Home > Politics essays > The USA has an elitist distribution of power but is moving towards pluralism

Essay: The USA has an elitist distribution of power but is moving towards pluralism

Essay details and download:

  • Subject area(s): Politics essays
  • Reading time: 8 minutes
  • Price: Free download
  • Published: 16 November 2019*
  • File format: Text
  • Words: 2,370 (approx)
  • Number of pages: 10 (approx)

Text preview of this essay:

This page of the essay has 2,370 words. Download the full version above.

It goes without saying that the United States of America is a liberal democracy. A country which enshrines in its constitution the criteria associated with such a system of governance – freedoms and liberties, the rule of law, independence and neutrality of the judiciary, and civilian control of the military (Diamond, 2002). These ideas are epitomised in the concepts of liberty, being the freedom to self-govern, and the freedom from external restraint (I. Berlin, 1959). However, this subsequently makes it difficult to locate political power. Political power itself is hard to define, as it is ‘arguably the single most important organising concept in social and political theory’. It can be seen as ‘a relation among people’ (Dahl, 1957, p.203), where the resources available to effect someone else’s behaviour form the foundations. We must consider how this relation works in the USA and thus how power is distributed.
Whilst on the surface the USA appears to be a polyarchy, where a pluralist perspective would best represent the distribution of power, this is an idealistic view that we can only conclude the country to be working towards. Every dimension of the political system where we see power is controlled by an elite group of people, notably in the Government, media and interest groups; a view strongly advocated by C. Wright Mills (1956). Whilst there are pluralist aspects, power still remains very much concentrated in the hands of a few. Thus, what this essay will conclude is that it would appear true that ‘two classes of people appear – a class that rules and a class that is ruled’ (Mosca, 1939, p.50). The elites at the top currently remain in control of the pluralism we see lower down in the political system.
Government
The United States is a representative democracy (although there are direct aspects), and thus ideally a variety of views would be accounted for by elected representatives whilst legislating. This idea would encourage the pluralist perspective. However, there is some ignorance in believing that representatives solely listen to the people. There is a political class who live off politics (Allen, 2018) and aim to keep hold of the power they have. Thus, they will often show biased towards certain groups, with more advanced resources, who help to keep their positions (explored later).
There is diversity within the three branches of Government which we cannot ignore; the current Congress is the most diverse to date, and at least one hundred women were elected in the 2018 midterms. This would certainly help the pluralist argument, as the ‘elite’ who are in control are not all homogenous in terms of socio-economic backgrounds. However, Congress remains disproportionately white, with only nineteen percent of its members from ethnic minorities, compared to 38 percent of the country (Bialik, Krogstad, 2017). This surely allows for some disconnect to materialise, as representatives move from their hometowns to metropolitan areas and become ignorant to life in more central America. These people therefore become the elite in a process of socialisation and the diversity originally recognised slowly diminishes. The impact of a person’s background on their political interests is significant and can influence the decisions they make, which will subsequently affect others, and thus heterogeneity is imperative but missing.
The same processes are applicable to Presidents. Whilst 2008 saw the election of the first black President of the USA, Barack Obama was still an Ivy League graduate and so was still within a certain pool of people who have the resources to gain access to political power. In 2016, Hillary Clinton failed to be elected, and whilst there were many reasons for this, the issue of gender was certainly one of them. Yet, whilst we can recognise some social homogeneity between Presidents in this sense, they still represent very different views from across the political spectrum, hinting at pluralism. Donald Trump in fact campaigned with a very anti-elitist message, as he wasn’t from what you may call the traditional ‘political elite’. However, he is on the other hand from the corporate elite, with a big name in the business industry, which gave him the resources needed to gain access to power. Elitism does not have boundaries in one area of society, but instead there are groups in different institutions, from the corporate world to the political, who are at the top because they all share an ability to access power through the resources available to them (Burnham, 1943).
In a similar manner, the Supreme Court also holds considerable, unjustified, power. Marbury versus Madison 1805 granted the power of judicial review which effectively allows nine unelected justices with a lifetime tenure to interpret the constitution as they see fit. This surely is a lot of political power to place with nine people, as it inevitably allows them to make the constitution living, for example in the legalisation of same sex marriage in Obergefell versus Hodges 2015.
What has become evident is that policy is decided by a ‘cluster or complex of organisations connected to each other by resource dependencies and distinguished… by breaks in the structure of resource dependencies’ (Parsons, 1995, p.484). The ruling elite are not in power by accident; certain assets, often in economic terms as well as demographics, are needed to gain access. Whilst the USA is moving in the right direction in the sense of pluralism, as the establishment is gradually becoming less cohesive, there is certainly still a recognisable group who remain at the top. There are political insiders and outsiders, those with access and those without.
Media
The first amendment of the Constitution enshrines the notion of freedom of speech, allowing for the media and journalists of the country to report freely and run a variety of stories. This is evidenced as we see news coverage with bias across the political spectrum; from Fox news on the right to liberals like CNN on the left. The technology age characterising 21st century society helps the USA move towards pluralism, as the access to information from different viewpoints is constantly improving. However, there is still a choice made by individual reporters and news corporations when deciding what stories to run, and almost always they are told with a degree of bias and subjectivity. Due to the first amendment, the media witnesses outstanding freedom in reporting; we saw the emergence of fake news in the 2016 which only highlights the immense power of this body, as it was able to manipulate the election campaign.
