Do Pressure Groups Promote Democracy?

I have not posted anything on the blog in quite a while now, that is because I, along with the few other contributors to this blog, are all at university now. I am currently tutoring a student in A level politics and have been making more notes here and there so I will start uploading them again seeing as the blog is still receiving heavy traffic and the fact that exams are coming up in a few months time.

DO PRESURE GROUPS PROMOTE DEMOCRACY?

This is a classic 45 mark essay that continuously pops up for 3C, the question itself however can be worded in a number of different ways to confuse students, but the basic ideas remain.

Pluralist Argument	Elitist argument
Supplement for electoral systems. Rousseu said that a country is only “free during the election of members of Parliament” – basically what he meant was that in between election time democracy does not exist or flourish, thus pressure groups are supposed to step in and fill the void. Elections only take place every few years, during which the elected representatives may lose touch with their constituents and fall short of their electoral promises – when this happens pressure groups can step in and force the government to interact with civil society, bring up issues that they may have ignored and get them to engage in it. So, pressure groups ensure that democracy continues to flourish in between election time by encouraging the government to actively engage in issues concerning various groups in civil society. EXAMPLE: Black Lives Matter + Planned Parenthood.	Schattsschneider. This political theorist argues that it is the pressure groups with the most wealth that get to influence government, the smaller less wealthy pressure groups are unable to have influence because the cannot afford things such as hosting mass campaigns, hiring professional lobbyists from K Street. Therefore, power in society is only concentrated in a small minority of elitist wealthy pressure groups. Philip Stern in his book ‘The Best Congress Money Can Buy’ illustrates how wealthy pressure groups effectively buy Congress and sway them. EXAMPLE: For instance,
Allow for transparency. Transparency is crucial to a democracy because it ensures that there is openness of government doings and people are aware that the government is not abusing them. Pressure groups allow for transparency through a number of ways, they have played key roles in recent years in exposing government agencies and congressional representatives, this is important so that constituents for instance are aware of what their representatives are up to and are working in accordance to their electoral pledges. EXAMPLE: League of Conservation Voters for 20 years they have published their list of the ‘Dirty Dozen’ congressional representatives who have poor records on the environment and by this they seek to expose them and hope to get them out of office in the next election. Amnesty International played somewhat of a role in the CIA torture report, helping the Senate Intelligence Committee, which exposed the CIA’s inhumane treatment of terror suspects.	Social immobility/gridlock. The pressure groups may be blocking all bills and slowing down or blocking desirable changes, thereby contributing to social immobilization. This may even lead to the prevention of the government from functioning properly as was seen in the government shutdown of 2013, which was primarily caused by Ted Cruz but supported, by a small amount of pressure group (Heritage Action and Tea Party Patriots). This shows that one or two pressure groups can bring an entire government to a standstill suggesting that power is actually not evenly distributed if one pressure group has the ability to influence a 16-day government shutdown. This was something that was opposed by the Democrats and even a vast majority of Republican pressure groups yet it still managed to happen.
Protect minority interests. In democracy there is a general tyranny of the majority over votes, meaning that the minority is usually ignored. Pressure groups occasionally adopt the view of the minority groups that are ignored, effectively giving them a voice and some influence over politics. Everyone has a voice in politics because of this. EXAMPLE: North Dakota Access Pipeline, threat to minority Native Americans who live there. They have the support of environmental groups, their situation has gained recognition across the country even politicians like Bernie Sanders have turned up at the site to show support.	Iron Triangles. These exist in US politics, they are simply relationships between three different political actors, a pressure group, a congressional committee and a bureaucratic department or agency. In an iron triangle each side works together but as long as its interests are protected, it is through iron triangles that policy is formulated. They’re called ‘iron’ for a reason because they’re impenetrable, other pressure groups with the same exact interests will not be able to get involved in this special relationship, thus leaving less influential pressure groups out of the political scene and out of influence.
Salisbury Argument. States that there has been an explosion in the amount of interest groups since the 50s and that they face each other over competing interests and that there is a constant shift in political power between the interest groups. One interest group is not always the most influential and it changes over time. This is generally seen through the NRA who occasionally have high points in gun control protection but are occasionally lose. This means that everyone gets a fair share of influence and there is general equality on the level of influence held by the groups. EXAMPLE: This is most evidently seen in Planned Parenthood vs National Right to Life. Explains why abortion remains a state issue and why there are still limits on it. Thus limiting advances made by planned parenthood in the field of abortion.	Elitism in the structure of an interest group. Many pressure groups themselves may not be representative of their members. Their officers are not usually elected. Few groups have procedures for consulting their members. As a result the members may not share the views expressed by group officials. This means that within the interest group itself, few unelected people without consultation of the membership make the decisions. This would suggest that the pressure groups are elitist in its very own structure and the way they work.
???	????

