Blog post due at 11:55pm on February 24 and comment due at 11:55pm on February 27.
Political Parties and Party Systems
Political Parties and Party Systems
- Is the
- Are political parties an adequate or inadequate vehicle for channeling political opinions and actions? Is it better to be an independent voter rather than one who identifies with a party?
- Are political parties important to the functioning of a democracy?
Interest Groups
- Discuss evidence for and against the proposition: “All political conflicts—including ethnic, religions, gender, and generational conflicts—ultimately boil down to class conflicts. Rich people tend to be politically favored and poor people are not, regardless of ethnicity, religion, gender, or age.”
- Are interest groups good or bad for politics? Should they be limited somehow?
Are political parties an adequate or inadequate vehicle for channeling political opinions and actions?
ReplyDeleteI believe that as a starting point for younger voters, or those who are just figuring out what is important to them, what issues they want to act on and what they care about, political parties are an adequate vehicle. Do I believe that they are ideal? No, but I do think that they can provide resources to the person who isn't well informed, or is unsure of how to effect a change on an issue they feel is important, with direction and information and simply a connection with others who believe similarly.
Is it better to be an independent voter rather than one who identifies with a party?
In America we can all vote independently, however we choose. I don't believe that either is a better choice, I believe that it is only important that people choose for themselves.
When political parties are strengthening democracy, than, I would say it is an adequate vehicle, however, if they are used to erode democracy, than its definitely an inadequate vehicle. Now, more than ever, people drive the democratic process. What people think of their government and its leaders, how, why, or whether they vote, and what they do or say about a host of political issues greatly affect the democracy and democratic ideals.
DeleteAre interest groups good or bad for politics? Should they be limited somehow?
ReplyDeleteInterest groups are economic, noneconomic and ideological groups consisting of labor, agricultural, and public interests. Some interest groups work together to achieve positive results for a healthy democracy by representing all parts of society. Sometimes more attention may be focused on upper and middle classed citizens who have more money and time to contribute to these economic interests. When people work together as a group, they are more likely to get the attention of our government as if there is just one person.
I don't think interest groups should be totally limited, but they can be regulated by leadership and organizational within each state.
I think that your ideal of an interest group would be just that - ideal. Unfortunately we see so much corruption and bribery of public officials and representatives when interest groups are involved, they have a bad reputation. You make a good point, though, when you say that if many people are committed to the same idea then the government SHOULD listen to what they have to say.
DeleteI must agree Melissa, interest groups use their influence and wealth to control politics. And because they are for the most part a faceless entity or celebrity persona they tend to go unnoticed. That is also what can make them so dangerous. We as the general public only see our representatives acting, but don't always see who is pulling the strings.
DeleteIs the United States dominated by "power elite"?
ReplyDeleteI believe that to a certain extent it is. I feel that the power elite are the long time senators and congressmen who always seem to dominate Washington. Some of these guys have been in office for decades. They run all the committees and always have input on all of the big decisions. If you're a freshman or junior senator/congressman and don't vote how they want, they can make your time in DC tough. I think this is where much of the real political power lies. I think the House and Senate should have term limits. Do the masses matter at all? It sure doesn't feel like it sometimes. These politicians claim they vote as their constituents want but I'm not buying it. They vote to keep themselves in alignment with their political party. Are perhaps all democracies dominated by a power elite? I'm sure that most countries with democracies have politicians that have been in power for years, just like here.
You made a good point about long time senators and congressmen being in office for decades. The upper class who are involved in stocks, finance and major corporations have governmental interest to continue and maintain their dominance within the United States. Top officials rule through policy planning on the big issues with key decision making strategies. However, I do feel that the United States at the local level is sometimes dominated by landowners and business owners who own property and well established businesses that are prosperous who come together to gain control over our local government.
DeleteYou make a point saying that that the senators and congressmen who are possessing their status for a long time may dominate the Senate itself and limiting them would be really good and it would be beneficial for the democracy. But what if someone is still the best possible representative for a position, even when he or she is there for a decade? Wouldn't these term limits you mentioned also limit people for choosing the bests?
DeleteI'm not sure that the limit would be good, but the fact that the masses don't matter too much, is not good. I think that people should vote on the representatives more often, so that people in these positions could represent the voters' current views. And if the people trust someone to be the best for more than a decade, then it's very likely that he/she is indeed the best choice.
Money and power has always been able to bull doze through anything. I can believe what you said about if you're a freshman or junior senator, the senior's will bully you into following in their foot steps. That can be stressful on a person who's purpose for being there might be to make a difference.
