was he involved in this? The answers are simple. he has money so he can influence the government any way he wants. If that's a good thing or bad thing it's up to the common people to decide. But all in all, the actions of one elitist can completely outweigh that of a middle-class citizen. There will always be people that are horribly rich and they will always be influencing the government for better or for worse; we as common people under the government just have to deal with that.

Campaign Finance Refrom

After reading the article "What's the Future for Campaign Finance Reform" and watching the documentary "Big Sky, Big Money" I can safely say that there is without a doubt many forms of corruption in our Campaign Financing system. However, the real questions that has been on every politically knowledgeable persons mind is whether or not our government should just keep spitting out Campaign Finance reforms to try to regulate campaign contributions raised by corporations, Unions, and everyday Americans. My answer to this question is quite simple especially when someone utter the phrase, "Money is like water, it will always find the leak". What this phrase basically means is that no matter how many regulations and limits the government puts on campaign Financing, money will always find its way into the big picture again. For years, money has shown to be the biggest factor in campaigns and in a way that the candidates that have, what seems to be, an unlimited expenditure of money can greatly influence the voters to vote for them in their upcoming election. However, should we just be ignoring the fact that money will always find its way into candidates pockets at the end of the day? In some sense I believe that this aspect of campaign financing is true, but if the money is not regulated then all we will be left with is a flood of corruption and money. Ultimately, in my mind it is virtually impossible to keep money out of politics, but if we do not continually try to resolve this problem it will only end in a bigger mess.

Theories 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 in the country have the most power, even more so than the politicians. I agree with Sarah's idea about Bill Gates saying how since he has so much control since he has so much money. This goes along with Mills' idea that since he has a big influential job, he has a lot of control in the government today. Since he has so much money he is so well known and can easily the public's opinion and almost control their views, just because he has money. The people with the big jobs in the country have the most money, so therefore they are the most powerful. The other part of his theory explains that the politicians and celebrities are next in line for the amount of power they have, and are even less than the extremely rich. This is similar to our country today because many politicians do not have as much control as people would expect them to have. Even if they win office there is a system of checks and balances that restricts them from having control. Since the rich have more money they do not have as many restrictions especially since they do not have and checks and balances they must follow. 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." 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 scared more than strong and able to do what is best. Therefore, Mill's theory of the power in government today is very similar to how the system works today.

Power in Democracy: Elitist Theory

After reading The Power Elite and my other classmates posts, I would have to say that a power in a democracy lies in the hands of an elite, specifically I would tend to agree with with a theory like the Marxist Theory as described in Wilson's Theories of Governance. I think everyone can agree that every person's voice and power is not equal in our democracy, and that there are elites that exist. I would argue that the elite rules through the power of money, or use of the economy, to suit their own interests whether economic, political or some other kind of interest. However, it would be incorrect to say that there are interests that exist that are non-economic because ultimately all interests boil down to some sort of exchange of wealth. Many of my classmates have used Bill Gates and the Common Core as an example of a way a corporate leader can influence the passage of legislation. He pumped a ridiculous amount of money into the system to aid that legislation. It is also important to note that it takes billions of dollars to become the President and millions of dollars to become a Congressmen and then the people who win these elections get nice pay checks and benefits. Clearly, money plays a role in our democracy because politics in our country is based on self interest and generally the most important self interest is acquiring wealth. I mentioned in class before about the donors to the Obama reelection campaign that are now ambassadors to other countries. They spent money to gain important positions in the government and further their interests. Here is the clip:  

