This is a case I'm presenting to my AP Gov class tommorow; sure, it's not totally related, but I did throw in some stuff thats sure to draw flak from the conservatives in my class.
While American politics on the surface often appears to be trending toward egalitarianism and democracy, it is actually neither as democratic nor equal as often portrayed. This brand of political thinking is nothing new or radical, and was exemplified in the elitist views of C Wright Mills and foretold by Alexis de Tocqueville. Furthermore, no degree of constitutional mandate will ever erase self-imposed de facto separation - the American sense of equality is unattainable......
Mills' elitist theory is one many would like to reject, thinking that America offers more equality and opportunity, where everybody has a chance to participate. However, Mills' theory contains many truths - in America, the Iron Triangle dominates politics. Each of the three sides - the political, economic and military (although slightly less so), helps and reinforces each other. The current war in Iraq is a perfect example of the three sides coming together. The political and military branches perceive a threat posed by Saddam Hussein, and formulate the plan to invade. The military, by merely initiating a war, generates public support, benefiting the political branch. Conversely, the political branch is able to formulate proper reasoning for the military branch to fight, satisfying it. Finally, the economic factors play in, with the political branch instituting kickbacks for the economic branch, by providing contracts for rebuilding and oil drilling. The economic branch returns the favors of the political branch, providing it with funds to win election. Thus, the three sides of the triangle buttress each other, holding a potentially unbreakable grip on American politics.
The recent passage of the bankruptcy reform bill and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge drilling provision in the United States Senate illustrate a similar idea, with political leaders composing favorable policies allowing economic leaders to increase profits, with the profits then being kicked back as political contributions. The two-way street along the Iron Triangle is an issue because the three entities become continually more self-serving, until a point is reached where no change or reform can instituted from outside the triangle and the political system becomes dominated by the three entities that control all the power. Even if the power-wielders lose legitimacy somewhere in the process, they have enough authority to continue to dominate. The centralization of power, especially in the majority, is a phenomenon with consequences that de Tocqueville explicitly warned about in Democracy in America.
"The majority will stop at almost nothing to maintain its power" is another oft-rejected idea. There is a certain truth in de Tocqueville's warnings, however. Gerrymandering is a political phenomenon as old as any - Elbridge Gerry used it in 1812 to further his party's (and his own) power, Tom Delay used it in 2004 to, similarly, further his party's (and his own) power, and Georgia Governor Sonny Perdue will use it in 2005. This is anti-democracy at its best - essentially rendering the millions of votes cast in non-competitive House seats worthless, sending the message to voters that they might as well not have voted. With political participation a central column in democracy and being one of the remaining methods to have influence in a dwindling field, declining participation is a sure step on the path to inequality.
The majority, much like Mills' Iron Triangle, has strong self-serving tendencies, and as de Tocqueville suggests, the majority will often seek to quell the minority and voices of dissent, ensuring "woe to the man who goes beyond [the fence of the majority]". A recent example of the majority quelling the minority is shown in the Congressional filibuster. Forty years ago, then Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield lowered the cloture requirement from 67 to 60 - making it easier for the majority to silence the minority. Back in the present, current Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist is trying to lower the requirement from 60 to 51 - making it even easier to silence the minority. Without dissent and balance, inequality quickly prevails and takes control, as the majority is allowed to do what it wishes, often involving strengthening its own power.
The Constitution seems to provide a façade of equality and democracy, yet upon further examination it does not always keep its lofty promises. From its conception, the Constitution has had its doubters and questions of the framers' motives, as the economic interests of the framers inevitably had a bearing. The Constitution promises equality, but treated slaves as three-fifths of a person until the 14th amendment, and even then, upheld "separate but equal" for 58 years between the cases of Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board of Education. Modern criticisms of the Constitution continue - the government "bows to special interests", which can be directly attributed to some economic disparity.
Recent events, such as the "economic stimulus" plans proposed by the president, passage of the bankruptcy bill, and proposed Social Security and Medicare reforms will all worsen the economic disparity that currently exists, as they will likely deny aid to some of the poor while enhancing the wealth of the rich. America was never as equal and democratic as it is often perceived, and recent developments are certainly not sending it in the egalitarian and democratic direction.
What do yall think, I think a friendly audience will prepare me better for a hostile one...