DeleteI agree the long term senators and politicians are "power elite" but I also think "big business" is a power elite because the amount of money and lobbyist these companies throw at Washington is unbelievable, and makes them a very powerful and formidable "group". Unfortunately, I believe both of these groups have too much power, especially the long term senators who have lost touch with the their voter base but hold the power and money to continue in office.
Delete
ReplyDeleteAre interest groups good or bad for politics? Should they be limited somehow?
I think on a certain level interest group are guiding politics, and that’s not bad. Basically, I’ll vote for the person or political party that represents my interests in the best way, and no one can tell me not to do so. This is just a basic incentive. Also, it largely depends on financial factors, because everyone is aiming at choosing the most beneficial option for themselves. At the same time, I think being socially considerate is a value which a lot of people are lacking. The presence of social consideration in politics would still keep the remaining interest groups, but it would definitely limit their power. On the other hand, I don’t think it’s really possible if we are thinking rationally. In reality, there is no efficient way of limiting interest groups, because democracy is based on people, and people will act upon their interests.
So, eventually I think that these groups should be limited on a certain degree, but this would only happen in an ideal society.
I like that interest groups allow for citizens to find groups that hold their same concerns and gives them the ability to influence public policy. It is a way for groups to get their concerns heard. I agree that interest groups are dependent on financial factors. Money unfortunately is power and those interest groups that have the ability to financial back candidates and have financial incentives for members hold more power. I think there are ways to limit how much influence interest groups can have. All interest groups should be considered and not only a select few dominating groups, and the public should be made more aware of interest groups goals and financial influence in politics.
DeleteQuestion 2:
ReplyDelete"The dilemma of parties is that they appear to be poorly rated by the public yet they remain an essential device of liberal democracy." (Hague and Harrop, 170). Certainly in the United States, this holds true — many people like neither the Republicans or the Democrats, or like portions of both, but given the "first past the post" voting system, parties are an ingrained part of our democracy. This means that to be an independent voter is almost as effective as not voting at all. Now, in the one election I've voted in, I did cast a few votes for the Green party. But that was for local positions, and even then, I knew I was effectively wasting my vote. On a national scale, its the two parties or nothing. The problem with these massive parties are that there is no guarantee that they will reflect ones political beliefs, or that their beliefs are even consistent. The Libertarians, for example, often support Republican ideas of small government, low taxes, and certain personal liberties (gun ownership, for example). They also support many traditionally democratic issues, such as legal abortion, gay marriage, and decriminalization of drugs. Some Christians might agree with the Republican, pro life stance and disagree with their tendency towards hawkish foreign policy, support of the death penalty, and slashing of social programs. The fact that both parties often have similar foreign policy goals (free trade, fighting a war on terrorism, support for allies such as Israel and India, and punishing countries like North Korea, Iran, and Russia with sanctions) means that many people are left out of the political picture all together. In a coalition based parliamentary system, however, parties can be a good solution for taking political action. With proportional voting, independent parties have a much better chance of actually making a difference in politics.
Well done Abraham ! I am very intrigued by the idea of giving a 3rd or 4th party access to the system. I agree with many doctrines that reside within the Green and Libertarian parties, both know that is a wasted vote at present. I dislike the stalemate created the the democratic vs. republican lack of cooperation. Even if a good idea is presented the opposing party tries to squash it, thinking it will give "the competition " a leg up on the next election. Unless one party has a clear majority little changes, except to promote their own ideologies.
DeleteThe United States is indeed dominated by a "Power Elite"
ReplyDeleteEver since the Supreme Court handed down its decision in the Citizens United V FEC (2010), which lifted the limits that a person or corporation could spend on a candidate, coupled with 501(c) non profit front groups, the use of campaign contributions have helped to drive the politics of our country in a rightward direction.
People such as Charles and David Koch of Kansas have spent millions on the campaigns of candidates that met their approval, and in return, have benefitted from environmental deregulation, as well as the weakening of labor law and protections for the worker.
Closer to home, Art Pope, the owner of a chain of discount stores, has spent almost as much on the election campaigns of conservative statewide candidates as all other contributers, and used his influence to set the state of North Carolina on a less progressive path, by adhering to a conservative agenda that weakens the social safety net, lowers taxes disproportionately between socioeconomic groups, and uses his pulpet as State Budget Director to favor businesses over the individual.
Undue influence on politics is also wielded by foreign national Ruppert Murdoch, the owner of Newscorp. Newscorp, who owns Fox News, as well as a plethora of metro daily newspapers, has managed to build a large following of their holdings by catering to a segment of the population that has been alienated from traditional news sources. These followers, studies have shown, are more apt to rely on only one source for their information. This leads to a steady stream of people indoctrinated into the political slant exposed by the outlet, with no counter arguments in which a person can make an informed decision. This solidifies the opinions and prejudices of the consumers of the information, leading to strong support of the candidate who is willing to parrot the (news)corporate view.