When we look at the socio-economic backgrounds of reporters and journalists, patterns begin to emerge. In fact, as Bell Hooks puts it, the media is part of the “White supremacist capitalist patriarchy” (2005, p.17) of the United States. The diversity within the media is exceedingly low and unrepresentative, evidenced as in 2018 people of colour made up only 22.6 percent of employees of newsrooms who partook in a survey (Clark, 2018). Hence yet again we see that there is restricted access, even if not purposeful, which ensures only an elite group of people can possess political power, with the ability to shape people’s opinion on political affairs (Dye, Ziegler, 1970).
In 2016, whilst there was a flurry of media reporting on every aspect of the presidential race, there was an almost universal failure to predict the results. Journalists are more often based on the East and West Coasts, with New York and California having the highest number of journalists employed across the nation, perhaps because pay in these areas is so much higher than in non-metropolitan areas (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2016). As a consequence, there was a failure to understand the feelings and emotions of middle America, which was seeing an anti-elitist movement, contributing heavily to the election of Donald Trump. Perhaps if journalists had had a less narrow-minded perspective and been more open to a wider variety of views, the results would have come as less of a shock.
Therefore, whilst there is an expanse of media outlets and news agencies in the USA, there is a very narrow array of stories and perspectives that they choose to put across. We must recognise that whilst the media is pluralist in the sense of allowing open access to information which allows different views to be shared, these views are all subjective and can manipulate how the populace thinks.
Interest Groups
The USA could be described as having a pluralist distribution of power as we see rule by the minorities, not the minority (Dahl, 1958). The system is porous in the sense that there are three branches of Government which operate under federalism and so there are multiple access points. As a consequence, all those Americans who belong to an interest group (which anyone can do) can voice their issues to the people in power at the relevant level and area of Government. Therefore, interest groups allow for representation of people who are not in the ‘ruling elite’.
However, the real business is often done behind closed doors in the ‘smoked filled rooms’ of Washington DC. In a study by Gilens and Page which tested how different group’s interests predict congress and executive actions on 1779 policies, there was an undeniable disparity. Economic elites and narrow interest groups were the most influential, whilst mass based groups significantly less so, and furthermore ordinary citizens had no influence. ‘When the preferences of economic elites and the stands of organized interest groups are controlled for, the preferences of the average American appear to have only a miniscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact’ (2014).
Different groups do have different power statuses in their respective areas of policy, and in those areas can work to hold the ruling elite accountable. This was seen when the ACLU filed a lawsuit against Trump’s ban on asylums. However, as Lowi (1969) said, is this simply a process which excludes the public from policy making? The process becomes restricted to the Government and the interest groups who gain the status of insiders. Whilst most groups face some sort of check in terms of countervailing interest groups, the extent to which this is a limitation is questionable for some groups. For example, the National Rifle Association is without a doubt the dominant group in terms of gun rights in the USA and faces opposition from groups like the Brady Campaign. However, if we look at the membership and resources of these groups in comparison, there is significant differences. Thus, whilst many may support gun control, the active membership of the NRA, alongside its economic resources, structural power and insider status means it will always win. Therefore, what we see is that groups of this kind do not face substantial competition, even if we can see groups which in theory have countervailing interests.
These elite groups work in their individual policy areas to lobby and work with politicians on drawing up legislation. As McFarland said, “Power in America is largely a matter of co-optation of specific public-policy areas by elites, serving their own private interests” (1987, p.130). The issue of the revolving door, where members of the Government transfer to careers in lobbying and interest groups, is very real in US politics. This was seen when Blake Farenthold resigned from Congress due to a sexual harassment scandal in 2018 only to go straight into a position lobbying for the Port of Port Lavaca with a pay far higher than his lawsuit settlement (Centre for Responsive Politics, 2006). This shows how there is a very small pool of people who retain power, rather than distribute it to others.
It is apparent that whilst there may be many interest groups in America, only some have the resources to gain an insider status and thus be able to achieve their aims. Whilst there are more and more budding interest groups, which is encouraging for pluralism, as it stands there is still a significant disparity between those at the top and those at the bottom.
Conclusion
Whilst Schumpeter (1961) suggests that democracy is competition between elites, it is far more convincing that rule of the elite isn’t an inevitable feature and should be challenged (Mills, 1956). This is what we can see in the USA, as currently there is certainly a ruling elite in control and political power is very much concentrated. However, there are elements of a pluralist distribution of power creeping in, with more people being given the opportunity to participate and access Government. Diversity is increasing as the elite is becoming less homogenous in terms of social backgrounds. Therefore, this essay concludes that the United States of America is currently sees an elitist distribution of power, however there are improvements and changes being made which encourage a move in the direction of pluralism.

