response pod-04

Response one pod-04

Anyone who has spent any time studying U.S. government and politics is familiar with the three commonly-held theories regarding the proliferation of interest groups—pluralism, hyperpluralism, and elitism. While generally referred to as “theories,” the research included in the readings from this week confirms that Elitism is alive and well in the American political landscape. This reality explains (in part) how growing inequalities among minority groups continue to occur in spite of considerable gains in the area of combating institutional discrimination.

Although, as mentioned, America’s history is one wrought with substantial advancements for subgroups through increased enfranchisement and civil rights, in the past several decades there seems to be a backtrack in policies that were helping bring an equal playing field to achieving “the American Dream.”  While women continue to make gains, other groups do not. Americans living in poverty and those in minority groups are finding that government is less and less inclined to champion programs in their favor (such as cuts in GI Bill and Pell Grants (APSA 2004, 16) resulting in “disturbing inequalities (5),” according to the APSA Task force on Inequality and American Democracy. These inequalities include widening wage gaps between whites and minority groups in the past decade (Kochhar and Fry 2014) and fewer policies that favor lower SES groups (APSA 2004, 16).

The reason for this strange contradiction (more rights but more inequality) seems to be rooted in a combination of factors but all emanating from a single source—money (or the lack thereof). To prove this point, we return to the Elitism Theory of interest group activity. For those unfamiliar, the Elitism theory states (just like it sounds) that wealth is the basis of power, and that upper class, professionals, and “big business” control most policy decisions (Edwards, Wattenberg and Howell 2018, 14). In the past few years, there have been a virtual inundation of interest groups on the scene, as numbers of groups have more than doubled since 1970 (Berry and Wilcox 2018). These groups are mostly growing in the area of professional and corporate organizations (APSA 2004, 9), as these groups are showing the most dividend. In fact, research shows that interest groups are credited with more than half of congressional legislation, and around 40% of executive and executive agency policies (Grossmann 2012). This proves the power of the “iron-triangles,” or “subgovernments,” in which interest groups operate. Interest groups also can control government through candidate selection and access to elected officials gained by the large amounts of money spent in electioneering and lobbying (APSA 2004, 12). The outcome of this power is the elite controlling the policy agenda, which results in policy that favors the elite.

But the wealthy control of government is only part of the problem. The other side is in answering the question: “how has this been able to occur?” The answer is in the lack of voting among lower SES groups and minority groups. Those with college degrees and who are white vote as much as double compared to those who are less educated, and those who are members of minority groups (Edwards, Wattenberg and Howell 2018, 268). In 2008, around 80% of Americans making more than $150,000 voted, while (again) half that rate voted among those making less than $10,000. While there are many factors that go into this, such as lack of transportation and a greater opportunity cost, and laws that unfairly disenfranchise minority groups (Mauer 2002), a major contributing factor is the lack of political efficacy among these groups. Political efficacy has long been considered one of the most important psychological factors in voting (Morrell 2003). With fewer policies benefitting lower SES and minority groups, these groups do not feel that voting is giving them anything in return. Lacking a voice in government (via not voting) results in a government that cannot hear their “whisper” for the “roar” of the wealthier and more organized interest groups (APSA 2004, 1). This becomes a vicious cycle—the less they vote, the less government responds, and the less, in turn, these groups vote because of the ever-growing lack of political efficacy. If these began making their voices heard once again at the polls, the cycle could be broken over time. Elected officials would eventually have no recourse but to respond with favorable policy because, at the end of the day, it takes votes—not money—to get in to office. And there is definitely one place that money does not prevail—and that is the sanctity of the equality of each person’s votes at the polls.

What will happen in the future? As an optimist who continues to teach high school students the importance of voting, and the high value we place on tenets of the American democracy such as egalitarianism and populism, I continue to hold that the dormant American electorate will once again awaken. As Aristotle stated, inequality spawns revolution. We can look to the lessons of women’s rights advocates. Women are voting at higher rates than men, and are, in turn, making amazing strides in improving the gender income gap, are voting more women into public offices, and becoming more empowered in the workplace. I would like to believe that Americans from other minority groups will take this lesson to heart, and make their voices heard through increased participation so that government will develop policies that address the needs of the entire population—not just those of the elite.

APSA. "American Democracy in the Age of Rising Inequality." SCRIBD. 2004. https://www.scribd.com/document/169369419/American-Democracy-in-the-Age-of-Rising-Inequality-Skocpol-Theda.

Berry, Jeffrey M., and Clyde Wilcox. The Interest Group Society. New York: Routledge, 2018.

Edwards, George C., Martin P. Wattenberg, and William G. Howell. Government in America: People, Politics, and Policy. New York: Pearson, 2018.

Grossmann, Matt. "Interest group influence on US policy change: An assessment based on policy history." Interest Groups & Advocacy Vol. 1 Issue 2, October 2012: 171–192.

Kochhar, Rakesh, and Richard Fry. "Wealth inequality has widened along racial, ethnic lines since end of Great Recession." Pew Research Center. December 12, 2014. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/12/12/racial-wealth-gaps-great-recession/.

