1. MADISON’S DILEMMA If people can’t pursue their interests, they don’t have political freedom. Self-interest v. Democratic process Govt. pushed to enact policy benefiting small groups at expense of general public. Federalist #10 Mischiefs of Faction

2. Prevent factions or control them? Are factions normal? inevitable? How can they be controlled? Madison – A republican form of government Effects of faction are diluted, or controlled, by the clash of so many competing interests. No one interest, or set of interests, would dominate.

3. Pluralism – 20 th century Competing interests find representation in policymaking through lobbying by organizations. The Madisonian Ideal: Policymaking the result of compromise and consensus, with no group becoming too powerful. Government policymakers act as synthesizers of competing interests.

4. Definition of interest group? Organizations Membership? Interests (farmers) Interest groups (Natl Assoc of Wheat Growers) IG s represent only % of potential members, and only portions of “Interests” Lobbying

5. ROLES Represent Participate Educate Agenda building Program monitoring

6. Pluralisms rise and fall David Truman, The Governmental Process, 1951 “Group Theory” Politics can be understood only by looking at the interaction of groups. Echoes Madison – tendency to form groups around interests is “in the nature of man.” Truman – political man is a product of group influences

7. Robert Dahl, Who Governs?, 1961 Different issues/interests generate activism from different groups of people. No one group comes together on every issue. Policymaking influenced by loose coalitions of groups active on issues they care about. Policy is made through bargaining and compromise between activated groups and political elites.

8. Dahl, and Pluralism, were very influential. Dahl added normative aspect: This is the way things should be. Credited by many for reviving democratic theory, by providing an explanation and a rationale for the American political process. Interest group activity was not only to pursue self-interest, but actually produced fair and democratic policy.

9. Refuted critiques of American politics, such as C. Wright Mills’ The Power Elite, 1956. Pluralism - Government responds to different groups on different issues – they are responsible to a broad range of constituencies, rather than a small group of powerful elites.

10. Influence of pluralism, and Dahl’s work in particular, drew attention and scrutiny. Methodological criticism/too narrow Limited cases don’t prove government is truly democratic Biased questions and misleading conclusions Other criticized implications of pluralism: Defends the status quo

11. Lobbying groups protect mainly elite interests Theodore Lowi – Disproportionate privilege leads to disproportionate influence. Pluralism falsely suggests equal treatment of all groups/interests.

12. Real-world events also questioned validity of pluralism. Civil Rights Movement Anti-Vietnam War Movement

13. Pluralism Good Elitism Bad Pluralism’s strength is normative, not necessarily descriptive. Still a desirable goal. Can’t be dismissed like some rejected theory, that would dismiss part of the core of American democracy and constitutionalism.

14. Pluralism one of the most debated and studied topics in 20 th century. No new theories have replaced it. Why? Pluralism also the only theory that resolved the Madisonian dilemma. If interest groups don’t play a constructive role, then they are a danger to democracy.

15. What to do? Make pluralism come true. Make it more balanced. Reduce the role of PACs in campaign financing Enhance representation of interests who are poorly represented More democracy. More participation in the political system. When that happens, the inevitable result is more interest groups.