Subsystem Stability And Stability In American Politics Essay

Chapter 8: A question that has stuck with Wheelan for years, asked by one of his peers was, “If people know so much about public policy, then why is everything so messed up” (175)? The reason for that is because it leads to something far more significant: Even when economists reach consensus on policies that would be to our advantage, they frequently run into political opposition. And when it comes to interest groups in politics, it pays to be small because the tail can wag the dog. This can have a huge impact on the economy. They are usually the most successful because the consequence of requests they receive are spread over a large, disunified group of people. Wheelan states that small problems begin to distort the simplest jobs of a market

To build his argument, he ties in similar examples from history that involve either social or political activism. Not only does he connect these examples to the “weak ties” that the platforms of social media are built upon, but he also offers insight to his readers, the general public, and social-networking gurus (Gladwell 551). In his essay, “Small Change: Why the Revolution Will Not Be Tweeted”, Gladwell creates a rhetorically effective argument that illustrates why social networking is not an adequate way to conduct social or political activism.

e.g.: If person A has political power over B, then A is able to motivate, inspire, incite,

Executives today operating in large corporations know just how tough it is to get away from network tools like Yammer, SharePoint, etc. Such instruments are currently used in a regular base to cooperate communication, entertain groups, and trace gatherings. Found in an article, social media entrepreneur and political organizer Jeremy Heimans said, “ Social media helps all institutions become transparent and engage in a more participatory dialogue with the stakeholders. Social media and technology have helped political organizations, providing a more democratic mechanism to get people involved” (429Magazine).

Conventional wisdom has assumed that the US government functions more effectively when one party controls both the presidency and the congress, yet divided governments are increasingly the norm. The author looks at this issue and concludes that control by one party has made little difference.

Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page argue that policy change can be characterized into four theories such as Majoritarian Electoral Democracy, Economic Elite Domination, and two types of interest group pluralism: Majoritarian Pluralism and Biased Pluralism. Majoritarian Electoral Democracy claims that policies are “attributed to the collective will of the average citizen, who are empowered by democratic elections”, (Martin Gilens 2014). Majoritarian Electoral Democracy rests on the idea that government serves for the people and is governed by the people. Economic Elite Domination is significant, because it provides that “policy making is dominated by individuals who have substantial economic resources, i.e. high levels of income and/or wealth…” (Martin Gilens 2014). In the theory of Economic Elite Domination, the influential factors of policy are people with financial resources, or executive power. Economic Elites use their resources to shape, influence, or sway policy in his or her

They generate public pressure by producing advertisements in magazines and newspapers, mass mailings, and TV, and demonstrations. The Internet make communication even more effective. The intent of this activity is to convince policymakers that the public supports the group's position in a proposed legislation (Schmidt, S., et al., 2011, p.152).

Political stagnancy can be observed in much of the United States in the current era

The government in the United States supposedly revolves around American ideals such as equality and diversity; however, this is simply not the case as perpetuated by class inequalities. The meaning of democracy has been skewed in the United States to represent something entirely different than it did in 1776. Today, American democracy behaves more like an aristocracy, where the upper class exercises power within the government and state, influencing discourse and therefore the laws and resources in our country, which are purportedly “for the people”. Democracy is presumed to provide everyone with equal political power, but the government in today’s America, although seemingly following this ideal model, does not. Instead, the elite upper class has a monopoly over the political influence and are the sole benefactors from public policies due to their influence over the policy making process. The upper class has an overall benefit from class inequality, as it greatly impacts American ‘democracy’ through the significant power gained through money and status, leadership roles that impact government, and the influence in the policymaking process that creates upper class advantages.

Over the years the media has made citizens major role players in politics. Ross Perot opened eyes by putting the 1992 Election in the media and thereby allowing voters to become directly involved in politics. The Internet, the new form of mass media “has turned into a major political and media industry” (Grossman 16). Because of the rise the Internet has taken, the idea of direct democracy has risen. The foundation of direct democracy is in self-government. The claim is that the presence of the Internet will increase citizens’ involvement in political issues by allowing them access to more information. This is significant because it takes a look at the impact of technology on society and politics, as well by

The American Political System The American political system is a federal system, which consists of

Issues of time and speed are central to Unger’s proposed re-organization of political institutions in Democracy Realized. In basic terms, Unger wants to accelerate politics so that lawmaking can keep up with the now rapid speed of economic and cultural life. For Unger, slow political time, in the form of traditional constitutional governance, is a conservative impediment to progress and a recipe for low political participation. Progressivism requires institutional innovation to become more responsive to the rapid changes in the economy that might call for legislative changes. Much like how entrepreneurial firms of the vanguard have become smaller and more flexible, political institutions should, according to Unger, become open and more innovative.

In the book “Policy regime and policy change” by Carter Wilson basically highlight its main statement and goes thus; abrupt changes in policy occur with changes in policy paradigm and alterations in pattern of power and shifts in organizational arrangements. When there is a sudden change in policy, it affects virtually all level of power in its function. Several theories were presented in the book which illustrated the approaches to public policy and they will be discussed. The concept of “Punctuated Equilibrium” emerges as a way out of conflict between the incrementalists and their critics by providing a model that explains the existence of long periods of stability with occasional change. They focus on the dynamics of creation and destruction of policies (Baumgartner & Jones 1993).

As a logical consequence, Postmes and Brunsting (2002) reasoned that the Internet is changing society because people's cognitive processes, triggered by access to information and communication, replace the strong social ties that traditionally underpin committed activism. In simpler words, in the past, humanity used the herd instinct as the main driving force behind committed forms of activism. Thanks to the Internet, we climb another step or three on the evolutionary ladder, and simply do away with the herd instinct and replace it with reason. The argument, if put this way, does not sound particularly strong. What can be taken away is that social media is still evolving, that social media changes the way we – or most of us communicate, that social media is used in social and political activism, and that the Internet increases quantitative if not qualitative access to information.

No matter how much potential social media has for political or societal change it is important to criticize its negative aspects. An article written by Andrea Moncada, begins her argument with the question has social media had the same impact on advocacy. Similar to Gladwell’s points of view, Moncada states, “social media can help get the word around, but participants must be united by a core message and traditional methods…” This source of uncertainty is the basis for its support and is understandable.