Government and Politics

blamed Jews for almost every. thing wrong in Germany or other nations. If

there was a crop failure due to drought, it was sure to be seen as a

Jewish conspiracy.

2. One-party systems. A totalitarian Style has only one legal political

party, which monopolizes the offices of government. It penetrates and

controls all social institutions and serves as the source of wealth,

prestige, and power.

3. Control of weapons. Totalitarian states also monopolize the use of arms.

All military units art subject to the control of the ruling regime.

4. Terror. Totalitarian states often rely on general intimidation (such as

prohibiting unapproved publications) and individual deterrent (such as

torture and execution) to maintain control (Bahry and Silver, 1987).

Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s Gulag Archipelago (1973) describe the Soviet

Union’s imprisonment of political dissenters in mental hospitals, where

they are subjected to drug and electric shock treatments.

5. Control of the media. There is no "opposition press" in a totalitarian

state. The media communicate official interpretations of events and

reinforce behaviors and policies favored by the regime.

6. Control of the economy. Totalitarian states control major sectors of the

economy. They may dissolve private ownership of industry and even small

farms. In some cases, the central state establishes production goals for

each industrial and agricultural unit. The revolt of the Polish workers’

union. Solidarity, in the early 1980s was partly directed against the

government’s power over production quotas, working conditions, and

prices.

Through such methods, totalitarian governments deny people

representation in the political, economic, and social decisions that affect

their lives. Such governments have pervasive control over people’s

destinies.

Democracy

In a literal sense, democracy means government by the people. The word

democracy originated in two Greek roots—demos, meaning "the populace" or

"the common people"; and kratia, meaning "rule." Of course, in large,

populous nations, government by all the people is impractical at the

national level. It would be impossible for the more than 246 million

Americans to vote on every important issue that comes before Congress.

Consequently, democracies are generally maintained through a mode of

participation known as representative democracy, in which certain

individuals are selected to speak for the people.

The United States is commonly classified as a representative

democracy, since we elect members of Congress and state legislatures to

handle the task of writing our laws. However, critics have questioned how

representative our democracy is. Are the masses genuinely represented? Is

there authentic self-government in the United States or merely competition

between powerful elites?

Clearly, citizens cannot be effectively represented if they are not

granted the right to vote. Yet our nation did not enfranchise black males

until 1870, and women were not allowed to vote in presidential elections

until 1920. American Indians were allowed to become citizens (thereby

qualifying to vote) only in 1924, and as late as 1956, some states

prevented Indians from voting in local elections if they lived on

reservations.

Unlike monarchies, oligarchies, and dictatorships, the democratic form

of government implies an opposition which is tolerated or, indeed,

encouraged to exist. In the United States, we have two major political

parties—the Democrats and Republicans—as well as various minor parties.

Sociologists use the term political party to refer to an organization whose

purposes are to promote candidates for elected office, advance an ideology

as reflected in positions on political issues, win elections, and exercise

power. Whether a democracy has two major political parties (as in the

United States) or incorporates a multiparty system (as in France and

Israel), it will typically stress the need for differing points of view.

Seymour Martin Upset, among other sociologists, has attempted to

identify the factors which may help to bring about democratic forms of

government. He argues that a high level of economic development encourages

both stability and democracy. Upset reached this conclusion after studying

50 nations and finding a high correlation between economic development and

certain forms of government.

Why should there be such a link? In a society with a high level of

development, the population generally tends to be urbanized and literate

and is better equipped to participate in decision making and make the views

of its members heard. In addition, as Upset suggests, a relatively affluent

society will be comparatively free from demands on government by low-income

citizens. Poor people in such nations can reasonably aspire to upward

mobility. Therefore, along with the large middle class typically found in

industrial societies, the poorer segments of society may have a stake in

economic and political stability.

Upset’s formulation has been attacked by conflict theorists, who tend

to be critical of the distribution of power within democracies. As we will

see later, many conflict theorists believe that the United States is run by

a small economic and political elite. At the same time, they observe that

economic stability does not necessarily promote or guarantee political

freedoms. Lipset (1972) himself agrees that democracy in practice is far

from ideal and that one must distinguish between varying degrees of

democracy in democratic systems of government. Thus, we cannot assume that

a high level of economic development or the self-proclaimed label of

"democracy" assures freedom and adequate political representation.

