Elitism

                Elitism is the polar opposite of pluralism. For example, elitism claims that a number of insider pressure groups exert an undemocratic influence upon the political process. Far from being pluralist, America should more accurately be depicted as a country in which insider groups can effectively distort the political process. This is particularly notable with those groups that represent business interests. The need for high levels of campaign finance is a political reality that no candidate for elected office can ever ignore. As such, corporations have considerable influence over politicians which leads some to agree with Theodore Dreiser's quote that "corporations are the [American] government.”

Following the logic of the elitist perspective, American politics could be depicted as a contest between various elites (namely liberals against conservatives). This contest between elites occurs both in the context of political parties, and of course pressure groups. The Austrian theorist Joseph Schumpeter once argued that the people effectively decide which elite rules - thereby reflecting a hybrid of both democracy and elite rule. Schumpeter compared political democracy to an economic market in which we exercise choice just as we would within the marketplace. Americans therefore choose between candidates from the parties, and from causes represented by competing pressure groups. In the case of the latter, they might choose to support a pro-life advocacy group or a pro-choice group in regards to abortion.

Along with Schumpeter, there are three theorists who are normally cited within the elitist perspective. Of these, the most important is unquestionably C. Wright Mills (1956). In a seminal work on the distribution of power and influence; Mills claimed that the United States is dominated by a social and political elite whose members can be found within pressure groups and political parties. Although his work was published in the middle of the 20^th century, his argument still holds validity to this day. One would only have to consider the influence wielded by iron triangles. For instance, it could be argued that defense spending in the states is exorbitantly high due to the significant influence of the military-industrial complex.

                Thomas Dye (2001) argued that policies are the result of an elite consensus found in the nation’s capital. Far from serving the demos, the entire political process is skewed towards those who share the elite consensus. ‘They’ know what is best for the country, and ‘they’ effectively run America. As such, politicians ultimately respond to the Great Gulch of K Street and the wolves of Wall Street rather than ordinary folks living on Main Street. In order to support this argument, one would only have to consider the banking bail-out under administrations from both main parties. The left-wing author Naomi Klein (2000) described the bail-out for those too big to fail as “the biggest heist in monetary history … and the largest transfer of public wealth into private hands.” From the right of the political spectrum, the Tea Party is "mad as hell" at the bail-out of Wall Street.

                Thirdly, the sociologist Robert Putnam claims that elites dominate the political process due to their specialist knowledge. Legislation drawn up on the Hill is drafted by those who represent the interests of powerful insider groups, particularly those with a grasp of medical and financial services. Certain pressure groups, such as the American Medical Association (AMA), have both the expertise and the manpower to achieve this. Indeed, it is worth noting here that the financial services industry has approximately five lobbyists for every member of Congress – and it was pressure from such lobbyists that managed to keep the Merkley-Levin amendment off the statute books. The amendment would have prohibited banks from taking excessive risks with their customer’s savings, and might therefore have prevented the sub-prime lending fiasco. It is also worth noting that Spencer Bachus, chair of the House Financial Services Committee; is on record as saying that “Washington and the regulators are there to serve the banks.”

                Having considered both pluralism and elitism, one might reasonably conclude that there is plenty of evidence to support both sides of the argument. This is entirely to be expected within any political debate. America does have a veneer of pluralism, and certainly compares well by international standards. However, there is no point hiding the fact that certain groups dominate the policy-making process. Whilst there are a massive number of pressure groups covering all shades of opinion, it is surely to be expected that some pressure groups are going to hold far greater level of influence than others. To take just one example, the financial services industry hired over 3,000 lobbyists (!) in order to shape the wording of the Financial Reform Bill. One caveat to add here is that no pressure group is commanding enough to enforce their demands upon the political process. Ultimately, it is politicians that decide – not pressure groups. Pluralists also offer a credible counter-argument to the elitist perspective with their claim that all groups face an alternative perspective.

The dichotomy between pluralism and elitism gives the debate over pressure groups much of its intellectual vibrancy. However, there are other perspectives to consider. It is important to note that each theoretical perspective casts light upon our understanding of pressure groups and in a wider sense the political process itself. Of these, the New Right perspective is arguably the most vibrant in the contemporary era. It has experienced a notable resurgence since the end of the noughties, principally due to the rise of the Tea Party movement with their ‘I am John Galt’ placards (Rand, 1957) and their slogan ‘Don’t tread on me.’ As such, I would like to now consider the New Right perspective upon pressure groups.