James Madison, in Federalist 10, was concerned about the danger of factions. He was concerned that in a society in which people have the right to freely express their political views, portions of the population are likely to pursue their own self interests. However, the issue is when self-interests do not benefit the interests of the Nation. Madison was also concerned that if the government limits people from expressing their self-interests, political freedom will thus be taken away. Madison recognized that human nature dictates that people will act in their self-interest, but using this basic premise, other political scientists argued about the ways in which individuals who have similar interests will associate.
This analysis will cover
…show more content…
It is through connections with other people that individuals believe they can impact politics. More specifically, those with similar interests are likely to develop social trust, bargain with others and build coalitions. Putnam also argued that interest groups can mobilize people who share similar behaviors, mores and beliefs. He used an anecdote that in the 1990s, Christian fundamentalists and Catholics bridged their conflicts by working toward pro-life ideals. Truman argued that overlapping members in interest groups can solve the issue of factions, since members would unite under a greater number of issues. Essentially, Putnam made the claim that individuals have become disconnected from “family, friends, neighbors and social structures.” He argues that this greater disconnect is detrimental to society, because according to Putnam, communities with less social capital have lower educational …show more content…
Interests groups are more prevalent in today’s politics than ever before, yet Putnam argues that people have become disconnected from social structures. While Putnam claims that individuals who connect to others feel as though they can influence politics, he also claims that these connections are lessening in today’s society. Thus, this primary claim that connections, and thereby, social capital, is reducing contradicts with the widespread increase of interest groups.
David Truman suggested that interests group are the outcome of two forces, the first being society’s growing complexity. He suggests that as the economy expands and socioeconomic conditions evolve, new interest groups will form and others will lessen. For example, as social media and technology has expanded, the necessity for interest groups representing Americans’ internet privacy and net neutrality has increased. As the tax code has become more complex, and thus, wealthier individuals have utilized tax loopholes, more interest groups advocating for middle class Americans have become more
Madison says this because he believed that all people act according to their own local situations. According to Madison, people act in the name of their own selfish reasons, instead of considering the broader greater good. Thus, states should not be trusted to be the strongest part of the government, and factions should not be trusted with the majority of the power, either.
People have to take a stance against larger issues regardless if they have an “interest” in politics. After Mueller comes a different author, Paul Rogat Loeb and The Active Citizen. Paul’s work represents the opposite ideal of Mueller. He talks about how more people need to be involved, and why there aren’t more already involved. He offers an explanation to this anomaly with Learned Helplessness, a condition in which a person suffers from a sense of powerlessness, arising from a persistent failure to succeed. Loeb argues that this is from American culture persistently putting down ideas and making citizens doubt themselves and their ideas particularly relating to politics and I agree. There are so many great thinkers that are demoralized by the idea that what they have to say is not true and I don’t think society should be that way. People’s economic circumstances also play a role into both author’s philosophies. If someone is born into a poorer community then they are going to have less options to read about news or watch things on TV, or even have enough time to keep up with politics because of working two or three jobs. When Mueller says people aren’t involved in politics because they are not interested he’s not telling the whole truth. The economic divide is also prominent in the portrayal and interests in
The impact of social capital theories on methods of politics, economics, and social issues was largely unprecedented when Robert Putnam conducted his research in Italy in the 70’s and 80’s and published Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. It has since been greeted with both endorsement and disapproval, with equal validations for both sides. Authors Filippo Sabetti, The Search for Good Government: Understanding the Paradox of Italian Democracy, and Shari Berman, “Civil Society and the Collapse of the Weimar Republic”, agree that Putnam’s research was flawed, rendering his argument unsound. At a very basic level, Putnam’s argument can be surmised as believing “social context and history profoundly condition the effectiveness
When I think about a political community, I usually associate it with elections, politicians, and advertisements that bad mouth candidates from the different political parties. Politicians try to persuade citizens to vote for them by making promises that they may never fulfill. But a political community is more than that. A comparison of Aristotle and John Locke’s nature and purpose of a political community has given me a new insight. I learned that, even though the political community is responsible to provide security, its main purpose is aimed for the highest good of all its citizens, which is virtue and happiness.
Social capital is the relationships and ties that we build within society that enables society to work effectively and efficiently. Social capital is a public good, just like clean air and safe streets which is underprovided by private agents as social capital must be aa by-product of other social activities (Putnam, R 1993:4).Social capital has evidently changed in the last few decades of the twentieth century and as a result of these changes, engagement within society has lessened. Social capital as pointed out by Putnam has an individual and a collective aspect, where you can have your own social capital at home with your family and friends or publically by being involved in community activities (Putnam, R 1995). In Habits of the heart by Robert N Bellah he again confirms Putnams theory on changing social capital on dwindling civic engagement. Bellah talks of fears that the ‘Language’ of individualism would undermine civic commitment within society which as Putnam clearly demonstrates in bowling alone has happened (Bellah, N.R 1996).
