I found the Big Tilt article by Verba, Schlozman, and Brady to be a very interesting read but I do question some of the ideas behind the arguments presented. I agree with the authors in that it is not ideal that there is participatory inequality in America and that the poor seem to be at a major disadvantage. For example, one seemingly alarming fact is that “the advantaged are so much more active than the disadvantaged that public officials actually receive more messages from the advantaged suggesting a curtailment of government and social programs than messages from the disadvantaged urging an expansion of them” (H22). I would be alarmed if people who really need social programs like welfare were being harmed just because a minority had better access to politicians. However, just because people send more messages does not actually mean that their ideas are accepted. According to the Heritage Foundation, “[i]n constant dollars, welfare spending has risen every year but four since the beginning of the War on Poverty in 1965”. To me, this suggests that perhaps elected officials are not quite as susceptible to messages from constituents as we think. In other words, just because the disadvantaged do not send as many messages it does not mean that their interests are going unheeded.
I also have a slight problem with the claim that the authors make when they state that democracy “rests on the notion that the needs and preferences of no individual should rank higher than those of any other” (H22). I think an essential part of democracy is debating with fellow citizens to try to determine the best ideas. Perhaps one citizen’s preference would actually be more beneficial to the country as a whole than another’s preference. Why shouldn’t we rank that one citizen’s favorable preference higher? For example, I’m sure many rich people in the United States are against having higher taxes than those who are less well off. Their preference would be to have lower taxes. Yet, one can argue that many more people benefit from the increased government revenue and programs such as welfare can be financed through these higher taxes. I agree that people should be equal in a democracy but do think that there should be exceptions for ideas and preferences since some are better than others.
I think you brought up two very good points about “The Big Tilt.” First, there is a lot of validity in your assertion that political elites are not as easily influenced as the authors we have read have made them out to be. At the end of the day, the lower economic classes in America are still relatively well provided for even when they do not vote. As your statistic suggests, state-sponsored welfare programs are still in existence and their funding continues to increase. Even though a greater portion of poorer citizens do not vote when compared to wealthier Americans, I think that political candidates still strive to appeal and appease the concerns of the lower economic classes. Ultimately, I think that the lower classes are viewed as a large source of “potential energy.” Yes, they may not vote regularly or in large numbers. However if politicians begin to ignore the needs of the lower economic classes, there is a good possibility that these Americans will mobilize to protect their interests. Politicians recognize the potential force the lower socio-economic classes CAN have.
ReplyDeleteI strongly agree with your second point about ranking citizens’ preferences. Not all ideas are created equal and crediting bad ideas with the same saliency as good ideas would be/ is very detrimental to the notion of progress in America. It is impossible to make every single citizen perfectly happy at any one given point in time. I think one of the major goals of democracy is to create characteristics that satisfy the largest group of citizens possible.