Here it is evident that there was an exchange of wealth/power that suited the different elites and subelites needs. Two great examples of this theory in action can be observed in the actions of both the Koch brothers and the NRA. Both of these two interest groups(if you can call the Koch brothers an interest group, which I believe you can) have very large sums of money that they use to influence politicians. I believe around 90% of Americans are in favor of background checks on all gun sales(I'm not sure of the exact statistic, I couldn't find my copy of The Rolling Stone with that factoid in it) but still nothing has been done about it. Why is this the case? The NRA is able to throw money at the problem to help protect their interests which is selling guns. The Koch brothers spend unfathomable amounts of money in campaigns to try and elect the most right wing candidates possible so they can continue to make ridiculous sums of money. That is part of the reason why Eric Cantor lost in the primaries back in the summer and why there has been a rise of Tea Party candidates. These two cases demonstrate clearly that economic interests are the reason behind all political activities. Some people would say that the war in Iraq was over oil, another economic interest. In another post I read the comment about welfare and how it would exist if all elites were self interested. Well, I would argue that a welfare system is in the benefit of the elite because it puts more money in people's hands that will eventually get back to the elite and it also placates the "workers" as Marx would call them. I also would have to say that the Bureaucratic Elite theory makes sense but the only issue is that the bureaucrats that run the government are paid by the elite and must ultimately follow the elites wishes if they wish to make money. Ultimately, despite the presence of a ruling elite all power in all systems of life resides with the people. The way the elite, or "capitalists", gain the power is through the people giving it to them as Mills mentioned in the last paragraph of the reading. Convincing someone to give up their power is incredible easy so elites will always exist. Here is another clip from the Daily Show that kind of discusses the issue of people giving up power:  

Here is the link to the two parts of the extend interview:

Part 1

Part 2

Theories of Power in a Democracy

After reading the excerpt from The Power Elite, I have to disagree with what C. Wright Mills is saying about the power distribution within our democracy. Mills mentions, "their failure to act, their failure to make decisions, is itself an act that is often of greater consequence than the decisions they do make". This sounds like he is trying to say that the country heavily relies on, or puts pressure onto, this elite group he talks about. If the elite group fails then the entire country would fall. In my opinion, that is not the case. I also disagree with Mills when he talks about the conspiracy behind the power of large corporations. I think it is a little crazy to say that large corporations or highly known politicians actually know that they are in the "elite" and that they are forming a conspiracy about it. Yes I think they keep some information hidden from the public but that is because the public doesn't need to know every single thing that goes on in government. But, to say that they have a conspiracy about it is a little inaccurate. I agree with Kayla because I think the hyperpluralism theory is a better explanation for how power is distributed in our country. I think that the smaller, more local level businesses and groups have a greater impact on the power. Factions and the multiple interest groups within our country are all supporting and fighting for the top spot to get their voices heard. That is actually more realistic of our democracy instead of the corporations or politicians trying to get the top spot. They already have the money, the smaller groups are now trying to get a spot. In the end, I disagree with what Mills was saying about how the power is distributed in our democracy, even though he may have some logical thoughts.

Theories of Power In Democracy

I one hundred percent agree with C. Wright Mills' theory about power in our government especially after reading the excerpt from his book "The Power Elite". I feel that today, the only thing that people know our government for is its ability to keep the wealthy individuals and elites in control of the power in our government. The reason why these elites and corporations sustain this power is not just because they have money, but it is simply because not every average American has such a great influence on the public as someone like Bill gates would. All because the one percent of America is being held at such a high standard in our political system, the power of the people is being expunged at the expense of these elites. In the excerpt it states, " As the means of information and of power are centralized, some men come to occupy positions in the American society from which they can look down upon, so to speak, and by their decisions mightily affect, the everyday worlds of ordinary men and women". What Mills is trying to explain here is that the everyday people of America are essentially being belittled due to the fact that the wealthy can affect policy making and the fluctuation of power in our democracy even though it is said that every man is equal. As well as just the elites of our country having the ability to influence average Americans, they also have the power and money to influence their corporations which causes even more power to be shifted over in to the hands of Elites. Therefore my point is that the power in our democracy is unfairly placed in the hands of the rich instead of there being an equal separation of power, which is how this concept was supposed to be derived and it needs to change.