POLITICAL BEHAVIOR IN THE UNITED STATES

As American citizens we take for granted many aspects of our political

system. We are accustomed to living in a nation with a Bill of Rights, two

major political parties, voting by secret ballot, an elected president,

state and local governments distinct from the national government, and so

forth. Yet, of course, each society has its own ways of governing itself

and making decisions. Just as we expect Democratic and Republican

candidates to compete for public offices, residents of the Soviet Union are

accustomed to the domination of the Communist party. In this section, we

will examine a number of important aspects of political behavior within the

United States.

Political Socialization

Five functional prerequisites that a society must fulfill in order to

survive were identified. Among these was the need to teach recruits to

accept the values and customs of the group. In a political sense, this

function is crucial; each succeeding generation must be encouraged to

accept a society’s basic political values and its particular methods of

decision making.

Political socialization is the process by which individuals acquire

political attitudes and develop patterns of political behavior. This

involves not only learning the prevailing beliefs of a society but also

coming to accept the surrounding political system despite its limitations

and problems. In the United States, people are socialized to view

representative democracy as the best form of government and to cherish such

values as freedom, equality, patriotism, and the right of dissent.

The principal institutions of political socialization are those which

also socialize us to other cultural norms—including the family, schools,

and the media. Many observers see the family as playing a particularly

significant role in this process. "The family incubates political man,"

observed political scientist Robert Lane. In fact, parents pass on their

political attitudes and evaluations to their sons and daughters through

discussions at the dinner table and also through the example of their

political involvement or apathy. Early socialization does not always

determine a person’s political orientation; there are changes over time and

between generations. Yet research on political socialization continues to

show that parents’ views have an important impact on their children’s

outlook.

The schools can be influential in political socialization, since they

provide young people with information and analysis of the political world.

Unlike the family and peer groups, schools are easily susceptible to

centralized and uniform control; consequently, totalitarian societies

commonly use educational institutions for purposes of indoctrination. Yet,

even in democracies, where local schools are not under the pervasive

control of the national government, political education will generally

reflect the norms and values of the prevailing political order.

In the view of conflict theorists, American students learn much more

than factual information about our political and economic way of life. They

are socialized to view capitalism and representative democracy as the

"normal" and most desirable ways of organizing a nation. At the same time,

competing values and forms of government are often presented in a most

negative fashion or are ignored. From a conflict perspective, this type of

political education serves the interests of the powerful and ignores the

significance of the social divisions found within the United States.

It is difficult to pinpoint a precise time in which politics is

learned. Fred Greenstein argues that the crucial time in a young person’s

psychological, social, and political development is between ages 9 and 13.

In the same vein, one study found that children 13 and 14 years of age were

much more able to understand abstract political concepts than were children

a few years younger. Specifically, in response to a question about the

meaning of government, older children tended to identify with Congress,

whereas younger children identified with a more personal figure such as the

president. Other research, however, points to a significant leap in

political sophistication during the ages of 13 to 15.

Surprisingly, expression of a preference for a political party often

comes before young people have a full understanding of the political

system. Surveys indicate that 65 to 75 percent of children aged 10 and 11

express commitment to a specific political label, including "independent."

Political scientists M. Kent Jennings and Richard G. Niemi (1974) have

found that children who demonstrate high levels of political competence—by

understanding the differences between political parties and between liberal

and conservative philosophies—are more likely to become politically active

during adulthood.

Like the family and schools, the mass media can have obvious effects

on people’s thinking and political behavior. Beginning with the Kennedy-

Nixon presidential debates of 1960, television has given increasing

exposure to political candidates. One result has been the rising importance

of politicians’ "images" as perceived by the American public. Today, many

speeches given by our nation’s leaders are designed not for immediate

listeners, but for the larger television audience. In the social policy

section later, we will examine the impact of television on American

political campaigns.

