HPAVC/HPAVC CD-ROM.iso/pc/HOMEWORK.ZIP/821.TXT

Text File | 1998-07-25 | 9.9 KB | 164 lines

This file is copyright of Jens Schriver (c)
It originates from the Evil House of Cheat
       More essays can always be found at:
       --- http://www.CheatHouse.com ---
                ... and contact can always be made to:
                    [e-mail]
--------------------------------------------------------------
Essay Name       : 821.txt
Uploader         :
Email Address    :
Language         : English
Subject          : Politics
Title            : Political Parties
Grade            : A-
School System    : University
Country          : USA
Author Comments  :
Teacher Comments :
Date             : 11-9-96
Site found at    : yahoo
--------------------------------------------------------------

    Political parties have become increasingly unpopular and have
lost a great amount of power because of it.  Interest groups are slowly
picking up where parties left behind and are becoming more and more
important not only in mobilizing voters, but also in lobbying
government officials to aide their cause.
    In the early 1900's, parties solely were in charge of the
nomination process.  A small group of party leaders, also known as a
caucus, would choose who would run against the opposing party's
candidate and what office this individual would be seeking.  It was a
process that was closed off to everyone but the party leaders, and
thus, could be tagged "undemocratic."
    Years later, because of  the 'Party Machines' of the north and
the completely Democratic south, primaries replaced caucuses.
Primaries allowed for members(not only leaders) of the party to vote
for whom they wanted to nominate.  Primaries also gave individuals
the right to run for office under their party's name.  Thus, the party
couldn't prohibit anyone from running for public office as a member of
that particular party if the individual was a registered member of that
party.
    The primary system of nominations has become so vast and
popular that it has broken down into three different styles(each
practiced by different states): open, closed, and blanket.  Open
primaries are just that; open for anyone to vote in any party.  For
example, a Democrat can vote in the Republican primary and vice
versa.  Closed primaries(which are the most widely  used) are closed
to people belonging to that party.  Republicans can only vote in the
Republican primaries and Democrats the same.   Blanket
primaries(practiced in only a few states) are relatively open in the
sense that both Democrats and Republicans can vote for members of
either party in different races; they don't have to vote for candidates of
only one party.
    The primary system is set up so that adverse effects can help
and/or hurt the candidates and nominee.  For example, because
during a primary most candidates are very similar as far as ideologies
go, voters tend to vote according to the candidates' personal
characteristics.  Looks, popularity, etc. will always help a candidate
during the primaries.  Primaries, though, can be hurtful to nominees
because voters are less likely to vote for someone in the general
election if they didn't vote for them in the primary.
        After each party has chosen it's candidate, they ratify their
decision at their national conventions.  "The principal significance of a
national convention is that it is the kickoff of the general election
campaign(Bibby 174)."  The national convention also gives nominees
the opportunity to set the theme for their upcoming election as well as
giving parties a forum where they can draw up and sell their platform.
    But who exactly attends these functions?  More so, who even
votes?  There are many factors to take into consideration when
determining who actually goes out and votes and why it is that others
don't.  The main factor is, without question, wealth.  Those who are
well off tend to vote more often because they can afford the luxury of
taking off from work early, have transportation to take them to the
polls, know the issues(are more educated), etc.  Another advantage
that the wealthy have is that they can mobilize 'friendly' voters,
transport them to and from the polls, thus greatly helping their
candidate/party.
    Also, men tend to vote more than women, perhaps because
women are usually the ones responsible for taking care of children,
and don't have the time to get to the polls.  Members of churches or
other social group also vote more often than those who don't take part.
But surely, the most consistent voters are and have always been
those with preferred candidates and strong opinions on issues.  These
voters will not be deterred from their civic duty.
    Interest groups are also influential in getting citizens to vote, but
only if they're voting for a candidate that would help the interest group
accomplish it's set agenda.  The main task of an interest group,
though, is to lobby officials for their help(vote on positive legislation) by
offering goods or services(money, campaign aid, votes) to the official
in return.  Interest groups lobby 'friendly' members of Congress as well
as use the media to raise the salience of an issue.
    Interest groups' lobbying tactics differ based upon the way that
they recruit their members.  Groups whose members joined because
of economic reasons tend to be more pragmatic as far as lobbying
goes.  They don't expect overnight changes, but prefer making small,
lasting  changes.   Interest groups with an ideological membership do
more confrontational lobbying.  These groups want big changes and
are not afraid of funding challengers in order to attain them.
    Although interest groups almost always lobby Congress solely,
some do try to lobby the President, though they are rarely successful.
Because of the office of the president's popularity and the amount of
media attention the President receives, interest groups generally like
to lobby the President.  The President can take a forgotten issue and
make it salient.  Unfortunately, because the office of the President is
so important, it is very difficult to even get into the White House, much
less have the opportunity to do any lobbying.
    Lobbying the judiciary is just as difficult.  Because most judges
are appointed, interest groups can offer very little to judges(legally,
anyway)  that would help the group reach it's goal.  What they can do
is wait until a pertinent case comes along and they can serve as
expert witnesses.  They can also help during the litigation by offering
lawyers, doing research, etc.  But like their efforts in lobbying the
executive branch, equally as difficult is it to lobby the judiciary.
    In conclusion, although members of political parties are still
influential in determining who will represent them in a general election,
it is interest groups who will decide what the interests of the nominees
will be.  If an interest group deems a nominee's position as being
unfavorable, they will do whatever is necessary to ensure that the
nominee is not successful.  After all, was the GOP successful in 1994
because of the party's name, or was it because large groups like the
CC and the NRA were behind them?

Is the Caucus System still being used?
(or 'Why Dick Lugar isn't the Republican Nominee')

    Probably no man alive today is more worthy or better qualified to
lead this nation as President of the United States than Richard Lugar
is.  Senator Lugar is a soft-spoken Republican with qualities endearing
to members of both parties.   His moderate stance and ability to
compromise intelligently could have put him in a position wherein both
sides would compromise for the betterment of the country.
Unfortunately for Senator Lugar, he is innately a 'good guy.'  He is
frank.  He is genuine.  He has no skeletons in his closet.  And he's
actually quite charming and attractive - all the qualities the media
hates in a Republican contender.
    Yes, the ever biased media now serves as a 'caucus', or a group
of men sitting around deciding who the best candidate would be.
With their own agenda in mind, they set forth and nominate the
candidate who would best serve their needs and shun those who
don't.
    How do they do this?  Easy - most American voters are easily
swayed.  Voters don't have the time to read Congressional Quarterly
or White House press releases every week to find out what's going on
in Washington.  Their sources of information are Wolf Blitzer, Dan
Rather, etc.    These journalists naturally don't want a Republican in
the White House, so they promote the Republican candidate with the
smallest chance of being victorious over Clinton.  Although they
couldn't do much with Bob Dole( he'd already acquired a high level of
popularity, especially among GOP members), they started promoting
people like Pat Buchanan and Steve Forbes; candidates who'd make
Bill Clinton look like a man for all people.    The media, of course,
ignored Richard Lugar, et.al., in hopes of no one hearing about them,
learning their message, and voting for them.
    The extremely powerful media has incredible influence over
American voters.   They can manipulate the 'average Joe' into
believing and doing whatever it is they want him to do - including
voting for a man that 'Joe' doesn't even care about.  They are caucus-
like because they control the vote and, thus, control who gets
nominated.  Yes, the power the media has is immense and could
possibly work for the good of society.   Unfortunately, most of the time
the media works for itself and it's agenda, whether it be good or bad.

--------------------------------------------------------------