Tension Between the House of Congress and the Presidency

It is true that there ar still multiple points of potential persuasion available to rank-and-file citizens to becharm public form _or_ system of government, but achieving change for the average citizen is a some(prenominal) to a greater extent difficult task precisely because it is necessary to repay a groundswell and bring together diverse stems for a particular(prenominal) purpose while the business absorbs have permanent organizations and structures through which they operate at all times. The influence of the latter is therefrom constant and may need to be everywherecome by the average citizen wishing to make a change.

Harrigan (1993) emphasizes that the different policy- make actors operate on the basis of their biases, and these biases develop from ideology, influence, expediency, and similar forces. Harrigan moderates this as operating for bureaucratic units as well as for political actors like the President and Congress, and he besides sees the latter as influencing how bureaucracies respond:

Not only do different bureaucratic units reflect different biases, but federal bureaucrats argon also influenced by other(a) political actors who each have their birth biases that they try to impose on the executive branch (Harrigan, 1993,

People belong to many other kinds of interest groups which help translate their needs into influence over candidates, and it seems evident that members of Congress and the President alike respond much to mechanical press from such groups. There is a certain logical system in this, given that pressure groups represent many wad and so have the power of their constituency behind them. When politicians represent the interests of pressure groups, they are indeed representing some element among their larger constituency, and they are more likely to represent the interests of those they hear from than they are the reticent majority who have no way to express their views, or at least take no other way, keep out at an election.

The system for both domestic and foreign policy issues tends to be a pluralist democracy even as leading promote the idea of a representative democracy. The system is inequitable because it ignores or devalues millions of people, perhaps the majority of the citizenry, while responding to the loudest groups either in terms of those spending more money or those making their views heard most clearly. At the same time, it is difficult to see how it could be otherwise at the federal level, the sheer size of which reduces the link between elected representatives and the people they serve. Leaders ordain always respond more readily to the constituents they hear than to those who do not make their views known, and this necessarily means public interest groups and elites that make their views known will have more power.

Schultz, C., Stowitts, G., Stewart, T., & Sunshine, K.V. (1998). American government and politics in the new millennium. Wheaton, Illinois: Abigail.

Defenders of interest group politics point out that interest groups can also serve to protect the rights and interests of minorities against "the tyranny of the majority." Because interest-group success is based more on internal cohesion and membership solidarity rather than unsullied organizational size, in
Ordercustompaper.com is a professional essay writing service at which you can buy essays on any topics and disciplines! All custom essays are written by professional writers!