Although television has obvious impact on elective politics, it has

also become an important factor in other aspects of American political

life. In 1987, when a joint congressional committee held televised hearings

on the Iran-contra scandal, Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North’s outspoken

testimony brought him a wave of public support. One effect of his media

success, though primarily in the short run, was an increase in support for

the "contras" and their effort to overthrow Nicaragua’s Marxist regime. By

contrast. Judge Robert Bork’s televised testimony before the Senate

Judiciary Committee in 1987 seemed to hurt his chances of winning

confirmation as a Supreme Court justice.

A number of communication studies have reported that the media do not

tend to influence the masses of people directly. Elihu Katz (1957)

describes the process as a two-step flow of communication, using an

approach which reflects interactionists’ emphasis on the social

significance of everyday social exchanges. In Katz’s view, messages passed

through the media first reach a small number of opinion leaders, including

teachers, religious authorities, and community activists. These leaders

"spread the word" to others over whom they have influence.

Opinion leaders are not necessarily formal leaders of organized groups

of people. For example, someone who hears a disturbing report about the

dangers of radioactive wastes in a nearby river will probably tell family

members and friends. Each of these persons may inform still others and

perhaps persuade them to support the position of an environmentalist group

working to clean up the river. Of course, in any communications process in

which someone plays an intermediate role, the message can be reinterpreted.

Opinion leaders can subtly transform a political message to their own ends.

Participation and Apathy

In theory, a representative democracy will function most effectively

and fairly if there is an informed and active electorate communicating its

views to government leaders. Unfortunately, this is hardly the case in the

United States. Virtually all Americans are familiar with the basics of the

political process, and most tend to identify to some extent with a

political party, but only a small minority (often members of the higher

social classes) actually participate in political organizations on a local

or national level. Studies reveal that only 8 percent of Americans belong

to a political club or organization. Not more than one in five has ever

contacted an official of national, state, or local government about a

political issue or problem.

The failure of most Americans to become involved in political parties

has serious implications for the functioning of our democracy. Within the

political system of the United States, the political party serves as an

intermediary between people and government. Through competition in

regularly scheduled elections, the two-party system provides for challenges

to public policies and for an orderly transfer of power. An individual

dissatisfied with the state of the nation or a local community can become

involved in the political party process in many ways, such as by joining a

political club, supporting candidates for public office, or working to

change the party’s position on controversial issues. If, however, people do

not take interest in the decisions of major political parties, public

officials in a "representative" democracy will be chosen from two

unrepresentative lists of candidates. In the 1980s, it has become clear

that many

Americans are turned off by political parties, politicians, and the

specter of big government. The most dramatic indication of this growing

alienation comes from voting statistics. Voters of all ages and races

appear to be less enthusiastic than ever about American elections, even

presidential contests. For example, almost 80 percent of eligible American

voters went to the polls in the presidential election of 1896. Yet, by the

1984 election, voter turnout had fallen to less than 60 percent of all

adults. By contrast, elections during the first half of the 1980s brought

out 85 percent or more of the voting-age population in Austria, Belgium,

Italy, Portugal, and Sweden.

Declining political participation allows institutions of government to

operate with less of a sense of accountability to society. This issue is

most serious for the least powerful individual and groups within the United

States. Voter turn out has been particularly low among younger Americans

and members of racial and ethnic minorities. In 1984, only 36 percent of

eligible voters aged 18 to 20 went to the polls. According to a

postelection survey, only 55.8 percent of eligible black voters and 32.6

percent of Hispanic reported that they had actually voted. Moreover, the

poor—whose focus understandably is on survival—are traditionally under-

represented among voters as well. The low turnout found among these groups

is explained, at least in part, by their common feeling of powerlessness.

Yet such voting statistics encourage political power brokers to continue to

ignore the interests of the young, the less affluent, and the nation’s

minorities.

Sociologist Anthony Orum notes that people are more likely to

participate actively in political life if they have a sense of political

efficacy—that is, if they feel that they have (he ability to influence

politicians and the political order. In addition, citizens are more likely

to become involved if they trust political leaders or feel that an

organized political party represents their interest. Without question, in

an age marked by the rise of big government and by revelations of political

corruption at the highest levels, many Americans of all social groups feel

Страницы: 1, 2, 3