In The Federalist Papers 10, James Madison argued that in the Republic various "factions" would spar over control. The "factioning" of the Republic is both natural and healthy. These "factions" as Madison wrote would allow for competition and a wide array of beliefs, values, solutions, etc. Factions, in a modern sense, can best be seen as special interest groups, political parties, even the separate branches of government. Imagine a pendulum that swings back and forth from time to time. Such a constant flux and teetering is an inherently good thing as a prolonged concentration of power would amount to tyranny.
Historically, some have argued that America is instead a society run by the elite. I suggest those interested read An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution. While I cede that power during the early days of the Republic was predominately white, male plantation owners; today's society is far more diverse. The power advantage that once traditional elites held has slowly given way to the more pluralistic viewpoint for two reasons. The methodology and structure of the America political system is very hostile to a power grab by a given group of elites. To change a given policy, one must convince the executive branch, then the legislative branch which consists of two very different chambers (with a majority), ensure the judiciary will interpret the law according to an elite's viewpoint, get approval from the bureaucracy, and finally have the media spin it correctly. This cumbersome division of power specifically prevents a power grab of one group of people. Each and everyone of the institutions have to be in lock-step to finally get an idea into law. These "safeguards" are for all intensive purposed the "factions" Madison spoke of. Many might argue that the elites get what they want- not so.
A modern example- political elites (with power and money on their side) wanted to reform Social Security to privatize the account and allow greater money making opportunities, yet regardless of what opponents call "elite connections, wealth, etc." such a proposal failed due in part because of other "factions" were able to block such a move.
The elite power model school of thought simply is wrong (too much people's dismay). America is, as Madison articulated, a pluralist society where numerous "factions" compete for power, resources, etc. Perhaps one faction might be more powerful than another but it is still a conflict of "factions."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
There's still the fact that president is elected between two parties only, and by the few that actually votes, and of course withuot taking into consideration the people with no citizenship.
The same family has governed for two decades. Gosh, James baker III is still there! from gulf war I to now!
Greetings from argentina
Interesting perspective
well said... and yet your use of the federalist still makes me wanna cry. Anyway, an interesting point, but as I said, I'm cynical. Doesn't seem like I have much of a say in government and honestly I'm apathetic about that situation. Oops.
The ruling faction sounds suspiciously like another word for the power elite.
Lol- ruling faction. There are numerous factions... some combination have to rule. It isn't the same peoples consisently though. So I don't see an "elite" class ruling... I see for the most part the best and the brighest ruling, which in my opinion is how it should be.
I like your points, and I love how you have info and exampled to back everything up. I especially liked the Social Security example.
good lecture on faction, and one might point to the Bush years, where it might be said that one "faction" controlled all three branches of government, to argue that even in such conditions, the dispersed power to block such measures as Bush's Social Security plan, remained intact. but what about chomsky's point about the unified aims of the supposed arch-enemies on right and left in support of business? could it not be said that *that* power elite--dems and republicans, along with corporate power--though not wielding ABSOLUTE power to get everything they want, nevertheless effectively control the nation's resources in ways that are extremely helpful to the upper classes? great post though--well reasoned and supported.
and thats a question, by the way, not my official position---not sure I have an official position, but it probably has more to do with Michel Foucault than Chomsky. They debated once--I think its on youtube. And Chomsky came off more like a wrestling fan than a deep thinker. See Foucault on Wikipedia, and the panopticon, or at least that was my feeling at the time. . .
nice... i enjoyed a slightly different opinion on the matter and found it well articulated
OK, I cede the point that both Republicans and Democrats, are pro-business. Republicans more so in my opinion than Democrats (their tradition alliance with blue-collar and unions are well documented).
I don't really see a problem with guiding and helping business grow (ie Corporate welfare... *gasp... yes, the US supports businesses!)
Businesses provide jobs. If the US wasn't the economic powerhouse, I promise you people would complain bout the strength of the economy. Kinda the notion- don't bite the hand that feeds you...
Yalls thoughts?
you're avoiding the question... do you think the dems, republicans and corporate eltie significantly "control the nation's resources in ways that are extremely helpful to the upper class?"
No easy way out on this one... :p
So apparently my answer was not clear enough or adequate enough for certain people. Let me repeat the question followed by my statement.
The question was posed, "Do you think the dems, republicans and corporate eltie significantly 'control the nation's resources in ways that are extremely helpful to the upper class'?"
My response... ready for it.
"No. I think 'Democrats, Republicans, and corporate elite' do not specifically help or assist the upper class." My proof- regardless of what clout you may or may not have... sometimes things that obviously favor a power elite as some may call it- don't get approved. I used Social Security in which many would argue this administration and powerful elite would have been able to make more money (btw of their own money) from personal investments. And low and be hold, Social Security was destroyed by the evil "power elite"... oh wait... didn't happen. Guess they arent so powerful after all!
My opinion is that power is not held within the hands of the few but dispersed by conflicting interests groups that check each other. For the love of God, read The Federalist Papers #10.
Hope that was crystal clear for those that may have not understand my opinion on the matter or better yet said I was "Rumsfeldian" in my response.
Well u still didn't answer the question directly the first time. It always takes some prodding to get a clear answer out of you. Must be the politician in you. And for God's sake, get up with the times. The Fderalist #10 doesn't exactly apply to the new day and age.
Well for those that are meticiously writing down my exact quotes... I apologize for not using an inner quotation correctly. On that note, I didn't see the need to say simplying yes or no- I figured those in the class could figure at this point, I do not think there is this power elite trying to keep the common man down. And again no, I don't think the power elite (even if it existed) specifically tailors policies to favor one group over another. I see it as a conflict of factions in which one side will eventually win. There are winners and there are losers. And if someone is like oh well blah blah party is worse and when they are in office- Im worse off.
Seriously, that sucks. Basically if you want something done, then change it. Simple. But don't be critical just to be critical. But I will be heavily critical of those that do not actively participate in the political process and basically whine. Tough! You didn't have enough time, effort, whatever to care.
In respect to some of my colleagues, oh wow... I'm so sorry I am refering to an influential document that reviews the political process of perhaps some of the genius minds. Nah... screw 'em right? This is a fundamental, deep-rooted conflict of theory and in my opinion, those that wrote and crafted the charter of government and hence how it runs, have substanial weight.
Contemporary critics be damned! Chomsky/Foucault, with much respect, aren't American and stray from fundamental core values of self reliance, individualism, and liberty. They don't understand "the American experiment" to pick a certain coin-term. Alexis de Toqueville's (yes, a Frenchman, so it isn't a French thing) wrote an amazing commentary on colonial America- Democracy in America.
I think understanding the past helps understand the ideas and concepts that are engrained within the American society and hence reflect upon them. I admit, sure we have changed, but we retain fundamental character traits that most would agree, ie legal, civic, and academia institutions, that are captivated in early years of the Republic. They should not be modernized, cast aside, etc.
anger much??
Post a Comment