Theories of Power in a Democracy

After reading C. Wright Mills' From The Power Elite I believe he has made some valid points but overall I do not agree with his interpretation of the distribution of power in our modern democracy. Mills states that the elite power in our country is composed of, "...men whose positions enable themselves to transcend the ordinary environments of ordinary men and women; they are in positions to make decisions having major consequences." This statement supports that idea that influence is different from power ad I completely agree with this. I do not believe that wealthy people necessarily have power over the common person because they do not create or carry out policy. I do believe however, that money and status are both very influential. Zach and Sarah used the example of  Bill Gates and Common Core which demonstrates how a wealthy individual cannot physically pass a law on his own, yet he can donate large sums of money to a party or candidate who is then influenced to look out for Gates' best interest once in office. The excerpt also claims that, "...major national power now resides in the economic, the political, and the military domains." This is something I also agree with because these groups named have legitimate authority and their decisions will affect the majority of Americans.

I disagree with Mills' idea of lesser institutions and their level of power. Instead, I support the hyperpluralism theory which states that the smaller, individual groups are so strong that they control policy and make the government weaker. This theory better represents the distribution of power in our democracy today and can be proven  by the number of conflicting policies we have. Since all of these interest groups are competing for the greatest influence, eventually the government is forced to compromise resulting in confusing policy in attempt to please all of these groups. Obama's foreign policy is evident of this theory. I have attached a link to an article that further explains how much contradiction this policy contains more specifically. Overall, though Mills makes some accurate claims about who the elite power includes in our country, I disagree with his idea of how the power is distributed among the nation.
 https://consortiumnews.com/2014/08/21/behind-obamas-chaotic-foreign-policy/

Theories of Power in Democracy

After reading some of C Wright Mills work I must respectfully disagree with him. Yes, our democracy is run by elitists. Also, corporations and the military do have some power in our Federal government. However, I do not believe that there is this "triangle of power" that he mentioned. We must remember that our government is not controlled by a bunch of elitists that make policies just to benefit themselves. That would be a form of a tyrannous government. We must remember what James Madison told us through the federalist papers. He talked about how our nation is essentially made up of factions. These factions will eventually form political parties, but if large political parties form, then the parties will essentially break down into these smaller factions.
             Now these factions, when people come together, can form interest groups and political parties. As the pluralist theory states, all of these groups, no matter how small, can affect the government. However, this is where I must draw the line and state that power in our democracy is best represented by the theory of hyper pluralism as of right now. There are so many groups involved with the government that some group's issues are polar opposites of each other. In fact, some groups are so strong that the government is weakened. One example of this is the interest group known as the NRA. This group is so strong even though is run by so few that the government seems to have very little choice but to listen to it. When a representative tries to pass gun control laws, it is met with gridlock because of how many people agree with the NRA. These groups, whether it be interest groups or political parties create a lot of gridlock. A huge example of this is how Congress has run in the past couple of years. Not only that but there has been some very confusing legislation passed because of these groups. This screams that this government's power is best represented by the hyper pluralism. In fact, this appears to be the exact definition of hyper pluralism. I will agree with C Wright Mills in that the elitists do make some policies that benefit themselves, but the system of power is just more represented by hyper pluralism due to these things.


Here is a link to a video that helps to show gridlock: http://www.nbcnews.com/video/nightly-news/52365614#52365614

Theories of Power In Democracy

I believe and agree with C. Wright Mills' theory about our government after reading the excerpt from "The Power Elite." Not only is he right, but frighteningly accurate with his statement that "Within American society, major national power now resides in the economic, the political, and the military domains." The average person is nowhere equal in American power circles as someone like Rupert Murdoch or Bill Gates is. The hierarchy that has been created takes almost all power away from "the People" that are supposed to be the represented in government. In our society, the voice of the citizen is far outweighed by the individuals who have the most money and can contribute the most to campaigns. These "elite" are much more represented because they have the wealth to keep their views relevant and make sure that ours are secondary. Also, for reference to history for evidence, during World War II the nation as a whole did not decide to drop Atom bombs on Japan, but a few key military officials and politicians who felt that it was necessary. The American people were not consulted, solidifying the point that we are not as powerful as we ought to be as stated in the Constitution. The "equal voice" we are supposed to have is non existent. Bill Gates for example, can create the Common Core and have it implemented simply because he has much more money than we do and can pay large sums to have his views heard. Corporations also control large portions of government because they have the ability to put candidates that they favor into office through huge amounts of contributions and friends in Legislation that they have already put into office who will support their new candidates. Also stated by Mills, all of the smaller institutions are also acted upon by the major three stated earlier. Laws and actions passed by the Major Three can create policy that smaller groups must follow. The voice of the people is truly not equal and wealth and favoritism because of wealth have destroyed the values of the American political system.

