"It is convenient most of the time in studying government to talk of these groups as interests."Arthur Bentley, The Process of Government
In The Process of Government, Arthur Bentley showed the nuts and bolts of politics as more marketplace than battleground. Different groups, not sweeping ideals, compete against each other to gain currency with the public. This effort to demystify politics is a bit like stripping the actor of his make-up. The trappings of politics today - buzzwords like "national interest" and "positive change" - glorify the workings of the government beyond recognition. Soaring rhetoric and appeals to higher powers overlook what really drives our government. As Nicholas Lemann pointed out, Bentley's view of politics fills in the gaps of understanding left by the "official conversation about American politics."
As far back as highschool, I can remember learning about pluralism as a positive force in politics. Pluralism, according to one professor, was one of the great checks of a democratic government. Competing interests prevent (in theory) any one group from running roughshod over all others. I never really made the connection though between interest groups and pluralism. One was greedy self-service, the other a natural product of our nation's history.
The media have been doing the principle of pluralism a disservice of in two ways. By categorizing the population into two simple, color-coded groups, media corporations have created a pair of great bullies, each ready to push the other into the sand. This "with us or against us" mentality sacrifices the finer points of a pluralistic government. Another blow to the pluralistic view of government is the vilification of interests groups. It seems everyone wants their own interests to be transcendently and objectively "right."
1 comment:
Good post.
I think your presentation of the problem (the "us vs. them" mentality) is dead on. But I'm wondering how or why journalists cause this.
Are you suggesting that conflict frames cause non-conflicts to appear as conflicts?
I guess I'm wondering if you think the conflict might actually come from the parties themselves, or if the conflict is merely a presentation of media texts. You seem to indicate the latter, but I want to know why you think that.
Also, try and draw more of your voice into the post. You have some good anecdotal moments, but not enough identity to let the reader know how relevant your internal thoughts are to his or her experience.
This will get easier as we do more.
Keep at it.
Post a Comment