Government and Politics

powerless and distrustful. Yet such feelings are especially intense among

the young, the poor, and minorities. is a result, many view political

participation, including voting, as a waste of time.

Cross-national comparisons, while confirming he comparatively low

level of voting in the linked States, also suggest that Americans are more

likely than citizens of other nations to be active at the community level,

to contact local officials on behalf of themselves or others, and to have

worked for a political party. Perhaps this contrast reflects how unusual it

is for people to be directly involved in national political decision making

in the modem world. Nevertheless, it is possible to speculate that if tens

of millions of Americans did not stay home on Election Day— and instead

became more active in the nation’s political life—the outcome of the

political process might be somewhat different.

Women and Politics

In 1984, American women achieved an unprecedented political

breakthrough when Representative Geraldine Ferraro of New York became the

Democratic nominee for vice president of the United States. Never before

had a woman received the nomination of a major party for such high office.

Nevertheless, women continue to be dramatically underrepresented in

the halls of government. In 1988, there were only 23 women (out of 435

members) in the House of Representatives and only 2 women (out of 100

members) in the Senate. This is not because women have failed to

participate actively in political life. Eligible women vote at a slightly

higher rate than men. The League of Women Voters, founded in 1920, is a

nonpartisan organization which performs valuable functions in educating the

electorate of both sexes. Perhaps the most visible role of women in

American politics is as unpaid workers for male candidates: ringing

doorbells, telephoning registered voters, and carrying petitions. In

addition, wives of elected male politicians commonly play significant

supportive roles and are increasingly speaking out in their own right on

important and controversial issues of public policy.

The sexism of American society has been the most serious barrier to

women interested in holding public office. Female candidates have had to

overcome the prejudices of both men and women regarding women’s fitness for

leadership. Not until 1955 did a majority of Americans state that they

would vote for a qualified woman for president. Yet, as a 1984 national

survey revealed, Americans say they will support a woman running for office

only if she is by far the most qualified candidate.

Moreover, women often encounter prejudice, discrimination, and abuse

after they are elected. In 1979, a questionnaire was circulated among male

legislators in Oregon, asking them to "categorize the lady legislators"

with such labels as "mouth, face, chest/dress, and so forth".

Despite such indignities, women are becoming more successful in

winning election to public office. For example, there were 1176 women in

state legislatures in 1988, as compared with only 31 in 1921,144 in 1941,

and 301 in 1969. Not only are more women being elected; more of them are

identifying themselves as feminists. The traditional woman in politics was

a widow who took office after her husband’s death to continue his work and

policies. However, women being elected in the 1980s are much more likely to

view politics as their own career rather than as an afterthought. These

trends are not restricted to the United States.

A new dimension of women and politics emerged in the 1980s. Surveys

detected a growing "gender gap" in the political preferences and activities

of males and females. Women were more likely to register as Democrats than

as Republicans and were also more critical of the policies of the

Republican administration. What accounts for this "gender gap"? According

to political analysts, the Democratic party’s continued support for the

equal rights amendment may be attracting women voters, a majority of whom

support this measure. At the same time, virtually all polling data indicate

that women are substantially less likely than men to favor large defense

budgets and military intervention overseas; these policies have become more

associated with the Republican party of the 1980s than with the Democrats.

Politicians have begun to watch carefully the voting trends among

women, since women voters could prove decisive in dose elections. The

gender gap did appear to be a factor in the 1984 elections—though not as

significant a factor as some observers had expected. According to a poll by

ABC News, men supported President Ronald Reagan’s successful bid for

reelection by a margin of 63 to 36 percent. By contrast, 56 percent of

women voted for Reagan while 44 percent supported the Democratic ticket of

Walter Mondale and Geraldine Ferraro. In the 1986 elections, the ender gap

narrowed somewhat, yet apparently contributed to the victories of

Democratic senatorial candidates in at least nine states, four of them in

the south. For example, in Colorado, men supported Republican Ken Kramer

over Democrat Timothy Wirth by a 49 to 48 percent margin, yet Wirth was

elected because women preferred him by a 53 to 44 percent margin. By

contributing to these Democratic victories, women voters were an important

factor in the party’s 1986 takeover of e Senate.