To what extent do fiscal conservatives now dominate the Republican Party?

To what extent do fiscal conservatives now dominate the Republican Party?

This essay was awarded 40/45 marks.




Ronald Reagan in the 1980s established Republican ideology as revolving around 'fiscal conservatism' which seeks to reduce the scope of government, cut back in taxes and ultimately lower the scope of government particularly its intervention into the economy. The fiscal conservativs are indeed the dominant faction within the Republican Party as illustrated by the cuts made in the 2015 budget, stark opposition to Obamacare and the rise of the Tea Party Movement which have further entrenched fiscal sentiments within the party.

The rise and dominance of the Tea Party movement in recent years is the most significant sign of fiscal conservatives dominating the Republican Party. During the 2014 midterm elections they endorsed 59 candidates for the House of Representative, in which 48 won seats, thereby increasing the number of Tea Party members within Congress. The Tea Party are an evident sign of fiscal dominance because of their 'small government' and low taxation rhetoric which all falls under fiscal values. Perhaps the most significant sign of the GOP members of Congress being fiscally conservative is evident from opposition to Obamacare whereby every single Republican in the House in 2010 voted against. However, even with a surge in Tea Party members the GOP have been criticised for not being very fiscally conservative as seen by their inability to tackle the government deficit which is already peaking at over $17 trillion despite Congress being a Republican stronghold. There have been instances in recent events whereby it appeared the GOP was not fiscally conservative as seen by an agreement to raise taxes in 2013 in order to fund Obamacare. However, even in this case the GOP is dominated by fiscal sentiments as was demonstrated by the 2013 government shutdown which only took place in order to prevent tax hikes which was sparked by the Tea Party. The agreement to raise taxes does not reflect the whole party as it was merely a compromise in order to end the shutdown as it had greatly discredited the GOP among the public.

Further evidence that the GOP are dominated by fiscal conservatives is seen from the presidential race in 2012 whereby Mitt Romney ran with running mate Paul Ryan, who is affiliating with the Tea Party. The very fact that two fiscal conservatives, especially Ryan, were running for presidency and the main issue they campaigned on was Obamacare, emphasizes the strength of fiscal sentiments within the party. However , it became evident during the race that Romney was in fact more of a moderate, the Tea Party slammed Romney as a 'weak moderate candidate' who was handpicked by the 'mushy-middle' GOP. During the race Tea Party backed candidates like Hrman Cain and Michele Bachman did not win much, although Bachman did win Iowa. The fact that Romney came off as a moderate (and was endorsed by the rest of the GOP) and Tea Party candidates lost shows that fiscal conservatism is in decline within the party. However, arguably Romney had to run his campaign on more moderate policies to make significant gains in the polls and primaries, suggesting it was merely an election strategy. But the fact that Ryan was his running mate and other Republican candidates like Rich Santorum (social conservative) and Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul (Libertarians) didn't win the primaries shows that fiscal conservatism is not a declining force in the GOP. This is further illustrated by two Tea Party candidates, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, running for the 2016 presidential race.

As Bil O'Reilly on Fox News put it in May this year, other factions within the GOP are in decline and this has paved the way for fiscal conservatives to be the main faction. O'Reilly remarked "its a tough time for social conservatives in America" who are now in the 'smear zone' as seen by recent backlash against GP members with a conservative stance on social issues like Marco Rubio, Scott Walker and Mike Huckabee. Social conservatives are increasingly becoming marginalised by the media, perhaps because they have failed in many policy areas such gay marriage as illustrated by US v. Windsor striking down the Defence of the Marriage Act (DOMA) and the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. As a result, fiscal conservatives have clearly risen to prominence. However, arguably the GOP has infact become more socially conservative with a GOP dominated Congress. Social conservatives continue to go rampant on issues such as abortion, same sex couples and stem cell research. This was evident by GOP attempts in May to pass laws instructing doctors performing late term abortions to take steps in giving the fetus the best chance of survival. This comes as a wider attempt to criminalise most abortions starting at the twentieth week of pregnancy. However, overall the social conservatives are no longer very prominent perhaps because key GOP figures are adopting more tolerant stances on issues like gay marriage like Jeb Bush has. Overall the fiscal conservatives are the main faction as further demonstrated by the banning of ear marks.

