MADISONS DILEMMA

1
MADISONS DILEMMA

• If people cant pursue their interests, they
  dont have political freedom.
• Self-interest v. Democratic process
• Govt. pushed to enact policy benefiting small
  groups at expense of general public.
• Federalist 10 Mischiefs of Faction

2

• Prevent factions or control them?
• Are factions normal? inevitable?
• How can they be controlled?
• Madison A republican form of government
• Effects of faction are diluted, or controlled, by
  the clash of so many competing interests.
• No one interest, or set of interests, would
  dominate.

3

• Pluralism 20th century
• Competing interests find representation in
  policymaking through lobbying by organizations.
• The Madisonian Ideal
• Policymaking the result of compromise and
  consensus, with no group becoming too powerful.
  Government policymakers act as synthesizers of
  competing interests.

4

• Definition of interest group?
• Organizations
• Membership?
• Interests (farmers)
• Interest groups (Natl Assoc of Wheat Growers)
• IG s represent only of potential members, and
  only portions of Interests
• Lobbying

5

• ROLES
• Represent
• Participate
• Educate
• Agenda building
• Program monitoring

6

• Pluralisms rise and fall
• David Truman, The Governmental Process, 1951
• Group Theory
• Politics can be understood only by looking at the
  interaction of groups.
• Echoes Madison tendency to form groups around
  interests is in the nature of man.
• Truman political man is a product of group
  influences

7

• Robert Dahl, Who Governs?, 1961
• Different issues/interests generate activism from
  different groups of people. No one group comes
  together on every issue.
• Policymaking influenced by loose coalitions of
  groups active on issues they care about.
• Policy is made through bargaining and compromise
  between activated groups and political elites.

8

• Dahl, and Pluralism, were very influential.
• Dahl added normative aspect This is the way
  things should be.
• Credited by many for reviving democratic theory,
  by providing an explanation and a rationale for
  the American political process.
• Interest group activity was not only to pursue
  self-interest, but actually produced fair and
  democratic policy.

9

• Refuted critiques of American politics, such as
  C. Wright Mills The Power Elite, 1956.
• Pluralism - Government responds to different
  groups on different issues they are responsible
  to a broad range of constituencies, rather than a
  small group of powerful elites.

10

• Influence of pluralism, and Dahls work in
  particular, drew attention and scrutiny.
• Methodological criticism/too narrow
• Limited cases dont prove government is truly
  democratic
• Biased questions and misleading conclusions
• Other criticized implications of pluralism
• Defends the status quo

11

• Lobbying groups protect mainly elite interests
• Theodore Lowi Disproportionate privilege leads
  to disproportionate influence.
• Pluralism falsely suggests equal treatment of all
  groups/interests.

12

• Real-world events also questioned validity of
  pluralism.
• Civil Rights Movement
• Anti-Vietnam War Movement

13

• Pluralism Good
• Elitism Bad
• Pluralisms strength is normative, not
  necessarily descriptive. Still a desirable goal.
• Cant be dismissed like some rejected theory,
  that would dismiss part of the core of American
  democracy and constitutionalism.

14

• Pluralism one of the most debated and studied
  topics in 20th century.
• No new theories have replaced it.
• Why?
• Pluralism also the only theory that resolved the
  Madisonian dilemma.
• If interest groups dont play a constructive
  role, then they are a danger to democracy.

15

• What to do?
• Make pluralism come true.
• Make it more balanced.
• Reduce the role of PACs in campaign financing
• Enhance representation of interests who are
  poorly represented
• More democracy. More participation in the
  political system.
• When that happens, the inevitable result is more
  interest groups.