Where Do We Go From Here: Chaos Or Community?

In the United States, public policy is shaped by multiple factors, from average citizens voices in elections to interest groups and organizations. In their study, “Testing theories of American politics”, scholars Benjamin Page and Martin Gilens explore the impact of average citizens, the economic elite and interest groups have on the passage of public policy. Additionally through their, Page and Gilens(2014) have found “that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence” (Pg 535). This means that when it comes to the creation of public policies, rich people and groups

Americans only see few ways to affect real change on government because politicians are too reliant upon large donations. Groups contribute money, and later on receive a kickback of bill that favors them or supports their positions. “Candidates who raise lots of money say it indicates broad support. Candidates with little money point out that voters, not donors, decide elections” (2012 Presidential). Candidates spend large amount of time fundraising, which decreases people’s confidence in the government’s ability to do their

The ability to unify a nation in a liberal democracy and work towards obtaining a given objective is incredibly difficult when everyone’s opinion is supposed to be valued. However it’s not just valuing everyone’s opinion that can cause concern, but the fact that people are allowed to act on their opinions, no matter how radical or crazy they are to the majority of the population. This allows for dissenting opinions against the general will to rise up and hold seats within the legislature; therefore, legitimizing their claims by thrusting them into the public spotlight. This can be both good and bad and it was explored in-depth by James Madison in The Federalist Papers. In his work he states the obvious concerns factions can have on a society

Today, career politicians are constantly looking for what will aid them in getting reelected. They become more loyal to their campaign fund contributers than to the people whom they represent. This increases the likelihood of having corrupted politicians in office, as they use the government as a vehicle to further their own career (Kurfirst, 1996, p. 123, 129). George Will, a well-known political journalist, was quoted as saying “[The] worst feature of professionalism in politics is that it obliterates the proper distance between the representatives and the represented” (Kurfirst, 1996, p. 125). Even James Madison agreed that legislators were meant to represent the people, not hold office as a career. In The Federalist No. 57 (1788), he wrote, “From this change of men must proceed a change of opinions; and from a change of opinions, a change of measures.” The lack of new faces in Congress today symbolizes that the American legislative branch is straying from its intended purpose.

The United States has experienced fundamental changes that are dramatically detrimental to democracy. Voters’ ability to define political discourse has been so diminished that even decisive election results like Barack Obama’s in 2012 have little impact. That’s because powerful interests — freed to, in effect, buy elections, unhindered by downsized and diffused media that must rely on revenue from campaign ads — now set the rules of engagement. Lobbying involves working to bring pressure to bear on policy makers to gain favorable policy outcomes. In order to accomplish their goals, interest groups develop a strategy or plan of action and execute it through specific tactics. The particular strategies developed and the specific tactics used, however, vary widely both among and within political

In the past century, people continued to express an increasingly discontent view of Congress especially true when one looks back before the Clinton Impeachment debacle As the size of the nation and the number of congressman have grown, the congress has come under attack by both public influences and congressman themselves. Yet looking at one congressman's relationship with his or her constituents, it would be hard to believe that this is the branch of government that has come under suspect. In "If Ralph Nader says congress is 'The broken branch,' how come we love our congressman so much?" author Richard F. Fenno, Jr., provides insight into this view and why, through congress coming under fire, constituents still feel positively about

Jordan was forcefully optimistic that social change is possible, and this optimism set the tone for her speech. It remains a speech that is strikingly relevant to the political problems confronting us today. We are all aware that partisan gridlock and dysfunction define the day-to-day political process in today’s Washington. Cynicism and lack of confidence in government are at record levels. Liberals might blame a Republican Party that seems doggedly unwilling to work with President Obama on a host of issues; conservatives might blame the President and other Democrats for pursuing a liberal policy agenda with which they can find no area for compromise. This ideological stalemate seems to have no end in sight, and it feeds a widespread cynicism about the political process itself.

Despite being one of the oldest and most consistently stable democracies in the Western world, the American government, and American democracy as a whole, has frequently come under fire in recent years. Whether it is political parties, pundits, bloggers or citizens, Americans and non-Americans are all lining up to take shots at what they diagnose as a storied democracy crumbling before their eyes. Two of Robert Dahl’s criteria for a healthy democracy are enlightened understanding: are citizens able to acquire the political information necessary to participate in their own democracy, and control of the agenda: do the American senators and members of congress have exclusive and

