#interest groups

[gravitascivics]

VIABILITY OF THE LIBERATED FEDERALISM, VI

This posting will address another concern of Eugene Meehan’s criteria as they are applied to the social construct, the liberated federalism model.[1]  This blog has been applying that criteria to describe the viability of that construct.  The sixth Meehan criterion asks:  does the construct align with other responsible models explaining the same phenomena?  That is, does it have compatibility? 

There is nothing in this proposed model that either contradicts the parochial/traditional federalism model or the political systems model and its offshoot models that have, to some degree, been previously reviewed in this blog.  What follows is a description of how liberated federalism is compatible.

          From this perspective, the model offered here can be seen as an open-ended one in which all of these models and theories are called into play by the activities of the deliberative process which the model in question highlights.  The federalist model of government is a more encompassing one.  These other models – those that have emanated from the political systems model – are mid-range models that describe and attempt to explain how political actors work their processes for a given context. 

As such, the mid-range models are useful in understanding political conditions, given specific political challenges, and in devising effective strategies.  As stated in an earlier posting, the model that has the closest overlapping content to liberated federalism is group theory.  Roy C. Macridis writes:

… [T]hey [group theorists] tell us that in order to understand how groups behave and how they interact, we must study the political system, the overall behavior patterns, the values and beliefs held by the actors, the formal organization of authority, the degree of legitimacy, etc., etc.  Without realizing it, they reverse their theoretical position.  They start with groups only to admit the primacy of the political phenomenon and suggest that in order to explain group behavior we must start with what group behavior purported to explain – the political system![2]

In a similar way, if the liberated federalism model were presented for purposes of generating hypotheses which would lead to empirical studies, this criticism would similarly be a serious one in terms of the model’s usefulness.  But that is not its purpose.

          The model is presented as a foundational construct for the study of American government and civics and, therefore, the Macridis statement is seen as having a functional quality because these are exactly the types of concerns that one wants secondary students to tackle in their study of government and civics.

          The literature about groups has been concerned mostly with the actions of interest groups, i.e., groups that have the on-going role of bringing demands to the political perspective of group behavior.[3]  While this type of group concern is not excluded from the liberated federalism model, it, liberated federalism, is not limited to that concern.  Besides, the emphasis is not limited to questions of effectiveness, although also included, but the emphasis is also heavily concerned with the communal interaction of entities with arrangements/associations and the moral quality of their actions.

          Therefore, the judgment here is that for pedagogical reasons, liberated federalism is not only compatible but also solicits a functional role for systems-based models in guiding civics instruction at the secondary level.  The next criterion to be addressed is predictability.

[1] That is, this posting continues the blog’s review of Eugene Meehan’s criteria by which to evaluate social science theories and models.  For readers wishing to read the previous postings relating these viability claims that the blog is making, they can read the last five postings found in the online site http://gravitascivics.blogspot.com/.  As for Meehan’s criteria, see Eugene J. Meehan, Contemporary Political Thought:  A Critical Study (Homewood, IL:  Dorsey Press, 1967).  To date the blog has reviewed comprehensiveness, power, precision, consistency/reliability, and isomorphism.

[2] Roy C. Macridis, “Groups and Group Theory” in Comparative Politics:  Notes and Readings, edited by Roy C. Macridis and Bernard E. Brown (Chicago, IL:  The Dorsey Press, 1986), 281-287, 286.

[3] Current academic political thinking concerning group theory has a mixed opinion as to its viability.  See “Political Group Analysis,” Encyclopedia.com (n.d.), accessed August 23, 2023, https://www.encyclopedia.com/social-sciences/applied-and-social-sciences-magazines/political-group-analysis AND for a more positive view, see Robert A. Heineman, Steven A. Peterson, and Thomas H. Rasmussen, American Government (New York, NY:  McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1995).

[dinopc]

Ideologies of Organized Interests & Amicus Curiae Briefs We provide a novel measure of ideology for amicus curiae briefs and organized interests with accompanying uncertainty estimates. Our Amicus Curiae Network scores cover more than 12,000 unique groups and more than 11,000 briefs across 95 years, providing the largest and longest measure of organized interest ideologies to date. Substantively, the scores reveal that: interests before the Court are ideologically polarized, despite variance in their coalition strategies; interests that donate to campaigns are more conservative and balanced than those that do not; and amicus curiae briefs were more common from liberal organizations until the 1980s, with ideological representation virtually balanced since then.

