Pressure Groups in American Politics

by H.R. Mahood, Phillip Monypenny (Introduction)

305 pages, Paperback

Published January 1, 1967

Reviews

[Tom Schulte · Rating 3 out of 5]

It is interesting to think that in 1967 it was deemed a worthy academic effort to consider such issues on the role of groups in American politics. This includes an essay considering the entry of business into political action. Was it happening? Was it even effective? How far we have come with our PACs and the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United.

There is a detailed look at the political process leading to the Salt-Wahoo Watershed District flood control of 1965, This was tedious but may still be of local interest.

Here is a good quote about the aspect of turning from individual political action to assess group efforts:

The general tradition of political thought is individualistic, just as the rhetoric of politics is individualistic outside the countries of the Communist bloc. In the study of politics as in psychology the individuals as a self-acting, autonomous, decisional unit has been the usual starting point of analysis. In the tradition of political thought he is treated as rational, deliberately selecting means to achieve deliberately chosen ends. He has the attribute of free will. He joins parties and attempts to use them to promote ends which he values, whether these be selfish or altruistic. If he gains power, he attempts to maintain it, for power is an important independent motive and he attempts to use power to achieve his ends-personal or social. Those who have power can be controlled by the threat of the loss of power or by manipulating the conditions under which they can achieve their ends. In turn, those who have power manipulate the sanctions of rewards and penalties which power gives them to control those who are their subjects. The great example of this kind of analysis is Machiavelli's The Prince.

Thinking of the recent rise of QAnon, Trumpism, "Stop the Steal", etc. this exploration of the Birchers was also interesting:

However much factors like urbanization, the cold war, and status insecurities may have provided a new setting for native fundamentalists, a large and irreducible corps of such people has always existed in the United States. Unlike American liberals and conservatives who accept the political system, acknowledge the loyalty of their opponents, and employ the ordinary political techniques-the fundamentalists can be distinguished by five identifying characteristics:

(1) They assume that there are always solutions capable of producing international victories and of resolving our social problems; when such solutions are not found, they attribute the failure to conspiracies led by evil men and their dupes."

(2) They refuse to believe in the integrity and patriotism of those who lead the dominant social groups-the churches, the unions, the business community, etc.-and declare that the American "Establishment" has become part of the conspiracy.

(3) They reject the political system; they lash out at "politicians," the major parties, and the give-and-take of political compromise as a betrayal of the fundamental Truth and as a circus to divert the people.

(4) They reject those programs for dealing with social, economic, and international problems which liberals and conservatives agree upon as minimal foundations. In their place, the fundamentalists pro pose drastic panaceas requiring major social change.

(5) To break the net of conspiracy they advocate "direct action," sometimes in the form of a new political party, but more often through secret organization, push-button pressure campaigns, and front groups. Occasionally "direct action" will develop into hate propaganda and calculated violence.

At various periods, the United States has experienced both left fundamentalism (the Knights of Labor, the Wobblies, the Populists, the Communists, the Trotskyites, and the Wallace Progressives) and night-fundamentalism (the Know-Nothings, the Coughlinites, the Silver-Shirts, and America First).

Much of this book comments on and refers to The Process of Government: A Study of Social Pressures.