Interest Groups

This discussion of political behavior has focused primarily on

individual participation (and non-participation) in the decision-making

processes of government and on involvement in the nation’s political

parties. However, there are other important ways that American citizens can

play a role in the nation’s political arena. Because of common needs or

common frustrations, people may band together in social movements such as

the civil rights movement of the 1960s or the anti-nuclear power movement

of the 1980s. Americans can also influence the political process through

membership in interest groups (some of which, in fact, may be part of

larger social movements).

An interest group is a voluntary association of citizens who attempt

to influence public policy. The National Organization for Women (NOW) is

considered an interest group, so, too, are the Juvenile Diabetes Foundation

and the National Rifle Association (NRA). Such groups are a vital part of

the American political process Many interest groups (often known as

lobbies) are national in scope and address a wide variety of political and

social issues As we saw earlier, groups such as the American Civil

Liberties Union (ACLU), Common Cause, the American Conservative Union, and

Christian Voice were all actively involved in the debate over the

nomination of Judge Robert Bork for the Supreme Court.

Typically, we think of interest groups as being primarily concerned

with regulatory legislation However, as political scientist Barbara Ann

Stolz (1981) points out, even the federal criminal code has become a target

for interest-group activity Business groups have sought to strike the

"reckless endangerment" provision that, in effect, makes it a crime for a

business to engage knowingly in conduct that will imperil someone’s life

Business interests have also attempted to broaden the criminal code to

include certain types of incidents that occur during labor disputes,

unions, by contrast, wish to maintain current laws.

Interest groups often pursue their political goals through

lobbying—the process by which individuals and groups communicate with

public officials in order to influence decisions of government. They also

distribute persuasive literature and launch publicity campaigns to build

grass roots support for their political objectives Finally, interest

groups, through their political action committees, donate funds to

political candidates whose views are in line with the groups’ legislative

agendas.

The role of interest groups within the American political system has

generated intense controversy, particularly because of the special relation

ships that exist between government officials and lobbyists for interest

groups The widespread nature of these ties is evident from the number of

former legislators who, after retiring or losing bids for reelection,

immediately go on the payroll of interest groups In 1985, there were 300

former lawmakers and former high-level White House officials parlaying

their governmental experience into profitable new careers as Washington

lawyers, lobbyists, consultants, and administrators So pervasive is this

network of insiders that an organization. Former Members of Congress, links

them together Currently, there are no laws preventing members of Congress

from returning as lobbyists to reshape (or even dismantle) legislation that

they created in the public interest.

Interest groups are occasionally referred to as pressure groups,

implying that they attempt to force their will on a resistant public In the

view of functionalists, such groups play a constructive role in decision

making by allowing orderly expression of public opinion and by increasing

political participation They also provide legislators with a useful flow of

information

Conflict theorists stress that although a very few organizations work

on behalf of the poor and disadvantaged, most American interest groups

represent affluent white professionals and business leaders From a conflict

perspective, the overwhelming political clout of these powerful lobbies

discourages participation by the individual citizen and raises serious

questions about who actually rules a supposedly democratic nation.

MODELS OF POWER STRUCTURE IN THE UNITED STATES

Who really holds power in the United States’ Do "we the people"

genuinely run the country through elected representatives? Or is there

small elite of Americans that governs behind the scenes? It is difficult to

determine the location of power in a society as complex as the Unite States

In exploring this critical question, social scientists have developed two

basic views of our nation’s power structure the elite and pluralism models.

Elite Model

Karl Marx essentially believed that nineteenth century representative

democracy was a shape.

He argued that industrial societies were dominated by relatively small

numbers of people who owned factories and controlled natural resources In

Marx’s view, government officials and military leaders were essentially

servants of the capitalist class and followed their wishes therefore, any

key decisions made by politicians inevitably reflected the interests of the

dominant bourgeoisie Like others who hold an elite model of power

relations, Marx thus believed that society is ruled by a small group of

individuals who share a common set of political and economic interests.

The Power Elite. In his pioneering work. The Power Elite, sociologist

C. Wright Mills described the existence of a small ruling elite of

military, industrial, and governmental leaders who controlled the fate of

the United States. Power rested in the hands of a few, both inside and

outside of government—the power elite. In Mill’s words:

The power elite is composed of men whose positions enable them to

transcend the ordinary environments of ordinary men and women, they are in

positions to make decisions having major consequences. … They arc in

command of the major hierarchies and organizations of modern society.