[sage-advice-wrapped-in-rice]

Interest Groups: An Interesting Dilemma

Another essay I wrote for a political science class I’m taking. Please don’t argue with me in the comments I don’t care about your opinion.

Interest groups have been an essential component of public representation and opinion for centuries in the American political sphere. They are catalysts for change and have been an integral part of the efforts our government has made to address issues such as civil rights, climate change, and gun control. They are a direct extension of the American people, which is why we should take an in-depth look into the positive and negatives that make up interest groups, and seek to maximize their beneficial effects.

Though many interest groups do not have specific political biases, a fair amount do and, no surprise, those are usually the ones we hear about the most. Groups like the NRA and Majority Forward tend to have strong political leanings, the NRA being conservative and Majority Forward being more liberal. Personally, I think interest groups that align more with one party or the other aren’t really the ones that represent the people the best. They’re usually private interest groups that have their own agenda outside of what they say publicly. I think that whichever group can create the most news gets “represented” the most in the media. The NRA is actually a great example of that despite the fact that they are actually a public interest group, and technically they’re a nonprofit. Gun control has been a hot topic for a while and with each new shooting there comes a call to action for politicians to do something about it, and the NRA is always demonized, sometimes rightfully and sometimes not. However, the president of the NRA is always somehow talking to or being seen with some member of the Republican party, which makes it seem like all Republicans align themselves with the NRA. Groups like Majority Forward are less well known but they seem to be more concerned with the actual political aspect of being an interest group. Their job is more or less about working against Republican and conservative campaigns and organizing voter registration and turnout events. They still don’t really show how they align with the opinion of the public, but it has influence over elections. Both of these interest groups have effects on elections and therefore on the people. In terms of actual representation of the public I think interest groups that are largely politically motivated shouldn’t be included. There are, however, plenty of interest groups that actually represent values of different groups of people. AARP is a great example, especially because our tax dollars are funding things they help with, like Medicare. It shows that the general public believes that the elderly of our society should have care and have access to people who will tell them their options and help them into retirement and general life as a senior. 

The influence over democracy that interest groups can have varies widely. In certain cases they can sway elections drastically. ExxonMobil is a perfect example of this. In the 2016 election they worked very closely with the Trump administration. ExxonMobil being an oil company means it has many resources and connections and they can afford lobbyists. It worked so well for them that when Trump was elected they had five cabinet nominees that had either previously worked for ExxonMobil or been funded by them(Rowland-Shea et al., 2022). One of these nominees was for secretary of state and it was Rex Tillerson, the former CEO of the company. Does ExxonMobil have the best interest of the people at heart? I would bet not. It is an unfortunate truth that money controls a good amount of our government. It’s been that way since nearly the beginning of the United States government and sometimes interest groups, like ExxonMobil, perpetuate that. Because of this, they can sway elections in unfair ways which is why we can't rely solely on interest groups to fill in the gaps created by our current form of voting.  On the other hand, like I mentioned before, interest groups can help to mobilize people. They can work to make sure all different groups of people are heard and represented, and they make sure all these groups have a way to find pertinent political information about policies that directly affect them. Interest groups are also a great way to tell which issues are of most importance to the people especially because a lot of interest groups provide public goods. If a group that provides a service that doesn’t require the support of the people gets a lot of support anyways(meaning money), it shows that people are invested and interested in this cause. Because of the support it then gains from those people the interest group is then able to have more influence in the government. They can hire lobbyists and afford advertisements and create change in society. They can almost be seen as an extension of the popular vote, and would be better at representing what the people want if all interest groups worked that way.

