American Pluralism
By: Sharon White
What is pluralism? According to a standard definition it is a theory by which a multitude of groups govern the United States meaning, that people as a whole cannot run the government.
Perhaps the key characteristic of American government, according to
pluralists, is that it is dominated not by a single elite but rather
by a multiplicity of relatively small groups, some of which are well
organized and funded, some of which are not. Although a few are larger
and more influential than the others, the scope of their power, far
from being universal, is restricted to relatively narrow areas such as
defense, agriculture, or banking.
A second characteristic is that the groups are politically autonomous,
or independent. They have the right and freedom to do business in the
political marketplace. How well they fare depends not on the
indulgence of a higher authority but on their own skill in rallying
political resources. Because a diverse society like ours contains so
many potential factions, political autonomy guarantees constant,
widespread, and spirited competition among these organizations.
Third, inter group competition leads to countervailing influence: The
power of one group tends to cancel that of another so that a rough
equilibrium results. Group memberships overlap as well. Members of one
association, in other words, might belong to another, even competing,
group. Overlapping memberships reduce the intensity of conflicts
because loyalties are often spread among many organizations.
A fourth characteristic is the openness of the system. It is open in
two senses. First, most organizations are seldom if ever completely
shut off from the outside. They continuously recruit new members from
all walks of life. Second, the availability of unused resources
constantly encourages the formation of new groups. Stimulated by
threats to their interests or sensitized to injustices, or for
whatever reason, individuals frequently unite for political action. In
the process groups mine untapped resources. This happened in 1989 when
a Supreme Court decision gave states greater latitude in restricting
abortions. The Court’s action so scared and angered pro-choice groups
that they accelerated their organizing efforts to prevent states from
enacting stiffer antiabortion laws.
Pluralists judge society not by its actual equality but by its
equality of political opportunity. Americans, they contend, have a
comparatively equal chance to participate in government. By mobilizing
resources (collecting signatures on a petition, for example) they can
make existing groups share their influence, or they can create new
organizations that will compete with established ones.
The fifth characteristic of the system is the endless quest by groups
and office seekers for public support. Even though the masses do not
govern directly, their opinions are a resource that can be used by one
organization against another. In a country where the belief in popular
control of government is so deeply ingrained, people feel compelled to
sell their causes to the public, and are frequently judged winners or
losers by their standings in the polls. What else explains the
millions of dollars spent on advertising? What else accounts for the
demand for public relations consultants? Why else is so much attention
lavished on public opinion surveys? The answers lie in the widely
shared belief that a group with popular backing has an important
advantage over one that lacks it, even if the masses do not actually
take part in decision making.
The public also exerts influence by choosing leaders, most of whom
back and are backed by organized groups. So important is this
responsibility that one scholar defined democracy as “an institutional
arrangement for arriving at political decisions in which [groups]
acquire power to decide by means of a competitive struggle for the
people’s vote.”
The final characteristic of pluralism is consensus on the “rules of
the game.” Consensus, or widespread agreement, among political
activists and leaders on democratic principles and values holds the
system together. These people accept regular and open elections, the
right to vote, majority rule, political equality, free speech, the
right to assemble, and the other rules that make peaceful and orderly
politics possible. They tolerate differences of opinion. And, of
utmost significance, they abide by the outcomes of elections.
Some pluralists contend that, since this acceptance of democratic
norms is higher among leaders than the general public, political
disagreements are best settled at the top, where they can be dealt
with fairly and dispassionately. Keeping the intolerant and
shortsighted masses at bay helps ensure the system’s safety and
stability. The theory, in short, argues that American government stays
free because its main participants, the individuals who actually make
policy, agree on a code of conduct that is not always shared by the
public at large.
The article was produced by the member of masterpapers.com.
Sharon White is a senior writer and writers consultant at term papers. Get some useful tips for thesis and term paper writing .