In Mills’s model, the power structure of the United States can be

illustrated by the use of a pyramid. At the top are the corporate rich,

leaders of the executive branch of government, and heads of the military

(whom Kills called the "warlords"). Below this triumvirate are local

opinion leaders, members of the legislative branch of government, and

leaders of special-interest groups. Mills contended that such individuals

and groups would basically follow the wishes of the dominant power elite.

At the bottom of society are the unorganized, exploited masses.

This power elite model is, in many respects, similar to the work of

Karl Marx. The most striking difference is that Mills felt that the

economically powerful coordinate their maneuvers with the military and

political establishments in order to serve their mutual interests. Yet,

reminiscent of Marx. Mills argued that the corporate rich were perhaps the

most powerful element of the power elite (first among "equals"). And, of

course, there is a further dramatic parallel between the work of these

conflict theorists The powerless masses at the bottom of Mills’s power

elite model certainly bring to mind Marx’s portrait of the oppressed

workers of the world, who have "nothing to lose but their chains".

Mills failed to provide detailed case studies which would substantiate

the interrelationship among members of the power elite. Instead, he

suggested that such foreign policy decisions as America’s entry into the

Korean war reflected a determination by business and military leaders that

each could benefit from such armed conflict. In Mills s view, such a

sharing of perspectives was facilitated by the frequent interchange of

commanding roles among the elite. For example, a banker might become the

leader of a federal regulatory commission overseeing financial

institutions, and a retired general might move to an executive position

with a major defense contracting firm.

A fundamental element in Mills’s thesis is that the power elite not

only has relatively few members but also operates as a self-conscious,

cohesive unit. Although not necessarily diabolical or ruthless, the elite

comprises similar types of people who regularly interact with one another

and have essentially the same political and economic interests. Mills’s

power elite is not a conspiracy but rather a community of interest and

sentiment among a small number of influential Americans.

Admittedly, Mills failed to clarify when the elite acts and when it

tolerates protests. Nevertheless, his challenging theories forced scholars

to look more critically at the "democratic" political system of the United

States.

The Ruling Class. Sociologist G. William Domhoff agreed with Mills

that American society is run by a powerful elite. But, rather than fully

accepting Mills’s power elite model, Domhoff argued that the United States

is controlled by a social upper class "that is a ruling class by virtue of

its dominant role in the economy and government". This socially cohesive

ruling class owns 20 to 25 percent of all privately held wealth and 45 to

50 percent of all privately held common stock.

Unlike Mills, Domhoff was quite specific about who belongs to this

social upper class. Membership comes through being pan of a family

recognized in The Social Register—the directory of the social elite in many

American cities. Attendance at prestigious private schools and membership

in exclusive social clubs are further indications that a person comes from

America’s social upper class. Domhoff estimates that about 0.5 percent of

the American population (or 1 of every 200 people) belongs to this social

and political elite.

Of course, this would mean that the ruling class has more than 1

million members and could hardly achieve the cohesiveness that Mills

attributed to the power elite. However, Domhoff adds that the social upper

class as a whole does not rule the nation. Instead, members of this class

who have assumed leadership roles within the corporate community or the

nation’s policy-planning network join with high-level employees of profit-

making and nonprofit institutions controlled by the social upper class to

exercise power.

In Domhoff’s view, the ruling class should not be seen in a

conspiratorial way, as "sinister men lurking behind the throne." On the

contrary they tend to hold public positions of authority. Almost all

important appointive government posts— including those of diplomats and

cabinet members—are filled by members of the social upper class. Domhoff

contends that members of this class dominate powerful corporations,

foundations, universities, and the executive branch of government. They

control presidential nominations and the political party process through

campaign contributions. In addition, the ruling class exerts a significant

(though not absolute) influence within Congress and units of state and

local government.

Perhaps the major difference between the elite models of Mills and

Domhoff is that Mills insisted on the relative autonomy of the political

elite and attached great significance to the independent power of the

military. By contrast, Domhoff suggests that high-level government and

military leaders serve the interests of the social upper class. Both

theorists, in line with a Marxian approach, assume that the rich are

interested only in what benefits them financially. Furthermore, as

advocates of elite models of power. Mills and Domhoff argue that the masses

of American people have no real influence on the decisions of the powerful.

One criticism of the elite model is that its advocates sometimes

suggest that elites are always victorious. With this in mind, sociologist

J. Alien Whitt (1982) examined the efforts of California’s business elites

to support urban mass transit. He found that lobbying by these elites was

successful in San Francisco but failed in Los Angeles. Whitt points out

that opponents of policies backed by elites can mobilize to thwart their

implementation.

