Comment on ONE of the following topics:
1) Your book makes a pretty strong argument against single-issue voting. Do you agree, disagree? Why?
2) Are you a member of an interest group? Which one? Why? How effective do you think your interest group is politically? Why?
3) Do interest groups have too much power in the political process, or not enough power? Explain. If you think too much power, then who should have more relative to interest groups? If you think not enough power, where/how should groups acquire greater power to influence the political system?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
Single issue voting or interest group issue voting is becoming very powerful indeed in this country's political arena, especially in the area of governmental policy management. These groups become huge vats of campaign funds with which to by votes from congressmen and other elected officials for their pet projects. There is the gun lobby or NRA, these are the ones keeping guns so prevalent in our society. There are abortions rights groups trying to counteract those lobbies opposed to freedom of abortion. NOW, an organization designed to fight for women’s rights tends, anymore anyway, to be single issue, on abortion. Right wing Christian groups try their best to stay in the bedrooms of America and shove their narrow beliefs down our throats. They would have everything be controlled by their view of what,God wills for the society. There are groups for and against the death penalty, for and against integration and for and against war. Politicians love it, they get money from everybody, if they will pander a little. I personally believe interest groups control too much policy and give politicians too much money. If campaign finance reform were ever passed these groups would be out of a job, except during election time trying to get us to vote one way or another, through their public relations bombardments. Every candidate should get the same amount of money to spend, have the same amount of television and radio time. This would cripple these powerful PACs and stop this incessant vote buying and selling that takes place in Washington on a daily basis. Vote for the best man for the job!
I am a member of the Ohio Music Education Association (0MEA) and the Music Educators National Conferencs (MENC). I am a member of OMEA because I am required to do so if I want my band to be able to compete at various marching band contests in Ohio and be eligible to compete at the State Marching Band Finals. I am a member of MENC because you have to be a member in order to join your state association. Since the school I teach at expects our band to compete, I have no real choice but to be a member of these groups. As far as political effectiveness goes, both groups have been successful in influencing legislators to add music and arts standards to state and national content standards. This has, to some extent, assured that the arts must be made available to students in the schools, thereby assuring that teachers of the arts have some measure of security. Most folks have some recollection of schools cutting arts programs as a means of balancing the budget. OMEA, MENC and other state music associations have been instrumental (pun intended) in assuring that music and the arts will continue to have a place in public education. I can say that I have never been in a situation where my job was at stake because of budget cuts, but some very close friends and mentors of mine have been victimized. Recently, OMEA lobbied the Ohio legislature to require 2 credits of arts instruction into the state graduation requirements, further securing the arts in schools. With this requirement, however, has come no additional funding earmarked for school arts programs. The burden remains with local districts to meet these demands. What happens, especially in districts near my school, is that music programs operate on shoestring budgets with aged instruments and outdated literature. We have learned to make do, but now a new situation has occurred. Very good music directors are leaving our area for greener pastures. Yes, that opens the door to college graduates, but it is a culture shock to some when they show up on the first day and see what they have to work with. That happened to me 26 years ago, but I've stuck it out in similar schools most of the time, save a ten year hiatus. I'm no saint, I just like teaching these kids. As a side note: Did you notice that I did not mention the National Education Association as part of my membership? I am not a member. While I agree with some points the NEA offers up for legislation, I am appalled at the amount of money the NEA throws around and dues ain't cheap. The only benefit I would get from membership, directly, would be legal assistance in the event of litigation. In my way of thinking, any teacher who faces litigation shouldn't be a teacher in the first place. But, hey, I'm just one guy.
This is one I have to say that I totally disgree with single issue voting.To me its the black sheep of the political family.The arguments against single issue voting make a lot of sense.From a practical standpoint were single issue voting to become widespread enough it would potentially reframe the entire way campaigns were run. iT could couldnt it. Think about it.. Instead of paying deference to the wide variety of issues facing the country a candidate could get by standing firmly behind a single one or two. Someimes people are so stunned or worried about one issue that they will do anything to get that issue passed or heard.There money would go towards that one issue media,recources,speaking engagements visits would benefit the candidate that pumped the most money into the single issue instead of the candidate that took a position on a variety of issues. Really single issue voting needs to be looked at from a future standpoint look at what it could lead too. We really need to let the whole idea of that surpass us all.
I am a member of some interest groups. I am a student member of the Kentucky Society of Certified Public Accountants and the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA). I am a member because I plan on becoming a CPA and I want to get my foot in the door and get some knowledge through member benefits of journals and subscriptions. I will be able to keep up with the lastest news concerning my future occupation and this will hopefully also give me an advantage over other candidates when applying for a job because I am involved with groups that relate to the accounting field. I think that these groups are effective politically. The AICPA actually has a political action committee that speaks out on issues affecting the accounting profession in Washington D.C. and with policy decisions affecting taxpayers. The AICPA donates all of its donations that it receives from members to candidates running for the U.S. House of Representatives or Senate. They are not allowed to contribute to State or local campaigns. The AICPA is also a bartisan group and contributes to both Democrats and Republican parties.