Reference List

Allen P., 2018. The Political Class: Why It Matters Who Our Politicians Are. Washington DC: Oxford University Press.
Bialik K., Krogstad J.M., 2017. 115th congress sets new high for racial, ethnic diversity [online]. s.l. Available from: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/01/24/115th-congress-sets-new-high-for-racial-ethnic-diversity/ [Accessed 24 November 2018]
Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2016. Occupational Employment and Wages, May 2016. 27-3022 Reporters and Correspondents [Online]. Available from: https://www.bls.gov/oes/2016/may/oes273022.htm [Accessed 24 November 2018]
Burnham, J., 1943. The Modern Machiavellians. New York: John Day Co.
Centre for Responsive Politics, 2006. Revolving Door [online]. Washington DC. Available from: https://www.opensecrets.org/revolving/methodology.php [Accessed 24 November 2018].
Clark, M.D., 2018. The ASNE Newsroom Diversity Survey [Online]. Virginia. Available from: https://www.asne.org/diversity-survey-2018
Dahl R., 1957. The Concept of Power. Behavioural Science, 2(3), pp. 201-215.
Dahl, R., 1958. A Critique of the Ruling Elite Model. American Political Science Review, 52(2), pp. 436-469.
Diamond L.J., 2002. Thinking About Hybrid Regimes. Journal of Democracy, 13(2), pp. 21-35.
Dye T.R., Ziegler L.H., 1970. The Irony of Democracy: An Uncommon Introduction to American Politics. Belmont Ca.: Wadsworth Publishing Company.
Gilens, M., Page, B.I., 2014. Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens. Perspectives on Politics, 12(3), pp. 564-581.
Hooks, B., 2005. The Will to Change: Men, Masculinity, and Love. New York ; London: Washington Square Press.
McFarland, A.S., 1987. Interest Groups and Theories of Power in America. British Journal of Political Science, 17(2), pp.129-147.
Mills, C.W.,1956. The Power Elite. New York: Oxford University Press.
Mosca G., 1939. The Ruling Class. Osmania: McGraw Hill Book Company.
Parsons, D.W., 1995. Public Policy: an introduction to the theory and practice of policy analysis. Michigan: Edward Elgar.
Schumpeter, J., 1961. Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. New York: Harper and Row.

...(download the rest of the essay above)

About this essay:

If you use part of this page in your own work, you need to provide a citation, as follows:

Essay Sauce, The USA has an elitist distribution of power but is moving towards pluralism. Available from:<https://www.essaysauce.com/politics-essays/the-usa-has-an-elitist-distribution-of-power-but-is-moving-towards-pluralism/> [Accessed 28-03-24].

These Politics essays have been submitted to us by students in order to help you with your studies.

* This essay may have been previously published on Essay.uk.com at an earlier date.