I'd be curious, though, whether you thought that it has gotten better or worse compared to our historical roots. For example, universal suffrage was far from guaranteed at the beginning of our nation. More recently, during the Gilded age at the end of the last century, politics was even more explicitly run by and for the elite — the party machine, party papers, and only the beginning of anything resembling investigative reporting. Our current may be more of a return to corporate politics than a slow descent into them — or indeed, if we ever left. The trust busting politics of the 1910's and 20's seemed to put a damper on things for a while, but I still wonder. I would agree, though, that our media is becoming increasingly and alarmingly centralized. There is still a lot of fantastic reporting that gets done, but most of it isn't on the so-called news channels (FOX being a particularly good example, but MNSBC and others too).
Delete1. Is the United States dominated by a “power elite”? If so, who constitutes it? If not, are there any groups or individuals who have exceptional influence? Do the masses matter at all? Are perhaps all democracies dominated by some power elite?
ReplyDeleteTo answer this question, yes the US is dominated by a series of entities with exceptional power. Major corporations such as Wal-Mart and Microsoft hold a lot of influence in the lives of American and therefore have a tremendous influence in politics. Part of what makes these companies so powerful is that they don't appear to be political; they fly under the radar. But with their mass fortunes, lobbyists and interest groups speaking on their behalf, as well as, the multitude of everyday citizens buying their products and using their services one could easily see how and why politicians would bend to their will. These groups have a underlying authority that sways legislation to their favor. Major companies get tax breaks and allowances that smaller companies and individuals don't receive. Politicians could not afford their campaigns if not for the backing of these corporations. Money talks and is very persuasive.
Antoinette, I like your terms "bending to their will". Prof. Guo gave a great summary of American political culture last week, that is applicable to this issue. The US is a capitalist nation first... and a democratic state second. You concluded with "money talks", it is the primary driving force of individuals as well. We are inclined to let big corporations have their way, as long as we get what we want as consumers. The lack of American enthusiam towards the right to vote, shows our apathy towards politics.
DeleteI think political parties are an adequate channel good in some ways and they an inadequate channel in some bad ways. I have the right to choose whomever I want to and should know as much as possible about the person I intend to vote for. Political parties do a lot of homework on their opponents. I can get to know some of the things they have done and some things they haven't from the parties. For a person like myself, I don't have the time to research and look into everything that a person has done. I'm not saying that everything that's reported or said by a member of the party about their opponent is true and should be believed. But it does give you an idea about their character.
ReplyDeleteAre they speading lies that are known to be true? We put a lot of trust in our chosen officials and their political party. Many are guilty of spreading lies and it can cause distrust within the community and can sway our vote to the other opponent. Now are we really choosing who we want in office ourselves or are the political parties? That's another bad thing thst can happen when you have chosen to follow a political parties. Independent voters to me are like outsiders. Their not a part of a team and I believe strength is in numbers when voting is the issue.
Are political parties important to the functioning of a democracy?
ReplyDeleteThey should be, however, political parties want power, they abuse government and look after themselves rather than the public good. The functions of political parties
should be to provide the connection between politics and society. In this sense they ensures that there are different choices in the political marketplace - in terms of ideas. Political parties provide the connection between politics and society; they develop policies and programs; they discuss and evaluate issues and shape human needs into policy alternatives; and they either oversee or control government depending on whether they are in government or opposition.
Unfortunately, political parties often fail to perform these roles adequately or with sufficient credibility which brings about a lack of public trust and undermining od democracy.
In a democracy, every citizen has certain basic rights that the state cannot take away from them and many citizens feel they have lost their democratic rights through protection of the human rights of all citizens; through the rule of law, in which the laws and procedures apply equally to all citizens;
I agree that political parties are more about self and power than the public good. However, I do not think political parties should be important to the functioning of a democracy. If we really lived in a democracy, then what political party you indentify with would have no bearring. As you mentioned: democracy stands for free and fair elections, active participation of citizens, protection of citizen human rights, and laws and procedures that apply equally to all; a "political party" has nothing to do with these protections.
DeleteI believe indivduals who really stand for those same protections should be important to democracy. There is no need to place a label on those individuals because once you do, active participation of the people is lost. Having people identifying with a particular party does nothing but complicate issues and create more problems. For instance when parties refuse to compromise, the whole government gets shut down.
Are interest groups good or bad for politics? Should they be limited somehow?
