Critically Assess The Usefulness Of Elite Theory As A Description And Explanation Of Politics.

As the "leader of the free world", and therefore supposed ideal of all things democratic, the USA is often interpreted amongst pluralist lines as the model of a society built upon a multitude of organisations campaigning on a level playing field for influence. This paper however will argue that modern politics is instead best defined through elite theory and that, by focussing on the disproportionate influence of some American interest groups, one can appreciate how the hypothetical avenues of access made available to pressure groups are in fact redundant, and that the idea of a few 'elites' governing the 'masses' is instead more identifiable (Dryzek and Dunleavy, 2009). Particular attention will be paid to the Tea Party Movement as an example of how an elitist monopoly exists over American politics with the involvement of wealthy conservatives such as the Koch brothers being used as evidence of how, even supposedly pluralist features like interest groups can be corrupted via the presence of elites. Articles from reputable newspapers like the New York Times and Washington Post shall be contrasted against the journal writings of Skocpol and Williamson in order to explore the true origins of this supposedly grass roots movement whilst Dryzek and Dunleavy's Theories of the Democratic State shall be used (amongst other sources) in order to compare the mechanics of the Tea Party to elite theory.

The debate between normative pluralist and elite theorists dominated 19th century political science. Whilst the former maintains interest groups are a healthy component in liberal democracies (with all groups on "equal terms"), the latter instead argues "wealth buys political power by recruiting capable individuals to serve the interests of the ruling class and by financing the campaigns of politicians" (Dryzek and Dunleavy, 2009). America meanwhile is "perceived as exceptional" and "the most advanced, democratic, powerful, enlightened, tolerant, freest, and richest" (Elbeshlawy, 2008, 158) country in the world and as such, is worth categorising in relation to these competing theories. This essay, although too constrained to acknowledge the implications of huge interest groups (e.g. NRA) and Super PACs, will explore America's political landscape through the Tea Party, highlighting elite theory's usefulness in describing and explaining politics.

The dying tree: Tea Party poisoning of the branches

This recent phenomenon that champions "free market economics" (Meckler, 2012) was initially described as a grass roots movement whose existence depended only on electorate support. This descri ption portrays the Tea Party as realising pluralism; however, many analysts have since discussed the Tea Party in relation to 'astroturfing' (Ribuffo, 2011) i.e. created at higher levels. Whilst Sckopol and Williamson (2011) depict a Tea Party funded by members who "sell costume jewelry [etc.]", the reality of Tea Party fundraising is more sinister with wealthy conservatives like the Koch brothers bankrolling this and other movements. In 2010 the New York Times reported how "Koch-controlled foundations gave out $196 million from 1998 to 2008, much of it to conservative causes and institutions [including the Tea Party]" and how "that figure doesn't include $50 million in Koch Industries lobbying and $4.8 million in campaign[ing]" (Rich, 2010). The Tea Party's roots are traceable to an emphatically small number of people and, when their influence over Congressional elections is considered, one appreciates how many Congressmen owe their positions to the individuals who financed the movements that get them elected. Evans (2006) notes "the power bases of its [elites] members are selected by virtue of a broader range of resources - economic, political, ideological", a descri ption that is helpful in describing politics, (i.e. the Koch brothers' financial resources manipulating the political arena illustrates the importance of economic clout).

By accepting the influence of the Tea Party, one better understands why politics operates as it does. In explanation, should a Republican fail to adhere to their ideology then there will likely be an attempted replacement. In 2010, several Republican candidates lost their primaries to right wing alternatives backed by the Tea Party and their lucrative donors. Mike Lee for example defeated the incumbent Bob Bennett in the Utah Senate Republican Primaries before winning the general election. This shows how pressure groups like the Tea Party control the legislative agenda and therefore why Congress acts as it does (fear of replacement surely ties many Republicans to the right wing). Furthermore, as these organisations are funded by a finite number of people, the idea of American being a pluralist society is ridiculous. Plainly there are power elites within the USA that boast huge influence in shaping the ideological makeup of the legislature, and therefore legislation i.e. right-wing issues are popular in the House because right-wing financiers get members into power. Indeed, although Mason (2011) argues "it would be an analytical mistake" to "conflate FreedomWorks' corporate machinations with the grassroots insurgency of the Tea Parties" this is naïve as, grass roots movements procure funding from key financial personnel because their objectives adhere to their backer's beliefs and, should the movement's objectives conflict with the interests of the power elite's, they would not receive funding. Elites dictate: which grassroots movements will be successful, the politicians elected on their behalf and therefore the legislative agenda.

A recent Washington Post article details the Koch brothers seeking to extend their influence beyond the partisan Congress into the nonpartisan Floridian Supreme Court. Last month Barnes (2012) reported their organising an "Internet campaign against the court" in opposition to "judicial activism" before the "announcement that the Republican Party of Florida" would "oppose all three justices". Here power elites are permeating into new territory, an indication that elite theory is becoming an increasingly apt descri ption of politics. This ties in with Evans's (2006) descri ption of elite theory as the state being "dominated by a power elite comprised of politicians, military and corporate bosses who moulded public policy to suit their own ends" as, despite having already taken the House of Representatives and making attempts on the Executive, power elites are now targeting the judicial branch to further their ideological ends. Although this attempt was unsuccessful, one cannot dismiss the notion that elites may have success in future and create an America even more tainted by the influence of financial power.

Finally, Dryzek points out the hereditary nature of power elites, noting how "economic leaders want to secure positions of power for their offspring". This is useful in explaining the Koch's excessive influence as Mason (2011) notes how Fred Koch "was active a generation before them, serving on the National Advisory Committee of the Christian Crusade" that opposed "communism" and "sex education". Charles and David Koch's influence in politics is therefore partially inherited from their father which, not only confirms Dryzek's notions regarding hereditary, but explains to us how those in influence became so i.e. economic power passes through generations.

Conclusion

As a representative democracy, legislation is created via America's Congress and President. Interest groups however are growing in influence in shaping who runs for office which undoubtedly binds legislators to the interest groups, (and more importantly to the few individuals who bankroll them), creating a society where government is predicated on a select group of people's approval. This also offers an explanation of why the US legislates as it does e.g. the rise of Tea Party members can partially explain why, since 2010, passing a budget has been so difficult (Kane, 2011). A few 'elites' therefore do unquestionably distort the process and govern the 'masses'.