Domhoff admits that the ruling class does not exercise total control

over American society. However, he counters that this elite is able to set

political terms under which other groups and classes must operate.

Consequently, although the ruling class may lose on a particular issue, it

will not allow serious challenges to laws which guarantee its economic

privileges and political domination.

Pluralist Model

Several social scientists have questioned the elite models of power

relations proposed by Marx, Mills, Domhoff, and other conflict theorists.

Quite simply, the critics insist that power in the United States is more

widely shared than the elite model indicates. In their view, a pluralist

model more accurately describes the American political system. According to

the pluralist model, "many conflicting groups within the community have

access to government officials and compete with one another in an effort to

influence policy decisions".

Veto Groups. David Riesman’s The Lonely Crowd suggested that the

American political system could best be understood through examination of

the power of veto groups. The term veto groups refers to interest groups

that have the capacity to prevent the exercise of power by others.

Functionally, they serve to increase political participation by preventing

the concentration of political power. Examples cited by Riesman include

farm groups, labor unions, professional associations, and racial and ethnic

groups. Whereas Mills pointed to the dangers of rule by an undemocratic

power elite, Riesman insisted that veto groups could effectively paralyze

the nation’s political processes by blocking anyone from exercising needed

leadership functions. In Riesman’s words, "The only leaders of national

scope left in the United States are those who can placate the veto groups".

Dahl’s Study of Pluralism. Community studies of power have also

supported the pluralist model. One of the most famous—an investigation of

decision making in New Haven, Connecticut—was reported by Robert Dahl in

his book, Who Governs? (1961). Dahl found that while the number of people

involved in any important decision was rather small, community power was

nonetheless diffuse. Few political actors exercised decision-making power

on all issues. Therefore, one individual or group might be influential in a

battle over urban renewal but at the same time might have little impact

over educational policy. Several other studies of local politics, in such

communities as Chicago and Oberlin, Ohio, further document that monolithic

power structures do not operate on the level of local government.

Just as the elite model has been challenged on political and

methodological grounds, the pluralist model has been subjected to serious

questioning. Domhoff (1978) reexamined Dahl’s study of decision making in

New Haven and argued that Dahl and other pluralists had failed to trace how

local elites prominent in decision making were part of a larger national

ruling class. In addition, studies of community power, such as Dahl’s work

in New Haven, can examine decision making only on issues which become pan

of the political agenda. This focus fails to address the possible power of

elites to keep certain matters entirely out of the realm of government

debate. Conflict theorists contend that these elites will not allow any

outcome of the political process which threatens their dominance. Indeed,

they may even be strong enough to block discussion of such measures by

policymakers.

Who Does Rule?

Without question, the pluralist and elite models have little in

common. Each describes a dramatically different distribution of power, with

sharply contrasting consequences for society. Is there any way that we can

reconcile the vast disagreements in these two approaches?

Perhaps we can conclude that, despite their apparent points of

incompatibility, each model offers an accurate picture of American

political life. Power in various areas rests in the hands of a small number

of citizens who are well-insulated from the will of the masses (elite

view). Yet there are so many diverse issues and controversies in the

nation’s political institutions that few individuals or groups consistently

exercise power outside their distinctive spheres of influence (pluralist

view). Even presidents of the United States have acknowledged that they

felt more comfortable making decisions either in the area of foreign policy

(Richard Nixon) or in the area of domestic policy (Lyndon Johnson).

Moreover, the post-World War II period has seen increasing power vested in

the federal government (elite model). But, even within the federal

bureaucracy, there are a staggering number of agencies with differing ideas

and interests (pluralist model).

We can end this discussion with the one common point of the elite and

pluralist perspectives— power in the American political system is unequally

distributed. All citizens may be equal in theory, yet those high in the

nation’s power structure are "more equal."

SUMMARY

Each society must have a political system in order to have recognized

procedures for the allocation of valued resources—in Harold D. Lasswell’s

terms, for deciding who gets what, when, and how. We have examined various

types of political authority and forms of government and explores the

dimensions of the American political system.

1. Power relations can involve large organizations, small groups, or even

individuals in an intimate relationship.

2. There are three basic sources of power within any political system —

force, influence, and authority.

3. Max Weber provided ( e of the most useful and frequently cited

contributions of early sociology by identifying three ideal types of

authority: traditional, legal-rational, and charismatic.