ReplyDeleteI think that interest groups are good for politics. Interest groups are a "channel of communication between society and government". They give people a way to contribute to the democratic process. When individuals have common interests and goals they can join forces and compete for a share of resources or governmental power behind their goals.When group members are passionate and really involved in common goals, the idea of group unity, is why i think interest groups are good for politics. I think that if members of society want to make a change interest groups can give them a resource to do that. Interest groups should definitely be limited so that the more influential groups don't monopolize all of the resources. The idea of pluralism should definitely be enforced so that each interest group only concentrates on their one area and cant dominate all fields. I also think that the members of the interest groups should be regulated. Even though this is not very realistic i think members should be passionate and involved in the goals of the group and not just write a check or free ride along with the group.
I agree with you. I believe that anyone would wish to have interests groups. This way thwy can feel as though they have more of a say within government decisions. People want to feel like they are some what in control of themselves, not as though the government is in control of them.
DeleteI agree with you. I believe that anyone would wish to have interests groups. This way thwy can feel as though they have more of a say within government decisions. People want to feel like they are some what in control of themselves, not as though the government is in control of them.
DeleteSpecial interest groups extend beyond large coporations and capitalists. Non-profits, religious, education, labor, and minority groups are just a few examples of organizations that need additional representation. Not all state representatives and senators give enough attention to issues that may not involve their regional constituants. I believe most Americans distrust the influence of lobbyists, and much of that sentiment is well deserved. As long a there is a checks and balance system applied to special inteest groups, and the illegal forms of lobying is prosecuted the system should remain open to all citizens as a means to open dialogue on important issues that go unnoticed.
ReplyDeleteI agree that there should be oversight on the powers of special interest groups, but as I elluded to within my post, the power of government to reign in abuses has been decimated by both the courts and by legislation written by the people who benefit the most from the largess.
DeleteThe power of "special interest" groups has greatly increased with the enacting of laws that hide the identity of major contributors to a group, slash reporting requirements and generally enable shell organizations to put forth their agenda under benign names like "Americans for Cute Puppies" or "Southerners for Families, Daisies and Barbeque". Even with nonthreatening names, many of these groups are controlled by one major contributor (or group) that advocate for whatever advances their interests.
Furthermore, the courts ruling that the right of free speach is extended to all entities, and not just people, limit the regulatory power that the government used to enjoy. Now, a corporation can whole sponsor and fund a political campaign of a candidate for office without limitation. A prime example of this is a town in California where a oil company spent millions of dollars to try and get a new mayor and city council elected when the incumbents had started to propose tighter local regulations on the refinery that was located within the city limits.
These are just some of the ways that interest groups, with wads of cash at their disposal, have been able to grow their power unchecked.
Are political parties an adequate or inadequate vehicle for channeling political opinions and actions? Is it better to be an indenpendent voter rather than one who identifies with a party?
ReplyDeleteMy political answer to the first question is that party identification can be adequate for some individuals. Voters that choose not to dig into the politics of voting may want to keep it simple, and vote the way they were taught. For instance, first time voters may not have enough information or time to anaylsis each candidate; so they vote the same as their parents. Identifying with a particualr party is also beneficial when one wants to vote in closed primaries, and it sure is easier when voting in large elections (Hague & Harrop, p.213).
My personal opinion is that polticial parties are inadequate vehicles. Although I understand that most people indentify with a party's bottom line persepective of how government should act, I do not believe the actions of every party member are in aliginment with that party's mission. To really understand where a person is trying to lead you, you have to look into their strategy. Not every person on the same side will consider the "people" when executing their plans. I believe true representation comes from both sides. Therefore, I totally agree that voting independently is better.
3. Are political parties important to the functioning of a democracy?
ReplyDeleteI dont think that political parties should be important to the functioning of our democracy. I think that our democracy may not have a clue how to function with out political parties, because thats just the system that our government is used to. But, I believe that having political parties is just having lables of sets of ideas. And, what happens if a candidate has mixed views of democratic and republican ideas? The elelectors wouldn't know what side to take, because they feel like the are pinned under one or the other lable. Then, governments face the problem of partisian dealignment.
I belive that if any partie makes since, it's the independent party. Every one should, in my opinion, have the freedom that independents have in making their decisions on who they vote for.
3. Are political parties important to the functioning of a democracy?
ReplyDeleteI dont think that political parties should be important to the functioning of our democracy. I think that our democracy may not have a clue how to function with out political parties, because thats just the system that our government is used to. But, I believe that having political parties is just having lables of sets of ideas. And, what happens if a candidate has mixed views of democratic and republican ideas? The elelectors wouldn't know what side to take, because they feel like the are pinned under one or the other lable. Then, governments face the problem of partisian dealignment.
I belive that if any partie makes since, it's the independent party. Every one should, in my opinion, have the freedom that independents have in making their decisions on who they vote for.