Fracking produces abundant, inexpensive natural gas, a great benefit to people who live in parts of the country where it is expensive to heat homes during the winter. Fracking also creates jobs. At the same time, many scholars argue that fracking can result in the contamination of drinking water, air pollution, and increased risk of earthquakes.
One study has even linked fracking to cancer. Thus, those who want to provide jobs and inexpensive natural gas are in conflict with those who wish to protect the natural environment and human health. Both sides are well intentioned, but they disagree over what is best for people [13].
A person in Ohio protests fracking a. An announcement of a public meeting regarding fracking illustrates what some of the tradeoffs involved with the practice might be b.
Tradeoffs are especially common in the United States Congress. Members of the Senate and the House of Representatives usually vote according to the concerns of people who live in their districts. Not only does this often pit the interests of people in different parts of the country against one another, but it also frequently favors the interests of certain groups of people over the interests of others within the same state.
At times, House members and senators in Congress may ignore the voters in their home states and the groups that represent them in order to follow the dictates of the leaders of the political party to which they belong.
For example, a member of Congress from a state with a large elderly population may be inclined to vote in favor of legislation to increase benefits for retired people; however, his or her political party leaders, who disapprove of government spending on social programs, may ask for a vote against it. The opposite can occur as well, especially in the case of a legislator soon facing re-election. With two-year terms of office, we are more likely to see House members buck their party in favor of their constituents.
Finally, the government may attempt to resolve conflicting concerns within the nation as a whole through tradeoffs. After repeated incidents of mass shootings at schools, theaters, churches, and shopping malls, many are concerned with protecting themselves and their families from firearm violence.
Some groups would like to ban the sale of automatic weapons completely. Some do not want to ban gun ownership; they merely want greater restrictions to be put in place on who can buy guns or how long people must wait between the time they enter the store to make a purchase and the time when they are actually given possession of the weapon.
Others represent the interests of those who oppose any restrictions on the number or type of weapons Americans may own. So far, state governments have attempted to balance the interests of both groups by placing restrictions on such things as who can sell guns, where gun sales may take place, or requirements for background checks, but they have not attempted to ban gun sales altogether.
For example, although federal law does not require private gun dealers people who sell guns but do not derive most of their income from doing so to conduct background checks before selling firearms to people at gun shows, some states have passed laws requiring this.
Many question whether politicians are actually interested in the needs of average citizens and debate how much influence ordinary people have over what government does. Those who support the elite theory of government argue that a small, wealthy, powerful elite controls government and makes policy to benefit its members and perpetuate their power.
In reality, government policy usually is the result of a series of tradeoffs as groups and elites fight with one another for influence and politicians attempt to balance the demands of competing interests, including the interests of the constituents who elected them to office.
Skip to main content. Search for:. Who Governs? Elitism, Pluralism, and Tradeoffs Learning Objectives By the end of this section, you will be able to: Describe the pluralism-elitism debate Explain the tradeoffs perspective on government. Show Glossary elite theory claims political power rests in the hands of a small, elite group of people pluralist theory claims political power rests in the hands of groups of people.
The Power Elite. New York: Oxford University Press. Interest Group Politics in America , 3rd ed. New York: Routledge, 14; Clive S. Research Guide to U. Westport, CT: Praeger, Coakley , U. Licenses and Attributions. CC licensed content, Shared previously. This participation can occur either by direct or representative vote. In a direct vote, the people approve public policy themselves. This situation works well on a small scale, as in a town meeting. In a representative vote, a group of elected officials acts on behalf of their constituents.
This type of vote is used at the state and national levels to determine public policy. For voting to be effective at any level, people need access to information, so they can make informed decisions. The Pluralist Theory of Democracy holds that people with common interests form organized groups to promote their causes and influence the political agenda. This theory maintains that no single group, industry, or government agency dominates politics.
It also asserts that a healthy competition exists in the development of the policy agenda and in the selection of the policy makers. Pluralism maintains that input from groups is a good thing for the political process through bargaining and compromise. Hyperpluralism asserts that there are TOO many ways for groups to control policy, such as using the courts. Classical pluralism is the view that politics and decision making are located mostly in the framework of government, but that many non-governmental groups use their resources to exert influence.
Elite and Class Theory. A theory of government and politics contending that societies are divided along class lines and that an upper-class elite will rule, regardless of the formal niceties of governmental organization. US : a person who is a member of an elite : a successful and powerful person.
Elitism is the belief or notion that individuals who form an elite—a select group of people perceived as having an intrinsic quality, high intellect, wealth, special skills, or experience—are more likely to be constructive to society as a whole, and therefore deserve influence or authority greater than that of others.
An egalitarian is a person who believes in the equality of all people, and an egalitarian society gives everyone equal rights.
0コメント