Elitism Vs. Pluralism

American Government and Civic Engagement HIST 1301 ELITISM VS. PLURALISM Many Americans worry that a small group of wealthy people control all aspects of American politics and that the rest of the population has little say in the matter. We refer to this viewpoint as the elite theory of government. The pluralist view of governance, in contrast, maintains that competing interest groups share influence in government and hence hold political power. The premise of pluralist theory is that the abundance of avenues for citizens to interact with the government motivates them to want to participate in the system. That is, there are various avenues for individuals and organisations to interact with the government within the multi-level and multi-branch American system. Elite theory's leading proponent was C. Wright Mills. In his book The Power Elite, Mills made the case that a coalition of the political, military, and corporate elites controlled the country. The majority have advanced degrees and many hold degrees from prominent colleges. The affluent utilise their influence to steer the country's economy in a way that prevents individuals who are less fortunate from advancing economically, according to the elite argument. The elite's riches enables them to gain significant political positions for themselves. They then make choices and distribute resources in ways that are advantageous to them by using this authority. Order is upheld by force, and politicians follow the wishes of the affluent rather than the demands of the common people. In fact, proponents of elite rule contend that the general populace is happy to let the elites rule since they are more qualified to do so. The fact that one-third of American presidents have attended Ivy League universities lends apparent credence to the elite viewpoint; this is a far greater rate than that of the general populace. A bachelor's degree is held by 95% of members of the House of Representatives and 100% of Senate members. The percentage of American people with even an associate's degree is less than 40%.Before being elected to Congress, the majority of the men and women in Congress were business owners, involved in state or local politics, or practiced law. Men make up around 73% of Congress members, while White people make up roughly 76%. The majority of the nation's educated White male professionals and businesspeople make up the legislative body. Because people's political interests are greatly influenced by factors like as race, gender, occupation, education, and socioeconomic level, the composition of Congress is crucial. For instance, not every person is impacted in the same manner by changes in taxation and spending policies. The impoverished are harmed more than the wealthy by a flat tax, which typically mandates that everyone pay the same percentage rate. Every American would have to give the federal government 10% of their income if the income tax rate was set at 10%. A person earning $40,000 a year would only have $36,000 left over after having to pay $4,000 in expenses. A person with $1,000,000 in income would still have $900,000 after paying $100,000, a larger amount. The affluent, who could afford to pay more and yet live well, would not really feel the impact on their day-to-day lives, while others who were not fortunate would likely pay more than they could comfortably afford. In a similar vein, the affluent and the poor are impacted differentially by revenue allocation. The affluent do not gain as much from increased funding for public education as the poor do because wealthy parents are more likely than impoverished parents to send their kids to private schools or to at least have the opportunity to do so. Better funding for public schools, however, might significantly increase the upward mobility of people from other socioeconomic strata whose only choice is to send their kids to public schools. Approximately fifty percent of Congressmen are millionaires at the moment. About 38% of Congressmen had their kids enrolled in private schools as of 2009. In all, just 11% of Americans took this action. Thus, it is more probable that a Congress presided over by millionaires who send their kids to private schools will think that a flat tax is just and that extra money for public education is not needed. However, their experience does not match that of the typical American. This strategy is rejected by pluralist theory, which contends that while there are elites in society, they do not have political power. Pluralists contend that political authority is instead shared by all members of society. Instead of being in the hands of a select few, power is held by a multitude of formalised organisations, some of which have greater sway over certain concerns than others. In the US, there are thousands of interest organisations. Seventy to ninety percent of Americans claim to be members of at least one group. Pluralist theory states that people who have similar interests would organise into organisations to voice their preferences to policymakers. These groups include organisations that represent the interests of different industries, unions, and environmental supporters, among others. Most individuals don't have the time, energy, or knowledge to make political decisions, therefore these groups will speak for them. Government policy takes form as groupings vie with one another and clash over significant subjects. In contrast to what elitist theory suggests, government policy is therefore developed from the bottom up rather than the top down. One of the first to promote the pluralist thesis was Robert Dahl, author of Who Governs?, who contended that politicians looking for a "electoral payoff" pay attention to the worries of politically engaged individuals and learn about the demands of common people as a result. In an effort to win over voters, they will try to provide what the public want.