Wealth and power in America - Essay Example

Wealth and Power in America This paper summarizes this opinion on which of two theories - pluralism or elitism - control wealth and power in America. The paper begins with a brief definition of what can be understood by wealth and power and a description as to who controls these two aspects of contemporary American life. The characteristics described are then analyzed to determine whether these reflect pluralism or elitism. The conclusion builds on these discussions to determine whether Madison's hope that the checks and balances in the Constitution and the existence of opposing factions are working sufficiently so the general good is not being sacrificed for the good of powerful elite and special interests. In the interest of full disclosure, the writer is a private school teacher with minimal actual participation in political activities, and whose only involvement is support for "Rock the Vote" that encourages youth participation in the democratic process. "Wealth" is understood to mean the nation's economic resources: corporations, the financial system, etc. A recent Luxury Institute (2006) study showed that the richest 10 percent in America, with a minimum income of $831,600 and an average net worth of $3.1 million, control 70 percent of the wealth "Power" is the ability to compel another to do something that one would otherwise not do (Dahl, 1957). A perennial challenge of any democratic nation is how power can be balanced among and within the social structures and special interests of government, business, the people, and the media. Political and social scientists describe democracy as a form of government organized according to four key principles: popular sovereignty (the ultimate power to make political decisions is vested in all rather than in only some of the people), political equality (one person, one vote), popular consultation (public officials should put into practice what the people want), and majority rule (when people disagree on an issue, the government should act according to the wishes of the majority rather than the minority) (Ranney, 2001, 96-98). Democracy is characterized by a constant and chaotic balancing of power from different interest groups. There is no better alternative without trampling on the rights of portions of the population. What the practice of democracy allows is the strengthening of institutions that give people the power to determine how the nation is governed and moves towards social and economic progress: elections, representation, a constant effort to increase democratic participation, and many other aspects of running a free society. Even in America, unanimous agreement is never achieved on a long-term basis as hundreds of millions of free minds express their changing desires, hoping to contribute to the good of the nation. Every person in America acts for the good of the whole. Those who do not (like terrorists and murderers) are sent to prison. America also has to contend with an important lesson from history that brings into the balance of power the factor of wealth. Remember that America was established as a refuge for Europeans fleeing from political, economic, and religious persecution. They wanted a nation where everyone had the power to exercise political, economic, and religious freedoms. This led America to become a land of great economic freedom, opportunity, and wealth. Free capitalism thrived because the founders of this nation made economic freedom - the power to generate, earn, keep, invest, and enjoy wealth - a cornerstone of society; and by erecting social structures (political institutions, churches, corporations, etc.) that allow the balancing of power to take place freely, America's founders (of which Madison is one) were confident that over the course of history, different social groups would check and balance each other so that power and wealth are redistributed for the good of the whole. It is in this context of the power balancing act where the question comes in: is wealth and power in America controlled by the majority (pluralism) or by a select few (elitism) The answer, which can be confusing, is that it is both. The reason is that the term "elite" is defined as "people who are most interested, active, and influential in making an organization's decision" (Ranney, 2001, p. 104). In a working democracy that allows the greatest number of people to participate in the decisions of government, this definition applies to the people if the majority of qualified voters exercise their sovereignty by casting their vote. Thus, the majority is the elite. In a nation with economic democracy - capitalism - where the greatest number participate in the generation and enjoyment of economic wealth through employment, entrepreneurship, or consumption, the majority is also the elite. Thus, if majority of the people vote with their ballots and with their wallets, America is a land where the elite are in the majority because they exercise pluralistic influence on how political power and economic wealth are controlled. The problem is when the majority of Americans become politically and economically indifferent. Political indifference is marked by non-participation in elections and discussions on what is best for the nation. Economic indifference is shown by not doing something about influencing the way corporations, and the wealthy, accumulate and spend their wealth, or if Americans bring out their dollars to live like kings abroad. Recent trends showing America's growing political indifference is a dangerous sign, because people are slowly surrendering their power to an elite minority group who do participate but may not have the nation's best interests at heart. How about wealth Can it be said that the richest 10 percent control it Not necessarily, because if the people influence how the wealthy amass and dispense of their wealth through their buying decisions or lobbying against the anti-social practices of corporations, then they are practicing a form of democratic participation feared by companies and the wealthy people who run them. Recent moves by corporations to be more transparent, to spread the wealth, and to come out with products (like hybrid cars) that ensure sustainable economic progress are reactions to the pluralist-based systems in place to check and balance the economic power of the elite. Participating in the democratic process is important because by voting with their ballots or their wallets, people can influence the way political and economic democracy moves forward. Popular indifference is the seed of every democracy's destruction, and if this continues, Madison and everyone else who ever died for America would be betrayed and proven wrong in placing their trust that a government can be sustained by the people who, in the end, would have only themselves to blame. Reference List Dahl, R.A. (1957). The concept of power. Behavioral Science, 2, 201-15. Luxury Institute (2006). Wealth demographics. Wealth Report, 102 (3), p. 1-6. Ranney, A. (2001). Governing: An introduction to political science (8th Ed.). Upper Saddle, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Read More