Discuss the role of public opinion in the American political system
The role of public opinion in the American political system ranges from a secondary monitoring tool to the primary policy-making factor depending on the party, which defines it. One of the radical views of public opinion is as follows: it reflects the public reaction to the activities of politicians but does not provide a sufficiently reliable picture and thus cannot be used to direct the political process. Such a view also suggests that the public is easily manipulated, and thus the results of the polls and surveys are relatively worthless. On the other hand, public opinion is one of the few feasible and measurable manifestations of the people’s decisions, which is a core component of democracy. The advocates of this approach point to the fact that the survey results usually stay consistent over time and are not as unreliable as suggested by the opponents. Besides, while it is possible to manipulate the opinion and the results of surveys, several approaches exist to mitigate these discrepancies. One of these is public judgment – an approach that combines the data gathering with informing the respondents on the issues which may not be evident to the less politically informed individuals. A survey conducted by the Pew Research Center in 2011 on immigration policies is a good example of public judgment: the results were different once the public became aware of the issues of welfare of immigrants’ children (Goo, 2015). This example is important as it strengthens the importance of public opinion by improving its reliability.
Another way of improving the consistency of the feedback is the deliberative polling technique: a randomized sample of a population is engaged in an organized discussion of the event, followed by the survey. In this way, the limitations of political illiteracy are minimized, while the representative nature of the results is preserved. The initial results are usually sufficiently different from the subsequent ones, as is illustrated, for instance, by the Texas experiment, where the support of the wind power generation rose by 30% (Fishkin, 2012).
As can be seen from the examples, public opinion can be deemed a reliable and consistent way of expressing people’s will and thus plays an important role in political decision making.
With money replacing time and membership as key parts of the interest group system, describe the impact on American democracy. Which groups are being negatively affected or left out of the process of interest group influence of policy and policymakers?
With the growing costs of political proceedings, money plays a gradually stronger role in the functioning of interest groups. In particular, the interest group needs a firm financial basis to support its functions throughout its lifespan to provide means of communication for its members and to hire the professional staff which would deal with legislation. Finally, the groups are forced to seek “policy entrepreneurs” – individuals who provide organizational and policy services for financial or professional incentives. As a result, the interest groups often face informal “minimum requirements” of a financial kind – a number of resources necessary to gain an upper hand, or even to register on a political scene at all. Thus, the members capable of providing incentives are favored over the poorer candidates to sustain the interest group. An alternative in the form of increasing the member numbers capable of collectively gathering the necessary amount of money is attractive but inherently flawed: bigger membership increases the need for communication expenditures and introduces the additional complexities into the group’s functioning. While arguably dictated by necessity rather than unfair judgment, such a setting still creates uneven ground and compromises the political integrity of the country, especially considering the amount of influence exerted by the interest groups on the politics of the United States.
A study undertaken by the researchers from Princeton University confirms the assertions of the uneven distribution of political power. By aggregating the scores of the 1,779 policy issues observed in the US from 1981 to 2002 and comparing them to the goals of the influence groups and the interests of the population of different economic strata, two important conclusions were reached. First, the outcomes of the most issues coincide with the goals set by the interest groups and are often deemed favorable by the people, which confirms both the power and the positive character of the influence the groups have in the political process. Second, the outcomes also routinely coincide with the interests of the top-earning minority of the population. At the same time, no correlation is observed between the outcomes and the preferences of average Americans (Bondioli, 2014). In essence, this means that while the interest groups indeed represent the public opinion and allow for the independent influence of the citizens on the political process, it is restricted to the richer part of society. While the goals of the different strata are often the same,1 the limitation leaves a significant segment of the society outside the political process, which undermines the democracy.
What makes American political parties unique? Discuss the ramifications of changes in levels of American partisanship (party affiliation and identity) on the power of political parties in the present era?
The American two-party system is responsible for several phenomena associated with the party affiliation and identity. While the changes of affiliation are by no means unique, the bilateral setting creates several implications that change the political landscape seriously enough to be viewed separately. One such phenomenon is the dealignment, a process which, according to consensus, has underpinned the political proceedings for at least half a century. The most visible consequence of dealignment is the decrease of certainty in public opinion on the political matters: the people are less likely to identify with the objectives and policies associated with a certain party. This may be viewed as an improvement since it arguably eliminates the bias and provides a more fair ground for decision making, which is especially relevant for the party members. On the other hand, however, dealignment introduces vagueness and lack of direction, which in turn has an adverse effect on the elections, resulting in the possibility of split-ticket voting (voting for candidates regardless of their party affiliation, which results in less consistent partisan alignment). Besides, it is associated with lower voter turnout. While the former may be considered a positive development given its fairer distribution and focus on the candidates’ traits rather than their affiliation, the latter is harder to justify. Thus, the dealignment can be viewed as compromising the power of political parties in America.
Another phenomenon, which is more complex, is the realignment. According to Schwalbe (2014), the sixth party realignment is currently underway in the US, with the two major prerequisites (the election of a Democratic President and the Great Recession of 2008) already being fulfilled. This, according to the analysis, will lead to the shift of the power distribution of the current parties and even the possible dissolution of the Republican Party.2
Other experts speculate that the current realignment can be viewed as a shaping process, with the majority of the components associated with both the Democratic and the Republican parties being rearranged as a result of the process (Lind, 2016). This means, among other things, that the party members do not rigidly follow cues from party leadership. Both examples illustrate the influence realignment has on the political parties in the US.
References
Bondioli, S. (2014). U.S. Policies favor the wealthy, interest groups, study shows.
Fishkin, J. (2012). What the people think when they’re really thinking.
Goo, S. (2015). What Americans want to do about illegal immigration.
Lind, M. (2016). This is what the future of american politics looks like.
Schwalbe, S. (2014). Commentary: the sixth political party realignment and the end of the GOP?
Footnotes
- According to Bondioli (2014), the study highlights no major differences across the population.
- Schwalbe (2014) suggests the Tea Party as a major contributor to the latter.