4. The United States, as a society which values the role of law, has

legally defined limits on the power of government.

5. In the 1980s, monarchies hold genuine governmental power in only a few

nations of the world.

6. Today, oligarchy often takes the form of military rule, although the

Soviet Union and the People’s Republic of China can be described as

oligarchies in which power rests in the hands of the ruling Communist

party.

7. Political scientists Carl Friedrich and Zbigniew Brzezinski have

identified six basic traits that typify totalitarianism: large-scale use

of ideology, one-party systems, control of weapons, terror, control of

the media, and control of the economy.

8. 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.

9. The principal institutions of political socialization m American society

arc the family, schools, and media.

10. Only a small minority of Americans actually participate in political

organizations or in decision making on a local or national level.

11. Women are becoming more successful at winning election to public

office.

12. An interest group a often national in scope and frequently addresses a

wide variety of social and political issues.

13. Advocates of the elite model of the American power structure see the

nation as being ruled by a small group of individuals who share common

political and economic interests, whereas advocates of a pluralist model

believe that power is more widely shared among conflicting groups.

14. Television is having a growing impact on American political campaigns.

KEY TERMS

Authority Power that has been institutionalized and is recognized by

the people over whom it is exercised.

Charismatic authority Max Weber’s term for power made legitimate by a

leader’s exceptional personal or emotional appeal to his or her followers.

Democracy In a literal sense, government by the people.

Dictatorship A government in which one person has nearly total power

to make and enforce laws.

Dictatorship of the proletariat Marx’s term for the temporary rule by

the working class during a stage between the successful proletarian

revolution and the establishment of a classless communist society.

Elite model A view of society as ruled by a small group of individuals

who share a common set of political and economic interests.

Force The actual or threatened use of coercion to impose one’s will on

others.

Influence The exercise of power through a process of persuasion.

Interest group A voluntary association of citizens who attempt to

influence public policy.

Legal-rational authority Max Weber’s term for power made legitimate by

law.

Legitimacy The belief of a citizenry that a government has the right

to rule and that a citizen ought to obey the rules and laws of that

government.

Lobbying The process by which individuals and groups communicate with

public officials in order to influence decisions of government.

Marital power A term used by Blood and Wolfe to describe the manner in

which decision making is distributed within families.

Monarchy A form of government headed by a single member of a royal

family, usually a king, a queen, or some other hereditary ruler.

Oligarchy A form of government in which a few individuals rule.

Pluralist model A view of society in which many conflicting groups

within a community have access to governmental officials and compete with

one another in an attempt to influence policy decisions.

Political action committee (PAC) A political committee established by

a national bank, corporation, trade association, or cooperative or

membership association to accept voluntary contributions for candidates or

political parties.

Political efficacy The feeling that one has the ability to influence

politicians and the political order.

Political party An organization whose purposes are to promote

candidates for public office, advance an ideology as reflected in positions

on public issues, win elections, and exercise power.

Political socialization The process by which individuals acquire

political attitudes and develop patterns of political behavior.

Political system A recognized set of procedures for implementing and

obtaining the goals of a group.

Politics In Harold D. Lasswell’s words, "who gets what, when, how."

Power The ability to exercise one’s will over others.

Power elite A term used by C. Wright Mills for a small group of

military, industrial, and government leaders who control the fate of the

United States.

Pressure groups A term sometimes used to refer to interest groups.

Representative democracy A form of government in which certain

individuals are selected to speak for the people.

Routinization of charismatic authority Max Weber’s term for the

process by which the leadership qualities originally associated with an

individual are incorporated into either a traditional or a legal-rational

system of authority.

Terrorism The use or threat of violence against random or symbolic

targets in pursuit of political aims.

Totalitarianism Virtually complete government control and surveillance

over all aspects of social and political life in a society. (390)

Traditional authority Legitimate power conferred by custom and

accepted practice.

Two-step flow of communication Elihu Katz’s term for a process through

which a message is spread by the media to opinion leaders and is

subsequently passedi along to the general public.

Veto groups David Riesman’s term for interest groups that have the

capacity to prevent the exercise of power by others.

References:

1. Donald Light, Suzanne Keller, Craig Calhoun, “Readings And Review For

Sociology”, Fifth Edition, prepared by Theodore C. Wagenaar and Tomas

F. Gieryn, New York, 1989

2. Richard T. Schaefer, “Sociology”, Western Illinois University, 1989

Страницы: 1, 2, 3