Robert Putnam's basic thesis is that there is a decline in civic engagement in urban cities. He goes on to explore different probable factors that are causing the decline in civic engagement. First off, he dichotomizes civic engagement into two categories: machers and schmoozers. Machers and schmoozers are people who engage in formal kinds of civic engagement (following politics) and informal kinds of civic engagement (hanging out with friends) respectively.
Limiting interest group is like cutting off the blood that flows through America’s vein. Interest groups plays a pivotal role in todays U.S society ranging from but not limited to; helping Congress and the administration to draft legislation and policy initiatives, provide information both to government and the public on a broad range of topical issues, and contribute significantly to political
Social connections, civic engagement and civic trust influence our life dramatically. In Robert D. Putnam's article, “Bowling Alone: America's Declining Social Capital,” his begins with the argument that America's social capital is declining and the strength of American societies have weakened. To support his claim, he analyzes multiple reasons for the decline such as, the movement of women into the labor force, the mobility of individuals and the constant improvement of technology. According to Putnam, “social capital refers to features of social organization such as networks, norms and social trust that facilitate coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit” (384). In simpler terms, social capital is a combination of civic engagement and civic trust. If a society has an abundance of social capital it will produce positive results and successful outcomes. Such results include “better schools, faster economic development, lower crime, and more effective government” (383). These results can significantly improve America’s social capital.
This relationship is explained through the social phenomenon known as the “principle of reciprocity” that governs much of American politics. This theory, instituted by Robert Cialdini, states that “there is a compelling pull on the lawmakers to eventually give something” to the interest groups that “invest in the lawmakers”. The fact that lawmakers feel indebted to a select few interest groups poses a major threat to the rest of the constituents that they represent.
People flock to those with similar ideas. Some people create or are involved in interest groups to act on their beliefs. Said beliefs are strong and have the capacity to change current political agendas. Beliefs produce responses; responses ignite operation. The power of political
The emergence of activist groups influence has elevated due to their increasing ability to finance campaigns, previously, party leaders were able to make it more difficult for party activists to enter into the party system. Due to their ability to stand on their, political activists are now able to influence political parties to a greater extent with their polarized policy agendas. Interest groups are an example of activists, and they contribute to political polarization because they wield a lot of resources, to pass legislation they are in favor of. (Congress and Its Members, 376-377).
“Every successful individual knows that his or her achievement depends on a community of a persons working together.” states Paul Ryan, a fellow American politician, on the importance of community. A person who relies on self-sufficiency can be limited to very few options. Even though Thoreau praises the morality of individualism and self-sufficiency, a district can not expanded and the economy cannot grow without the contribution of the people living in the community. Taxes and bills help everyone in the nation, not just a small community, following the practice of individualism can lead to many problems in the future, especially in small factions.
In Truman’s analysis, the political role of the individual is to be in groups. People act and interact only as members of groups. Truman argues that evidence regarding group affiliations and individual behavior has concluded that individuals are not ignored in any interpretation of politics as based upon groups because groups accommodate the political interests of individuals. Individuals are not found anywhere else but in groups. “The individual” and “the group” are simply convenient ways of classifying behavior, not two separate things.
Paxton’s (2002) research primarily follows the theoretical and conceptual framework of Putnam’s experiment. Although Putnam’s study created a collaboration between qualitative and quantitative methodologies, there remains insignificant quantitative data for this particular subject matter. To this end, Paxton has attempted to use additional data resources to extend on Putnam’s study. The methods and data utilized, however, are worrisome in relation to how it fits within the conceptual framework. First, Paxton uses data from the World Values Survey (WVS) (1980 and 1990) to measure two dimensions of social capital: associational networks and trust (2002, 260). Her dataset has individual-level information on trust and voluntary association memberships in 48 countries (2002, 260). However, Paxton does not state how these 48 countries ‘fit’ into the study. Are the data simply being used because they are available, or do these countries encompass the definition of a liberal democracy being utilized? If the latter, what are Paxton’s arguments for including countries that are democratic in name, but are masked with international contention such as Russia? Paxton also notes that several countries have no survey data on associational memberships which creates a cross-national sample of small proportion (2002, 260). Overall, one could argue the first data source does not seem be rather representative of the concepts being studied nor representative of the areas the data were pulled
Although money can often feel personal and groups impersonal, most political scientists separate the effects of economics and civic culture when explaining democratization. Putnam, for instance, analyzes the effects of socioeconomic modernity and civic community in distinctly defined sections. Researching the two effects individually has advantages – for one, theories with only one explanatory variable become noticeably simpler. Yet the same forces leading to the development of civic groups also lead to the development of modern economies.