Theories of Power in Democracy

After reading an excerpt from C. Wright Mills' article, I would have to say that I agree with his theories. I also agree with Zach's first paragraph where he explains the influence of large corporations and the wealthy.  Large corporations and the rich may not necessarily have more power than the average american, but most definitely have a higher influence on the country due to their money. A common example is Bill Gates; he owns a large corporation known by people everywhere and is a millionaire. Therefore, he is a person who has the ability to easily influence people and the government. In the excerpt it says, "Government is dominated by a few top leaders, most of whom are outside the government and enjoy great advantages in wealth..." As I said before the government is strongly influenced by large corporations and the rich who have an easy access to many people and have the ability to use their money to an effect. However, I don't think this really gives these certain people more "power" than the average citizen. Everyone still votes and participates in government the same way. The only way a person can have more power than another is if that person is directly a part of the government and the policymaking. So in a way, I think the government helps to control the separation of power and influence, effect by the elites, in the government.

The excerpt also goes on to saying that the elites of the nation use their influence and power to benefit themselves. I do not particularly agree with this. I am not in Alyse's class, but after reading what she had said in class, mentioned by Zach, a good point was made. It is clear that the elites of the nation do not just do what is best for them because look at all that they have accomplished as a whole. Welfare has been made, the economy has improved and jobs are being created. People of the nation are always going to point out the flaws in the system and blame those who ave more power and influence rather than pointing out all that has already been done. Ultimately, I agree with C. Wright Mills' theories of Democracy, but I do not think he has an accurate conception of the elites' attempts.
*I think this picture would represent the wealthy in the blue shirt and the poor in the light blue*

Theories of Power in a Democracy

After reading some of  C. Wright Mill's work, i must agree with his theory of our governance.  Its evident in many cases that not all citizens of our country have the same influence on our government.  It is reasonable to say that we all have the same opportunities to make our voice heard and be an influence, but Mills clearly defines who is actually heard.  Corporate leaders are the first type of person he discusses and refers to as the "elites" of our nation.  These millionaires have a great influence on our government because of their money and power to effect large amounts of people.  An example is Bill Gates and the "Common Core" that we all are learning through right now.  People such as this not only have the power to influence policy making but also have the power of influence through their companies. In our democracy, these private corporation owner have the ability to effect the general public through their corporations.  As Mills puts it, "...[the elites] are in command of the major hierarchies and organizations of modern society."  He continues to discuss the influence of political leaders which is one f the more obvious forms of the elites in our country.  With the direct power to make policy, they have a huge influence on the public and can enact anything they want if they can pass the legislature.

However, there is one point in his theory that I do not think fits our democracy completely.  He claims that, "They act in concert, and the policies they make serve the interests of the elite."  In some cases it can be argued that the elite's influence on our government is negative, in regard to the general public.  An example is congress's horrible approval rating.  But, for the most part I think it's most realistic to say that they aren't necessarily trying to dis-serve the non-elite, but are actually trying to help in most cases.  Some may argue that a corporation drawing back salaries or doing anything that appears to be improving their net worth rather than helping the public and heir workers is evidence that the elite only try to better themselves.  But, in man cases these actions actually do benefit all people in the long-run, but many don't stop to realize this.  I find it hard to believe that all elites work only for themselves because of all the great laws and reforms we've made that benefit our country as a whole.  As Alyse had mentioned earlier in class, if they were truly working only for themselves then we would not have any systems set up such as welfare because this greatly helps the general public, and does little for the elite.  Overall, I believe Mills theory holds true in regard to the existence of the "elite" ,but I think he has misinterpreted their efforts.