Like most things, the necessity and usefulness of interest groups is not entirely black and white. They can have real influence in our government and daily lives. The NRA has an iron grip on the Republican party and I’m sure some Republican voters are happy about that. AARP has an iron grip on the senior population of America and we are definitely better off with them in existence. Interest groups also enforce the important idea that everybody should have representation in our government and it’s even better that most interest groups are run by regular people not involved in politics. There are groups like the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute that research issues that affect these racial groups and put information out on legislation that affects them. Since, historically, certain racial groups are often overlooked or underrepresented in the government and elections these interest groups show more accurately what the people that belong to them want and how they feel. Religious groups like the American Jewish Congress and Catholic Charities USA do a lot of charity work and advocacy, but still don’t really align themselves with political parties. What I think these groups do is bring people together and that provides an outlet and community for them to speak up politically and put their support into different causes and candidates publicly. Because popular sovereignty is inherently flawed in our system of government, interest groups are needed to make sure important issues and groups of people are not overlooked or ignored. It’s the people advocating for themselves which unifies them and enforces the idea that the people do have power and are capable of creating change and having influence. Despite the clicheness of the phrase they really embody the spirit of “be the change you want to see.”At the same time they can cause even more corruption and tampering in elections and other government processes. To decrease this side effect, more emphasis should be put on congressional testimonies by interest groups with less influence. Certain amounts of time could be set aside to specifically listen to what interest groups want to say as opposed to only hearing it when issues that apply to them are discussed in congress. This would give public interest groups, that don’t have as many resources as private ones, more of an opportunity to be heard and create positive change in our government.

Interests groups have helped shape America into the country that it is today. Through their actions they represent the more specific interests and concerns of the American people that can be overlooked when all we get to directly vote for in the federal government are representatives. Despite that they are also very flawed, and the system allows for them to be that way. America is not what it was fifty years ago and we are better(and maybe a little worse) for it. Part of that is due to the efforts made by interest groups. We need to protect and improve interest groups so that fifty years from now America will see an even greater benefit.

Works Cited:

Rowland-Shea, J., Alexander-Kearns, M., Lee-Ashley, M., & Marano, H. (2022, September 1). How Exxon won the 2016 election. Center for American Progress. Retrieved October 26, 2022, from https://www.americanprogress.org/article/how-exxon-won-the-2016-election/ 

[tarefs-net]

New Posts to Show Diversity Counts.

[gravitascivics]

THE FACTION FACTOR

Through the administrations of the first two presidents, George Washington and John Adams, the republic attempted to stay true to a very (some might think extreme) federalist bias.  That being that a federalist polity of any size can exist without the development of political parties.  As a matter of fact, that belief was influenced by a calculation that James Madison explains in the The Federalist Papers.

Madison’s famous “Federalist Number 10” attempts to logically contradict Charles-Louis Montesquieu’s admonition that republics should be geographically small. Presumably, small territories hold small populations that can consequently encourage and maintain high levels of interaction among all members of the republic.  As such, they, the population, can more readily see beyond self-interest and be more disposed to favor policy that promotes the common good.

This commonness leads to the levels of familiarity and trust the Frenchman saw as necessary to provide the shared interests that a people-run governance needs to have. After all, such a polity can only operate with its populations sufficiently agreeing with what its government should be striving to accomplish.  Or stated simply, fewer people mean fewer conflicting interests.

Madison, in No. 10, analyzes what it takes to reconcile individual concerns and interests which tend to conflict with that of others in the normal life of a society, no matter how big or small it happens to be.  All smallness assures is that one or a few will become dominant and, in turn, will use that dominance to abuse the rights of others – which naturally occurs as economic and other interests seek their advantages.  

The result is that these dominate entities become the enemy, or at least an adversary, of the common good.  Madison uses the term, faction, to designate each of these entities and if one wants real life examples of this principle at work one need only look at small Latin American countries’ attempts to establish republican governance.  This blogger – whose father was Cuban – sees today’s images out of Havana with their capitol in the background, as such a case.

At the time of Madison’s essay, he and the other founders had experienced a series of developments:  the conditions leading up to the Revolutionary War, the war, political life under the Articles of Confederation, and the uprising of Shay’s Rebellion.  During those years certain problems seemed to reoccur.  At its base, and until 1787, the various state legislatures had inordinate power in determining what collectively would be national policy or, better stated, non-policy.  

From the need to tax to the need to address national – in many cases, statewide – problems, those governments could not produce the necessary actions that only government could provide.  Why this inaction?  Madison saw it as the ability of the limited number of factions being able to stymie any threatening policy that counteracted its interests.  