Fiscal conservatives seek to control what they see as 'wasteful' spending and some of these take the form of earmarks which have been recently banned by Republican House Speaker, John Boehner. Earmarks have been excessively used by members of Congress, for instance, Dianne Feinstein's earmarks have totaled to $14 million. Earmarks take up a lot of federal spending and are seen by fiscals as only hindering attempts at reducing debt. Sometimes such earmarks are useless, like the Alaska 'bridge to nowhere' earmark. So, since the earmarks have been banned and Boehner has in fact further enforced it through to the 114th Congress shows that fiscal conservatives still dominate the party. However, Boehner along with dozens of other GOP House members voted in favour of a 3 week extension funding for the Department of Homeland Security, thus enabling Obama's Executive Order to go through. This has been viewed by fiscals as a violated of the Hastert Rule and further increasing federal government expenditure, which does not portray the party as a fiscal one. However, Boehner has been criticised by Republicans for being too moderate and he deos not reflect the overall will of the party. He's been referred to as the 'leader without followers' and overall, the GOP remains fiscally conservative as seen by the fact Boehner's 3 week extension failed and a shorter one was subsequently passed due to the majority of the GOP backing the shorter version.

Finally, the GOP dominated Congress has recently approved of a budge plan that includes a measure designed to help fiscal conservatives within the party to push forward repeal for Obama's healthcare reform. In theory, the recently approved budget (May 2015) has provided the GOP with a blueprint for them to have a balanced budget and $5.3 trillion cuts over the next decade that will help attempt to scrap Obamacare. However, two key Republican figures; Rand Paul and Ted Cruz did not support the measure as it is not going far enough for fiscal conservative standards as all it seems to do is make repealing Obamacare easier. In addition, to the budget $38 billion is being pumped into defence spending, thus undoing previous fiscal achievements in 2013 when significant cuts were made to the defence budget. Regardless of the disagreements, the GOP is still dominated by fiscal conservatives and this budget is physical proof since it is providing the first balanced budget since 2001 which will inevitably 'starve the beast' which is one of the key priorities for fiscal conservatives.

As demonstrated above, the GOP remains an incredibly fiscal conservative party which has been evident by the surge in Tea Party members in Congress. Their continues commitment to opposing Obamacare, increases in taxiton and decline of the previously dominant faction, social conservatives, had truly generated an image of the Republicans being a fiscal party.

AO1: 10
A02: 11
SS: 11
AO3: 8

Should Affirmative Action be scrapped or nah?

I could only come up with five points but there's a lot to talk about, so it should be enough.

End Affirmative Action	Keep it
The USA is a highly competitive society; this has a positive dimension as it provides incentives for people to strive to achieve their goals and ambitions. By using AA incentives are reduced for the less successful in society to better themselves and they will become heavily dependent on government programmes rather than actually working towards their goals. Serves as a disincentive.	Individuals cannot strive to achieve their goals if they’re at a disadvantage because of their race. Political authorities have got a responsibility to provide sufficient resources in deprived districts populated with minorities so they have the same opportunity as whites to achieve their goals. There is a role for government in helping people to help themselves.
AA is seen as a type of welfare, which allows minorities to claim they have been put at a disadvantage because of past discrimination in order to benefit from AA. These “disadvantages” are also faced by other minorities who have prospered in recent years despite not benefiting from AA, such as Southeast Asian and Indian students who do well and are usually disadvantaged because of poor English communicational skills. This demonstrates that values like obedience, diligence and commitment lead to success even for those who are disadvantaged and AA is just an excuse to be lazy.	However, its wrong to assume that minorities in the US lay claim that they’re disadvantaged just so they can benefit from AA as there have been increasing efforts of black communities helping themselves. They only turn to help from the government when their small community with limited resources can’t overcome obstacles of their own. E.g. communities have created initiatives designed to help young people like Harlem Children’s Zone in NYC which aims to provide guidance for young mothers, relationship counseling and summer activities.
AA exists as a form of compensation for past discrimination, which has made certain racial groups suffer. However, past discrimination cannot be the primary reason for some racial groups suffering, it all depends on lifestyle choices made in communities, such as drug or alcohol abuse. In the No Excuses book, the authors argue people who have equal skills and knowledge will have roughly equal earnings regardless of race regardless of what discrimination they may have experienced in the past.	The left has rejected No Excuses’ claim that people with the same knowledge and skills will earn equally no matter the race. Some employers continue to not consider applicants living in certain districts despite them having appropriate skills and qualifications, because of this, unemployment among black communities can be as high as 50% in New York and Chicago (2 of the wealthiest cities)
Moderates suggest that a significant proportion of the groups that benefit from AA have prospered over the past 40 years, and thus, the policy is no longer required. E.g. the proportion of African-Americans in white collar jobs is now over 70%	However, AA has benefited American society a lot thus far, so it can benefit society even further by creating more levels of diversity. It makes no sense to abandon a project that has been successful when it is incomplete. Also, blacks are still lagging behind the white majority population in many aspects of society.
By giving a preference or an advantage to one group leads inevitably to disadvantage for another group, this is reverse discrimination. You cannot end racial inequality with something that inevitably encourages racial inequality.	Regardless, it remains one of the most effective means so far devised by the government to deliver the promise of equal opportunity. And it has been proven to work as demonstrated by the fact that the number of African-American’s completing high school is now as high as 86%, an increase from 39% in the 1960s