Theories of Power in a Democracy

ASSIGNMENT:

1. Read the excerpt from C. Wright Mills The Power Elite. Make sure you annotate your reading!
2. Write a blog post either agreeing or disagreeing with Mills' evaluation of American democracy.
• If you agree with Mills you must provide evidence to support his argument.
• If you disagree with Mills you must state which theory is a better evaluation of American democracy AND provide a piece of evidence.
3. Evidence can be any type of media (articles/video/audio/etc)

Campaign Finance Reform

Sorry for the late post,
I think we need campaign finance reform because without reform, the rich people will pretty much get what they want because they have the money for the candidates to help finance their campaign and the candidates need it so they can have a successful campaign. There is also a lot of corruption as it is now and there needs to be a power to look over it to make sure there is no corruption going on. In the documentary, there was a company who was giving a substantial amount of money and there official address was a P.O. box at a UPS store, so there is obviously corruption going on. It is going in minor elections too, it was happening in Tallahassee, but a little more than a month ago, the people of Tallahassee voted for limiting the money in local elections and politics, so the people know what corruption is going on. I think rather than targeting the IRS here I think that we should target the FEC because the FEC is to blame for all of this. The FEC committee should be comprised of six bi-partisan members (It is usually selected by the Senate, House of Representatives, and the President with each getting to select two members), but with the way it is selected now, the Republicans will most likely pick all conservatives because Republicans usually like Conservative ideas and support them. The president will most likely select two liberals because he himself is a liberal. That would put the Republicans in favor and more Republican ideas would be support and the Democrats would get the short end of the stick and it would not be equal tension.

Funny Video

This video is a video that was released yesterday (at the time of posting this) and I thought that I would share it with all of you. It is basically the most recent big news stories songified. It is made by the Gregory Brothers and it is funny. Enjoy!!!!

What Makes a Campaign Ad Effective?

I believe that in order for a campaign ad to be effective it must include the 4 aspects: emotion, persuasion, truth, and style. However I am agreeing with most people when I say that one of the most important is the emotional aspect. If a campaign ad had only provided boring repetitive information and facts then it would have  no way of effecting the viewer and the way they view the ad. The viewer will either have a positive or negative emotional outlook on the ad and this is due to the truth criteria of the ad. What I mean by this, is more than likely if an ad presents factual information and it doesn't seem to unfairly bash or single out a candidate then it will receive positive emotional feedback by the viewer. Having a viewer believe that the evidence an ad presents is truthful then it would make complete sense that the viewer has more trust in that candidate. Persuasion is another part of the criteria for analyzing a campaign ad. If the ad includes very strong message and that message is also clear for the viewer to understand, then consequently the viewer's mind will be influenced dramatically. The last aspect that makes a campaign ad great is its ability to incorporate its own unique style of presenting  message to the viewer. In the "wind surfing" ad by Bush it was clear that Bush was trying to say that John Kerry was essentially a flip flopper. What was different about this ad was its way of incorporating the music, effects, and information all together so that they all coincide with each other perfectly. Having this unique style creates a way for candidates and campaigns to catch the viewers attention, which in the end creates a memorable ad that at least one person will always recall. Therefore, a campaign ad must have all of these important aspects that have ultimately become a criteria for a ideal campaign ad.

What Makes a Campaign Ad Effective?

I agree somewhat with Joe and Cynthia when they say that all four components are necessary to have an effective campaign ad. However, I don't think that's always true or that the four should be treated as equal and separate components. Persuasion is overall the same as the other three because emotion, truth, and style are all used to persuade the viewer. Style will always help set the tone and what emotions the viewer will feel. Truth will either cause a negative or positive emotional response. Therefore, I believe that emotion is the most important factor in creating an effective campaign ad. Causing the viewer to feel a negative or positive response from your ad will help in stay in their mind. For example, with the "Peace Little Girl" ad, after seeing that when a voter goes to the poll they are likely to have a negative response to Humphrey because his views will "kill innocent little girls". That might not be completely true but it is based from truth and extremes like that will cause a very strong emotional response from voters. The style of the ad was dark and makes the viewer upset because they don't want to see that happen. This drives them out to the poll to vote for the man who is against the murder. All of this emotion persuades the viewer.

What Makes A Campaign Ad Effective?

