The negative impact of pressure groups

                There are several cogent arguments to put forward in regards to the negative impact of pressure groups upon the political process. When seeking to deepen our understanding of these arguments, it is important to focus upon two particular types of pressure groups; insiders and outsiders. However, the actions of sectional groups might also be considered as they champion the interests of their own members rather than those of wider society.

                Perhaps the most obvious negative concerns the actions of outsider groups. Those who operate outside of the conventional political process may engage in direct action, which can at times pose a serious threat to our life and liberty. For instance, Operation Rescue has engaged in illegal activity against those working in abortion clinics. To most Americans, this would be viewed as entirely undemocratic. However, political discourse is littered with conflicting interpretations. As such, those at the extremist end of the pro-life movement could be described as the vanguard against a state-sponsored war against the defenseless unborn child. Such groups may well rationalize their actions by claiming that they are protecting the most vulnerable within society against the forces of liberal-secularism. Naturally, this argument can be taken to an illogical conclusion – as in the case of white extremist groups who defend their actions by exaggerating the threat posed by multiculturalism and immigration.

                Another issue to consider here is that direct action can lead to a more democratic society, particularly when the status quo does not properly listen and act upon the concerns of disadvantaged groups. Racial minorities offer a good illustration of this point. The civil rights movement has always been divided between those who seek to engage constructively with the political process against those who believe that direct action is the only proper response to a fundamentally racist system. During the turbulent decade of the 1960s, two figures within the civil rights movement (Martin Luther King and Malcolm X) encapsulated entirely different means by which to advance the cause. With the benefit of hindsight, direct action from certain elements of the civil rights movement may well have strengthened democracy in America.

                The actions of insider groups could also be considered in a negative context. This argument derives from both the left and right of the political spectrum, with each offering a critique of their particular bête noire. Those on the left claim that multi-national corporations and wealthy donors have effectively captured the political process. There are few better examples to cite than the financial services industry. These hugely influential insiders have been treated very favorably indeed by politicians from both main parties. Even those who derive from the financial elite seem to agree. The multi-billionaire financier Warren Buffett has said publically that the wealthy elite have been cossetted by Congress, and that his section of society is winning the class war! As one might expect, this left-wing perspective has gained salience in the aftermath of the credit crunch. At the risk of simplification, one might plausibly argue that ‘we’ have been dealing with the hangover from Wall Street’s excess.

                The right-wing critique against insider groups is of a slightly different hue. Best exemplified by the Tea Party movement, this viewpoint claims that the political process is dominated by groups that demand an ever greater level of resources from the taxpayer. Politicians therefore place an increasing burden upon the tax-payer simply in order to placate powerful interests. Demands made by such groups are therefore heard to the exclusion of the American people, which is entirely contrary to the spirit and ethos of what democracy is supposed to be.

 

                 The right-wing perspective emphasizes two further problems with pressure groups, that of government overload and regulatory capture. Government overload is precisely what it says, in that the state simply takes on too much due to the demands of influential insiders. One would only have to consider the whole area of agriculture, traditionally one of the most subsidized industries within the states. This may take the form of government subsidies that simply protect producers at the expense of the consumer. Government overload also leads to an unaffordable fiscal deficit, a problem that mushroomed under the Bush administration and one that has continued to expand exponentially under Obama. High levels of government debt are contrary to the country’s economic interests in the long-term. This latter point has been taken up by groups on the left of the political spectrum. For instance, Strike Debt aims to abolish personal debt by sending a package to random individuals saying that the debt is now cleared. The name of the project (Rolling Jubilee) is inspired by a story from the Old Testament in which all debts are forgiven every 50 or so years.

Regulatory capture occurs when an agency set up to regulate an industry has little or no impact. Such agencies are effectively captured by powerful interests who lobby legislators within the various levels of governance. One example to consider would be the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) in relation to financial services. Along with government overload, regulatory capture is part of the New Right perspective upon the role and significance of pressure groups.

Another criticism to consider relate to the actions of an iron triangle, which is commonly associated with a secretive decision-making process. In essence, pressure groups within an iron triangle can place their own interests above those of the people. An iron triangle is formed on the basis of vested interests, and each element of the triangle (congressional committees, pressure groups and federal agencies) benefit in some manner. They have the means and the motive to reach decisions that advance their own interests rather than those of the broader population. Take the case of agriculture. The provision of subsidies to farmers directly benefits members of the American Farm Bureau, which in turn may lead to politicians gaining votes from farmers and agricultural constituencies. However, the provision of subsidies is contrary to the interests of the wider population as it is based upon a double whammy of higher taxes and higher prices. Disposable income is therefore squeezed for what is ultimately a necessity for our very survival. This can be particularly hard upon low-income households, where spending on food takes up a disproportionately large amount of the household budget. Iron triangles also tend to reach decisions via secretive means, which is entirely contrary to democratic values that emphasize openness and transparency.

Another negative associated with pressure groups is the revolving door syndrome. The term describes a situation in which former members of the legislature/executive take up paid positions within pressure groups. A recently retired (or defeated) politician can often gain a higher salary, and a more stable job; as a lobbyist compared to that of a public servant. The pressure group however gains valuable insider information upon how decisions are really made and secures informal contacts with existing decision-makers. For instance, former Senator Ben Nelson gained a job working as a lobbyist for the National Association of Insurance Commissioners soon after losing an election. Taken together, the revolving door syndrome creates a mutually dependent relationship amongst influential insider groups and politicians that may well be to the detriment of wider society. Once again, it is the actions of pressure groups that could be criticized as opposed to their actual existence.

The overall impact of pressure groups, both positive and negative; depends of course upon two factors. Of these, the most important is the relative influence of that particular group. Insider groups such as the AIPAC, the AARP and the NRA will inevitably have a major impact upon the political process. For example, the NRA has sufficient resources to mobilize support against measures to control the use of firearms. It can also mobilize support against those who favor gun control. This could be considered either a positive or a negative depending upon one’s own ideological bent.

 

The second factor is the capacity of politicians to marginalize the demands of such groups. Perhaps the most interesting illustration to consider is the impact of the AARP. From the perspective of senior citizens, the AARP defends their interests within the corridors of power. However, from the perspective of a younger population the political process may well be systematically biased towards an older demographic. Politicians have a far greater incentive to respond to the grey vote than younger people because the former is both more numerous and much more likely to go to the polls. Politicians must consider these facts in order to gain power, because without power they can do practically nothing. Once again, the impact of the AARP could be included on either side of the debate.