"Last week, Americans saw some disturbing images. During town hall meetings...legislators and citizens were loudly interrupted and intimidated by members of the audience who refused to let them speak." Yes they are there to voice their opinions, but there is a time and place for unruly audiences and their actions. For events like this many do not know whether the interest groups were actually in attendance to genuinely voice their opinions "or whether they were people primarily recruited and sent into these meetings..."
Are interest groups no longer about the individual's "interest." Are the groups just being formed to provide some sort of aid to recruiters and in return, the groups would receive these incentives?
"last week...a firm hired by the coal industry sent fake letters to members of Congress, allegedly from Latino and African-American organizations, opposing climate energy legislation." These letters were sent in the name of companies that are a branch of the recruiting company.
In other words, interest groups will hurt our democracy due to their ulterior motives. Companies will now offer special treats for groups to do dirty work for them and get the message across for that moment or event that "these" people do exist and are being affected by the actions.
Source:
This post is a response to Saul’s post Going Too Far. Saul makes the argument that interest groups “hurt democracy due to their ulterior motives.” He cites a CNN article that details the infamous Town Hall meetings from last year when groups dedicated to stopping Obama’s health care initiative would “loudly interrupt[] and intimidate[]…members of the audience who refused to let them speak.” And Saul is absolutely correct in denouncing these tactics, whether or not their cause is a just one. However, I do not think we can make the leap that Saul is making. We cannot say that just because the tactics used by some interest groups are questionable the whole institution of interest groups ought to be scrapped.
ReplyDeleteBasically, in this post I argue that a crazed town hall meeting such as those detailed in Saul’s link is preferable to no town hall meeting at all. Without interest groups it would be very difficult for the voices of our nation to be heard at the legislative level. Sure, interest groups may not always have the nation’s best interest in mind, but they always do have some group’s interest in mind, and I firmly and strongly believe that whatever group it is, it deserves to have a voice.
Personally, I too was very upset at the shouting match that defined the town hall meetings back in 2009, as I was a strong advocate of Obama’s reform proposals. But I have to say: Hate the sin, not the sinner. Interest groups, whether we like them or not, are a crucial element of our democracy. They link the people to the government, and make our small Congress into a pluralistic battleground that more accurately reflects the populous as a whole. Saul has identified procedural problems with the way interest groups work in America, and perhaps they must be regulated in more stringent ways to prevent their “ulterior motives” from influencing their actions, but they must continue to exist for the sake of our democracy.