An effective campaign ad consists of all four components, being emotion, persuasion, truth, and style. The ideal ad should contain all of these, however complications occur when considering who the candidate is along with their ideology, past, opponent, etc. Due to these difficulties an ad cannot always stand out in all elements, allowing us viewers to analyze the criteria in each. The most important element, to me, is persuasion, which is different from what a lot of the class has said. Persuasion is the overall goal when dealing with an ad and therefore out of the four elements we have discussed it should be considered the primary concern, however along with what Kayla said it does not truly align with the other components. To create a strong persuasive ad, emotion is the most effective element to reach the average viewer. Emotion is the result of style and truth, as an ad's visual and audio effects culminated together along with truthful and factual claims on the given topic are what put together the overall feeling the ad gives off. This is best represented in "Peace Little Girl" put together for Daisy Johnson in 1964.
This ad is obviously produced towards the emotion of the viewer, as it gives a count down while looking into the eyes of a little girl, followed by a nuclear explosion. The innocent visual of the "cute" child contrasted with a cynical visual of war at its worst is what makes the ad's style appealing for the topic. While it may or may not be entirely accurate when considering the proportion of emotion to the actual reality of the time period, it does portray some truth. While this ad would be classified as an emotion ad rather than a style ad, I feel it is the style that gives off the emotion. As a result, the ad is successfully persuasive due to its emotion.

P.S. I noted that emotion is the most effective persuasive technique for the average viewer. While truth is still important to the people of America, it is not entirely noticeable to everyone and is unfortunately twisted in the campaign ad battle (which is why the battle keeps occurring, causing an endless cycle). On any occasion, truth should be the most important component in an ad, and I felt that was worth mentioning.

What Makes a Campaign Ad Effective?

I agree with Cynthia. A campaign ad cannot only have one element of the four to be effective. Campaign ads must have emotion, persuasion, truth, and style. The emotion must make the viewer feel something. If someone feels connected to something on an emotional level, they are more inclined to care about that certain topic that made them feel that way. The persuasion can be tied in with almost all of the other elements.If someone feels emotion towards an ad, that emotion alone could persuade someone to either vote for a certain person or do something about the topic shown. An ad that is truthful could persuade someone to do something also. A certain style of an ad could persuade someone too. Truth is also very important. Statistics that are cited from reliable sources provide clear origins of information and many people like that. Style is a huge part of campaign ads. The music, sounds, pictures, clips, and also transitions could make people interested in the ad. Finally, an important part of an ad that isn't an element is the topic. The topic can cause emotion and persuade people. All elements are involved in campaign ad making. Click here for a memorable ad in 1968

What makes a campaign ad effective?

I agree with Emily and Megan that a good and effective campaign ad encompasses all four components: emotion, persuasion, truth, and style. Even if the ad is centered toward a specific factor such as style, usually at least one other factor is included as well whether it be truth, emotion, or persuasion. By doing this the audience’s attention will be captured and they will stay intrigued throughout the entire ad. Emotion allows the audience to connect to the ad or feel a specific way. In the “Peace Little Girl” ad by Johnson, emotion is very prominent. The audience gets a very strong emotional feeling and the point of the ad gets across. Persuasion does exactly that, persuade the audience. This is the one factor that directly demonstrates who the advertisers want you to vote for. It usually mentions both candidates, favoring one more than the other. In the “McGovern Defense” ad by Nixon, the advertisers focused on one topic and all of the “bad” things McGovern planned to do and what Nixon planned to do. This of course would get voters to vote for Nixon because he was doing the “right thing”. Truth is usually true facts about candidates and what they have done. In my opinion, this is the least effective because an average person watching television does not want to sit through an ad that just states facts. But if it combined with another factor, it can become an appealing ad. Also, to be a good truth ad where the information was taken from is extremely important. In the “Accomplishment” ad by Clinton, it states some of Clinton’s accomplishments while he was president while stating some of Dole’s failures; it also included where the information was obtained from. Lastly is the style factor which is, in my opinion, the most important. Almost every ad that has been produced includes this in some way whether it is sound/visual effects, music, etc. By having this factor, the audience is truly compelled. In the “Wind Surfing” ad by Bush, style is used very well; music and visual effects are both used to create a comical and compelling ad.