If in a given state there were one or two dominant factions, they controlled what their respective legislatures would consider or issue as policy.  If a proposal threatened their interests, they would simply squelch it.  But if the governing landscape grew to a national one, then the number of factions would greatly increase.  Then, because of the larger number, no one or small group of factions could control a national legislature.  With such variety, the factions would not even be able to organize sufficiently to form political parties.  

At least, that was the idea.  Under such a rationale, political parties were seen as facilitating purely self-interest at the expensive, most likely, of the common good and of undermining the competitive position of the lesser sized or otherwise weaker entities be they small businesses or individuals.  In turn, such politics would (or was) undermining the espoused federalist values of the nation in general, but of the founding fathers in particular.  

Yes, the limitation of state-level power can be described as federalist and goes to explain, to a degree, that the initial party that promoted a stronger central government was the Federalist Party.  But that skips some developments in this story.  As was described above, therefore, initially much effort was expended to delegitimize the formation of parties and the hope was that factions, unavoidable political entities, would be held in check in terms of national policy.

That would result in Congressional members approaching each policy question independently – each judged on its own merits to advance the common good.  That would avoid congressmen from allying their votes over the various issues they were called upon to consider.  Each proposal would be evaluated on its own terms and not be the subject of trading votes or forming ideological connections among their various considerations.  

An ally on one vote, therefore, might be on the other side in another vote.  But this sort of thinking lasted for about ten years and was abandoned as the election of 1800 approached.  As Adams’ term of office came to an end, his vice-president, who found himself at odds with Adams’ national-strengthening policies, actively sought to replace Adams.  

That would be Thomas Jefferson and this turn would prove to undo a close friendship between him and Adams – one that took years to repair (Abigail Adams, the President’s wife, never forgave Jefferson).  By the time of the election, two parties vied for power.  Adams’ party, the Federalists, as alluded to above, favored a strong central government.  Jefferson’s party, the Democratic-Republicans, fought to maintain the balance of power in favor of the states.  

Ironically, Jefferson’s fellow Virginian, Madison also aligned with the Democratic-Republicans – a sort of one-hundred and eighty degree turn around from the time he argued for a viable national polity.  So, in effect, the 1800 election with Jefferson’s win marks the first real transition of power in the US.  And in terms of the fate of federalism, this blog wishes to look at the effect the resulting competition for power generated, especially in light of the rise of political parties.  

The role of the Federalist Party was short-lived.  With Adams’ defeat, that party mostly disappeared.  In its place a newer one arose.  This blog will highlight that party as a reflection of what the state of federalist values was in the eyes of Americans in the early years of the 1800s after a short reign of “unnatural” unanimity in the American political arena.

That short-lived level of unity was the product of a short war – the War of 1812. Historically, that time is known as the “Era of Good Feelings.”  But such a term gives short shrift to underlying vying regional interests. They would prove to undermine the legitimacy of the central government and its power to institute policies that within various regions would be seen as detrimental to their interests.  

As such, even with the demise of the Federalist Party and the unifying influence of the War of 1812, the nation found that the forces of competing interests too powerful to shun the political forces that led to the formation of newer political parties.  That development culminated in the formation of the Whig Party.  The next posting will pick up the story there and comment on how one region of the country – not the South – saw the central government as oppressive to its interests.  That led to the first serious talk of succession from the union.

[dinopc]

Ask Only What Your Country Can Do for You Providing representation entails making choices about prioritizing the needs of diverse groups within one’s constituency. While citizens cannot reasonably expect that representatives will cater to their particular interests or priorities all the time, we know little about citizens’ expectations in this regard. We find that citizens are generally egocentric, in that they expect a representative to cater to personally relevant interests even when such interests are not an important part of the representative’s constituency. Moreover, we find that this egocentrism is not mitigated through the provision of information about the district’s diversity or composition, indicating that voter ignorance about the nature of constituencies is not the primary cause of these expectations.

[dinopc]

Interest Groups and Legislative Success Dear Colleague letters provide insights into the information that members use to both influence and make policy decisions. We demonstrate that endorsements in these letters from particularly well-connected interest groups are invaluable cues for members with limited information early in the legislative process and help grow the list of bill cosponsors. As bills progress, such groups have less direct weight, while legislation supported by a larger number of organizations and a larger number of cosponsors is more likely to pass.