Three theories of American democracy

According to classical democratic theory, informed voters examine and understand political issues.  After careful analysis and rational thought, they elect representatives who support their viewpoints.  The majority party is expected to govern, and that party carries out the wishes of the electorate while respecting minority rights.  Free speech and press ensure that alternatives are presented, and elections are referenda on past performance and future promise.  Elections are fair, and one vote is equal to another.  

Although this theory is attractive, few political scientists would lend it much credence.  Voters may not be rational, campaigns are confusing and misleading, and money distorts the entire process.  

Political theorist Roberto Michels presented a different viewpoint.  He said that any social grouping over time would be run by a small elite.  A church, a parent-teacher organization, the local chapter of the VFW--any group you can think of will, over time, be dominated by a few people.  Michels called this the “iron law of oligarchy.” 

Elitist democratic theory follows Michels.  One could argue that in the U.S. a very few people actually have meaningful power.  One person, one vote may be true in theory, but in the real world the Koch brothers make a mockery of that idea.  A very small group decides U.S.-Afghan policy or the Federal Reserve Board’s monetary policy.  Voters merely select one portion of the ruling group over another portion.  A certain amount of play in the system allows for a “circulation of the elite” to keep the ruling elite slightly porous.  Neither Clinton nor Obama were born to the elite, for example.

A third view, called pluralist democratic theory, holds that government policy is a result of various groupings in society making demands on government.  As groups lobby for advantage and support, they usually get some satisfaction.  On the other hand, since many groups are fighting for a piece of the pie, no group gets everything it wants.  Growers get subsidies, business gets tax breaks, labor gets pension guarantees, and seniors get Medicare.  

I would ask my American government 101 students which theory best describes the U.S. government.  Being young and cynical, most chose elitist.  The correct answer is “it depends.”  A presidential election comes fairly close to classical democracy, U.S. nuclear policy is definitely elitist, and on an issue like education, pluralism seems descriptive.  Until recently, though, I would have argued that on most issues, pluralist democracy represented the best fit.

Pluralist democracy can work.  We have literally thousands of organized groups lobbying government.  Although some interests, such as the NRA or the Chamber of Commerce, have disproportionate power, in the past most groups would at least be heard.  While it is true that some segments of American society have little clout (prisoners, the poor, exploited foreign workers, students), most interests have been able to speak out and have an effect on policy.  

This is changing.  We are moving from a pluralist democracy to an elitist democracy.  Tomorrow I will explain why this is happening, and how we are turning into an oligarchy.  Stay tuned.

Note:  I earlier urged readers to wear a red ribbon to show their support for the unions in Wisconsin.  It really didn’t work that well for me.  Most people who see the ribbon assume it is for breast cancer awareness or the fight against AIDS.  Maybe I’ll have more effect at the Saturday rally in Harrisburg.