Types of pressure groups

                Having built up a readership for my blog, I would now like to turn my attention to pressure groups. First and foremost, pressure groups perform a number of roles within any liberal democracy. They help to educate the public, exert influence upon the decision-making process and maintain a link between the people and the powerful. They also give ventilation to those issues of concern to the American people. That said; the impact of pressure groups is not necessarily a positive one. There is a rich debate within political discourse concerning the relationship between pressure groups and democracy. We might also consider which theoretical perspective (such as elitism and pluralism) best describes the overall significance of pressure groups. In order to understand pressure groups, it is necessary to explore these and other questions in order to properly identify and examine pressure groups within the United States.

                The obvious first step is to define the term itself. A pressure group is an organization of like-minded individuals who seek to promote a particular cause(s) or interest(s). Unlike political parties, pressure groups do not seek elected office. This is the key distinction between the two. Beyond this basic definition, there are different types of pressure groups. When considering this typology, it is worth noting that a pressure group might belong to more than one group. For instance, the National Rifle Association (NRA) is both an insider group and a cause group.

                The most important distinction to be aware of is that between an insider and an outsider. An insider pressure group has close and regular contact with decision-makers amongst the various levels of governance. As such, an insider group has a great deal more influence over the political process than an outsider group. Insider groups tend to represent wealthy sectors of the economy such as the financial services industry. Insiders also derive from influential sections within society (such as the AIPAC and the AARP). Politicians seeking elected office need the support of wealthy groups and the public endorsement of those groups representing strategically important sections of the electorate. This is the unvarnished truth of politics, particularly within a country that would surely never accept state funding of political parties.

                As the name implies, outsider groups do not have access to decision-makers. Mainstream politicians will distance themselves from outsider groups due to their association with direct action. That said; outsider groups can over a period of time become insiders. One obvious historical example relates to the civil rights movement during the 1950s and 60s. Whilst there were elements within the movement who advocated political violence, such as the Nation of Islam led by Malcolm X; the civil rights movement eventually gained an influential voice within the conventional political process. By the mid-60s, the civil rights movement had secured significant legislative gains via cross-party support from Congress and the White House. This example serves to remind us why the distinction between insiders and outsiders holds significance to our studies. Broadly speaking, outsider groups have very little impact upon the political process. It is insider groups that hold by far the most influence.

                Another distinction to be aware of is that between sectional groups and cause groups. The former refers to those groups that represent a particular profession or occupation. In short, sectional pressure groups such as the American Federation of Teachers seek to promote the interests of its members. However, it could be argued that such groups promote the interests of their own profession at the expense of the public interest. By emphasizing the ‘me’ rather than the ‘we,’ sectional groups can exert a negative influence upon the political process. From the opposing side of the argument, a sectional group can be said to enhance the level of democracy within the states. For instance, they give a voice to those groups that might otherwise be marginalized within the decision-making process.

                As the term clearly implies, a cause group promotes a particular cause or issue. There are literally thousands of cause groups within the states, and the very existence of such groups is viewed as a positive contribution towards the democratic health of American politics. This is because all different shades of the political spectrum are covered. As such, no particular interest can dominate at the exclusion of the opposing side of the argument. For instance, there are pro-life conservative groups active in the annual March for Life on Washington DC alongside a number of pro-choice liberal groups such as the National Organization for Women (NOW) and EMILY’s List. However, there are certain cause groups who could be considered extremists because their actions might threaten the life and liberty of others. This is clearly undemocratic, and is widely cited as one illustration of the negative impact pressure groups may have upon the political process.

                Although not widely used, it might be worth noting the distinction between permanent groups and temporary groups. For obvious reasons, permanent groups are of far greater significance than the latter. Temporary groups are usually set up to address local politics, such as parents against the closure of a school. Temporary groups tend to motivate those who might otherwise be largely apathetic towards the political process. They are also associated with a relatively amateurish approach towards raising public awareness, principally due to a lack of money and know-how. As one can see, pressure groups presents us with an area of study that covers a very wide range of examples; from the highly professional lobbyists operating within the corridors of power to the more amateurish approach of those motivated by a NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) mindset.