While it may be true that government institutions have the authority to pass a policy, the point often overlooked, is that the people on the political level have the say to whether they agree or disagree to passing a policy. The citizens of the United States lived on the principle that authority of the government is base on the consent of the people. If the consent of governing and participation of the citizens are ignored, we would fail to have a democratic government. People outside of the government are the ones who are expressing their concerns to the government and it is the responsibility of the officials in the government, to take actions of addressing the issues, resolving the issues, and implementing policies that cater to the majority of the people. Interest groups and unions who have the majority support from the citizens can have a stronger leverage in voicing their public opinions through social movements, voting campaigns, and elections that can lead for a policy to be put into place. As a result, executive officials are more likely to seek attention to those with popular support within interest groups or unions as a way to gain popularity in voting’s. Majority vote from the parties and groups have the say to what policy is needed to be address, passed, and implemented into the bill. It is essential that parties, interest groups, and unions are aligned and work together with government officials. Otherwise, if government officials commit tyranny, it could lead for an overthrow of the officials. Regardless of which political level to be the most powerful, it is essential to understand that public policy requires full cooperation and passionate efforts from all levels consisting from governmental, political, and

As exemplified above, one decision could fit the bill for one of your groups, but then completely alienate another. Two, elections have gotten to the point where they more or less can be “bought”. If a tobacco company wants a politician to convince people to buy lots of cigarettes, all they need to do is write a big enough check to the campaign. In tandem, these two points raise an important question: how good can our government really be if it cannot effectively represent all people and support of a policy can be bought by those with fat wallets? This is an important question to think about, especially as our political environment becomes more polarized by the

The ideal concept of American society is one in which all of the citizens are treated equal in all every realm and situation. Class, race or gender does not divide the utopian America; everyone is afforded the same opportunities and chances for success. In this chimerical state Americans are able to go as far as their dreams allow and with hard work and perseverance any thing is possible. Many Americans subscribe to this pluralist view of the Country, believing that within our democratic system it is the majority who maintains control and sets policy. Unfortunately this idyllic country does not exist nor has it ever existed. America is made up of distinct social classes and the movement within those classes is for the most part,

The phrase, “We the people”, holds a lot of meaning to American citizens. As the first three words of the United States Constitution, it signifies a core value intended to act as a unifying factor in America’s democratic society: popular sovereignty. This is the idea of a majority rules, or to put more simply, the one with the most votes wins. The U.S. system of government relies upon the fact that the American people are capable of coming together to make informed decisions about matters that will ultimately better the lives of everyone. Despite this, however, there are certain instances in which a minority group will impose on or have more influence than the majority group. This phenomenon occurs all the time in politics, as politicians tend to regard the predilections of small groups of citizens as opposed to the general populace.

Cronin states that “the American people will never be completely satisfied with their politicians, nor should they be. The ideal politician is a fiction because the ideal politician would be able to please absolutely everyone and make conflicts disappear.” (pg 307) However, we know this can never happen. Most families today can’t agree on what to have for dinner and we expect them to try to figure out a political party they want to support and then with that party who do they want to vote for.

Ultimately, it is the struggle between individualism and the public good, and with the current state of political affairs, our individualistic self-interests triumph the idea of public good. For example, as a society we recognize the need to individuals' rights. However, we have a difficult time when groups of people claim their rights. The political culture of individualism functions within the framework of invisible complexities, and, as a result, discourages people from engaging in political actions. Within individualistic view of politics, the sources of conflicts are difficult to trace. The politics of interest are disconnected from the sources if interests, meaning there is no transparency. Likewise, if we can’t comprehend these complexities, whom do we turn to for explanations? As Bellah argues, experts are there to guide us through those invisible complexities. For example, how can we, as a collective group of people, reclaim government? There are three primary ways to reclaim government, however, to achieve desired goals; people need to participate in the sphere of collective action. As a society, we need to accept professional socialization of calling and reject the premises of professional aspirations for success, power, and status. What gives professionals the key is that the expertise they provide is their calling to serve the public, which is why we need to reform professionals to serve all interests. In the United States, social movements have quite an interesting influence over the dominant two-party systems. Both parties preach and serve their self-interests, nonetheless they acknowledge the demands of social movements, which is why, unlike in other countries, in the United States, social movements have greatly impacted the political decisions. Social movements hold

The society in which Americans live in today, is in certain aspects far more complex than it ever was for our ancestors. This new complexity is seen on both a micro and macro level and everything that falls in between. Perhaps American society is inherently more complex due to the fact that most if not every societal problem that is encountered, tends to gear towards a political nature in the method of solving. It seems that Americans no longer abide by the do it yourself mentality, and as times goes by we as a people look to the government leaders to solve our problems when they are beyond our capabilities, not realizing that in doing so we also bestow the power upon them to make decisions for society as a whole. When you have an issue