I feel that interest groups have too much power; however, it would be hard to undo the influence of special interest groups in politics. The problem is that it limits the scope of what legislation is important. If a special interest group donates or petitions the politicians in voting for a specific issue (be it gun control, or improved fuel emissions, or drug-coverage), this takes away from other issues, that should be addressed such as improving our education or healthcare system. Special interest groups only goal is to influence policy to benefits its members only. These special interest groups do not care about the consequences if their policies take effect, as long as their members are happy, then it does not matter that there are poor children who do not have anything to eat or they cannot afford to go to college. To correct this problem of special interest groups in politics, the power should be shifted so that all lobbying done by all special interest groups are open to the public record and none are done behind closed doors. If interest groups had to go through a public forum made up of ordinary citizens, these forums would be set up in all capitols in every state and in Washington DC. All meetings would be open to everyone and if a interest group wanted to influence policy, they would have to get approval at public forums, prior to approaching any legislator or bureaucrat. If a special interest group was caught not going through the public forum, they would be banned from lobbying for a specific amount of time. However, the problem is that not enough people would be interested in attending these public forums, and special interest would find a way around them. Even though they have too much power, by trying to limit their access in a way that they have to make public all private disclosures, maybe they may sing a different tune. By bringing in ordinary citizens to influence policy, maybe special interest would use their money to a better good.
Bill Wren,
I enjoyed your comments about single issue voting and the special interest groups. I think that if politicians were all given the same amount of money to spend on an election campaign and could not go over that amount, politics would be a different creature. In Japan, my wife told me that politicians running for an elected office are limited by the amount of money they can spend and where they can spend it. There are limits placed on political advertising, and the national parties are limited in giving all the candidates the same amount of money. It seems all the candidates for political office have to take the limited “public funds” and cannot collect and/or spend any private donations in campaigning. What it would be like here in the United States if the politicians, all of them had to limit their spending to a set amount, could not advertise on television, radio or the internet and could not take anything from special interest groups. However, I am talking fairytale Land here.
I am not yet a member of a special interest group but I am planning on joining the NRA this year and getting my CDL license. I believe that over the years the NRA has contributed to maintaining the citizens constitutional rights to bare arms. I also believe that they have done a lot in the are of gun awareness. I mean in these they support safe and responsible gun owner ship. I also believe that they have contributed to keeping America safer because they advocate that her citizens have the right to defend them selves. Just they other day on the news it was reported a man shot and killed and home intruder that was coming to harm his family. I believe that we have aright to defend our selves and the NRA has stood behind that belief. They try to show that it is not the gun but the person who kills. Murders, gang violence robberies an other crimes will all happen whether there are guns or not but not having them leaves us defenseless. In addition, the NRA has stood for this message. As for specific effectiveness I believe that hey are loosing effectiveness with such false propaganda as Michael Mores bowling for columbine and news repots that stronger gun laws would have prevented VA tech shooting. As I have said before just on armed student other then the killer would have stopped it and if he had not many were armed he never would have tried! Terrorist and killers will still get guns even if we tighten laws. Then what are we going to do throw flower petals?
I believe that as a citizen I need a group such as the NRA to stand for my right to bear arms!
ashley, first of all, i think you mean cdwl (concealed deadly weapons license) not a cdl (commercial driver's license)
a repost comment to ashley,
you can not be serious about other students at VT carrying guns! yes, this will solve our problems, let students carry guns onto college campuses. or maybe, we can also allow people to carry guns into government buildings, you know, in case someone came in to shoot someone there would be people in there carrying guns! should the students at columbine or heath have carried guns? (obviously they could not since you must be 21. that was rhetorical.) so maybe, teachers in schools should carry guns. do american parents want to send their kids to schools where their teachers carry guns? should parents feel comfortable sending their children to virginia tech where other students walk around on campus carrying guns? i know that i would not!!! amazing!!!
Further, stricter gun laws are not to restrict amendment rights, but rather to protect citizens. In my personal opinion, stricter gun laws aim to protect the children. For example, "When researchers studied the 30,000 accidental gun deaths of Americans of all ages that occurred between 1979-1997, they found that preschoolers aged 0-4 were 17 times more likely to die from a gun accident in the 4 states with the most guns versus the 4 states with the least guns. Likewise, school kids aged 5-14 were over 13 times more at risk of accidental firearm death in the states with high gun ownership rates. The findings indicate that gun availability is associated with accidental death by shooting" (2002 edition of Injury Facts from the National Safety Council) Were those children terrorists? I had much rather those children throw flower petals at their play friends rather than shoot them.
I am NOT anti-gun! I am anti-stupidity!