Mauer, Marc. "Race, Poverty, and Felon Disenfranchisement." Poverty & Race, July/August 2002.  http://www.prrac.org/full_text.php

Morrell, Michael E. "Survey and Experimental Evidence for a Reliable and Valid Measure of Internal Political Efficacy." The Public Opinion Quarterly Vol. 67, No. 4, Winter 2003: 589-602. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3521695?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents 

 Response four-04

Both reports note how voting rights, and qualifications to hold elected offices have been used to either expand justice for all or used to restrict justice for certain demographic groups in our system of governance.  Marc Mauer, author of, “Race, Poverty, and Felon Disenfranchisement,” discusses how “racial exclusion, disenfranchisement at both levels of governance, and the War on Drugs, has hindered demographic minorities at the ballot box.  He expounds on how this trend continues to promote inequalities despite national efforts to correct geographically directed minority injustices.”  Dr. Parham asked, “How is it that both trends can be occurring?” 

            First for me, a novice understanding of our system of government, and our constitutional contract as citizens to that government, both at the Federal and State level.  Our constitution combines a central (federal) government, along with an associate government like a state, or regional government, identified as a sub-unit to the central-government, thus forming a collaborative union between the two levels of government. Modern federalism is a system based on democratic rules, and with institutions (both domestic & foreign) in which the power to govern is shared between the central and state governments. The 5th Amendment ensures this cooperation before any amendments can change our constitution. The 15th Amendment, ratified in 1870 by both levels of governance, attempted to prohibit the co-existing levels of government from denying minorities the right to vote based on “race, color, or previous conditions of servitude.” That was federalism exercising its cooperative agreement against the injustices of certain sub-units associated within the union.  Mauer says the United States has always struggled with “laws that kept citizens home on election day that could be traced back to the founding of our nation.”  An example of federalism in today’s body politic is that certain sub-units are requiring identification as a legal requirement to cast a vote, citing citizenship concerns.  Opponents are arguing that this is an old tactic of the past designed to disenfranchise certain demographics.  Exclusion of felons or convicted criminals from the body politic or the ballot box had its original origins in medieval Europe (Mauer, M., 2002).  Medieval Europe devised a legality known as “civil death” to disenfranchise.  Civil death meant the lawbreaker would have no legal status ever.  Like certain sub-units in this union that do not restore voting rights to felons.  This type of “civil death,” was even used to extend punishment that could dishonor and incapacitate the lawbreaker’s descendants as well (Mauer, M., 2002).  Civil death was a legal tactic brought to America during the English Colonial period. 

            Federalism has allowed southern sub-units to tailor legislations to protect their way of life, or economic health, a type of regionalism that could be designed to disenfranchise African Americans, and to a lesser extent, impoverished Caucasian Americans (lesson notes) from their constitutional rights to vote.  Take the recent partisan divide concerning illegal immigration.  The central government is suing a sub-unit to it’s union for harboring or giving sanctuary to immigrants who have committed crimes.  Now a sub-unit to the intermediate sub-unit of the central government is siding with the lawsuit brought on by the central government against the intermediate sub-unit for giving sanctuary to illegal immigrants, citing safety concerns for its citizens.  An example of federalism struggling for dominance or not collaboratively cooperating with each to the other over the issues of justice and inclusion.

            Racial exclusion of African Americans in the South has a long history and immediately came about following the Reconstruction Era.  The Reconstruction Era was a period between 1863 and 1877 in which the central government passed civil rights legislation designed to end the injustices that African Americans faced due to slavery, and to compel certain sub-unit government legislatures to change its human labor practices to preserve the union.  The disenfranchisement laws of the South sub-units were not subtle either, often hostile, and carried out in public as a fear tactic to disenfranchise others.  Many states used a poll-tax and literacy requirements to invalidate voting rights of African Americans.  Mauer says, “a number of sub-units tailored disenfranchisement policies with the specific intent of excluding the African American voter.”  Southern sub-units used laws like black codes after the Civil War, along with vigilante gangs (KKK) to harass and restrict the freedom of African Americans, and to compel them to work for low wages in forced labor environments.  Other southern sub-units like, Alabama, Louisiana, South Carolina and Virginia, used laws modeled after Mississippi’s 1890 constitutional convention that called for the specific disenfranchisement of African Americans for such crimes as burglary, theft, arson, and obtaining money under force false pretenses (forced labor).  Mauer also says, “in the words of a Mississippi Supreme Court Decision (sub-unit) several years later, “blacks engaged in crimes were “given rather to furtive offenses than to the robust crimes of whites.”  The southern sub-unit Alabama had disenfranchisement laws for offenses of “moral turpitude,” and these laws would remain in place until 1985 before finally being struck down by the United States Supreme Court due to its discriminatory intent and impact (Mauer, M., 2002). 

            The increase in our nation’s inmate population from the “War on Drugs” has had a disproportionate impact on individuals of color and the communities they come from.  The 1980’s war on drugs saw the incarceration rate for African & Hispanic Americans rise from 45,000 in 1980, to over half-a-million today (Mauer, M., 2002).  Many are being released back into their communities today with little to no hope of participating in the body politic.  I believe that with economic globalization linking economies of distant locales due to technological advancements, and its ability to keep you plugged or connected globally on a 24-hour continuous media cycle will force a more aggressive public appearance of equity and political participation.  We still have a growing period before this begins to seep into the private sector of society.  The World is watching the global citizenry of the United States and learning about our injustices to see if we have changed from our past.  The central government is not just concerned domestically but has a greater emphasis on foreign politics and the international organizations that promote its interests.  We will eventually get to equality and justice for all, but maybe not in my life time.

References:

Brooks, Richard R.W., Jeon-Slaughter, Haekyung, 2001, Race, Income, and Perceptions of the US Court System, Behavioral Sciences & the Law, Vol 19, No. 2, pp. 249-264

Muaer, Marc, 2002), Race, Poverty, and Felon Disenfranchisement, Poverty and Race Research Action Council