As the book claims, interest groups are vital in our democracy, however, sometimes their opinions weigh more than the overall public’s opinion. This is not always because of monetary gains for the candidates, but incredibly vocal displays from unheard groups. There is a classic mantra, “There’s power in numbers.” In the political arena, this is especially true. Deciding if these interest groups have too much power or too little power is rather difficult. It is difficult to determine because some groups seem to have too much power while others seem to not have enough. Those that have too much are, in my personal opinion, are groups like big oil and the greys (I believe this is the elderly lobbyist group). How do these groups have too much power? Big oil has big money and big money gets heard. The greys dominate in voter turnout, which makes their voice quite large compared to other groups. On the other hand, environmental groups do not have the kind of monetary offerings that big oil has, thus making them less influential. Similar to the grey lobby, if the environmental groups could obtain larger support, it would make up for their low contributions. Compared to the grey lobby, children have virtually no voice. The grey lobby, compromised of one of the nation’s largest organizations, the AARP, pilfers tax money to support themselves, depriving millions of children the wellbeing they need. In a better democracy, interest groups would play a vital role in politics but where everyone in the country belonged to various groups. If more people upheld the agendas of environmental groups, it would offset the money of the oil lobbyist. Further, if more people advocated the wellbeing of the nation’s children, then perhaps the nation’s social security plan would not be in such a dilemma. Interest groups need to front their own interests because the general public might not be aware of the need. However, we need a system in which the will of the interest groups do not outweigh the will of the country as a whole.
Post to Emily,
I will have to agree with Ashley on the topic of carrying concealed weapons. You made the comment, “we can also allow people to carry guns into government buildings, you know, in case someone came in to shoot someone there would be people in there carrying guns!” First of all, there are people carrying guns in government buildings, there called cops. What I don’t understand is its okay for cops to carry guns to protect themselves but not for citizens. I know cops jobs are there to protect society, but they weren’t there when the VT shooter enter the school or the Columbine school. You then say you wouldn’t allow your child go to school with students carrying guns around. Well if your child had a gun to protect them self then there wouldn’t be a problem. If your child was killed at the VT shooting I bet you would wish they or someone else had a gun on them. I will end the same way I did last week, it’s not the gun that kills it’s the person.
I think that interest groups should not be able to have the impact that they do on our government. I think that the groups itself is not a bad thing, but they should not be able to try to control politicians like they do. These groups lobbying with politicians would be like a baseball coach trying to get an umpire to rule completely for his team during a game. I am against single-issue voting just as the author is. I can see the need and want for interest groups, but I think that the groups should not be able to lobby like they do. I think that these groups should be able to come before Congress and state their case in front of everybody at the same time. I think that if these single-issue groups want to remain a part of our political society that they should have to change the way they go about their business. There are ways that their ideas and thoughts can be heard without trying to pull certain politicians to their side and against everything else.
In response to Bill Wren
Your comments about certain interest groups tend to be very extreme. Obviously you are expressing your own opinion, which is perfectly fine. However, isnt the point of expressing an opinion in such a manner to persuade people to possibly reconsider their opinion, or to at least keep an open mind? In all honesty, i read you blog and it didnt cause me to think, it didnt cause me to reconsider my own conclusions on interest groups, instead i was slightly offended and my ability to consider your thoughts and opinions in myown thought prosesses was greatly damaged.
I agree with the argument the book makes against single-issue voting. Obviously human nature will always play into peoples decision making. We can't always be completely level headed. If someone is very passionate about opposing the death penalty, it is understandable that this person may cast a vote based on just this issue. It doesnt make it the correct decision, but it is an understandable decision. However, we should always strive to keep an open mind and be knowledgable about many political issues when it comes time to vote. A person elected to office is going to make more than one decision that will effect the public. If a politician only makes one beneficial decision while in office, and it happens to be the single issue that caused you to vote for the cnadidate, it was a wasted term. Also, if you vote on a single issue and then the candidate doesnt even make any progress on that issue, then what? You wasted a vote.
Ch.9 Question 1
Our nation has a long history of voters who go to the polls to vote for a candidate or against another candidate based on a single issue. As a voter myself, I do not agree with single-issue voting. I think within an election there are many issues to look at when placing a vote for a particular candidate. I can honestly say that I cannot think of anything that I feel so strongly for that I would strictly vote for a candidate just because of that single issue. The single issue that one individual might vote for or against, may or may not be treated by the next person in line as a single issue, to them it might be a broader issue and not as significant.
One example that I can give regarding the single issue vote and why I do not agree with it is on the topics of abortion and nuclear weapons. Voting for an antiabortion candidate who favors the increased spending on nuclear weapons may not be a positive gain for the sanctity of life. If a citizen at the polls ready to vote is a devoted antiabortion supporter and he or she votes for this particular candidate, how is that not contradicting their beliefs on their single issue stance on abortion? This candidate that they are voting for is against abortion, but yet supporting the increased spending on nuclear weapons.
I feel that at some point, each and every candidate overlaps their beliefs and their stance on certain issues to where no citizen could truly vote strictly based on a single issue. The issues that are present in our world today, cross over lines of one’s beliefs more so than not making it very difficult to strictly vote and vote 100% in favor of one particular issue.
Post a Comment