United States, Many Interest Groups

¶ … United States, many interest groups attempt to attract the attention of the public and the government in order to promote their specific causes. Two main types of interest groups in the United States are economic interest groups and interest groups that are not economic in nature. Both groups have several things in common: they have an "organized membership," and specific policy goals, and they are not political parties because their specialized interests do not cover a wide range of issues (246). Economic groups are also vastly different than other interest groups. Economic interest groups consist of labor unions, farm groups, corporations, and professional associations, among others (247). They "exist primarily for economic purposes," which can include traditional business as well as protecting jobs and the like (247). Economic interest groups in the United States include teacher's unions, such as the National Education Association, and labor unions, such as the Teamsters. On the opposite side of the spectrum, other groups that are not organized around an economic interest also exist as well-organized interest groups. They organized in order to find "opportunities to promote a cause in which they believe" (251). While similar to economic interest groups in organization, they usually classify themselves as more altruistic, although this is not always the case. Some of these interest groups, today, include Greenpeace, which organizes around the environment, and the Association for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. Both types or organizations engage in lobbying, or "persuading public officials to take actions favorable to a given organized group," as well as "lobbying by litigation," or trying to push their agenda through the judicial branch through law suits (Damerow). While interest groups are often promoted as organizations through which citizens can become involved in the political process, some argue that they cause more harm than good, gaining favors that help their organization, while hurting the public (Kenworthy).

Question Four

Although checks and balances are one way that the United States government attempts to keep its democratic nature, another watchdog is the media. In fact, it is the media who keeps the public in the loop regarding much of the government's actions. Reporters often get important information by interviewing sources who wish to remain anonymous. Some of the information that they receive, however, is classified, and "the leaking of classified information is a federal crime, although their reporting of it ordinarily is not" (292). But there are some who say that reporters should be arrested if they refuse to reveal their sources regarding classified information. These people believe that it is crucial for the administration or law enforcement officials to speak to the person leaking the information to insure the safety of the nation. The thinking behind this is that the leak may have more information important for competent national security decisions to be made. On the other side of the argument, some are convinced that journalists should not have to reveal their sources, as this would limit the journalist's ability to expose wrongdoing. In a debate on the BBC website, one commenter said that forcing journalists to reveal their sources "would be the end of free speech" ("Should Journalists"). In the same vein, many believe that the first amendment protects these reporters (Hilden). While both sides of this argument have valid concerns, I tend to agree that reports should not have to reveal their sources. Reporters and the media help keep this country acting in a democratic way, and their ability to find comments off the record allows them to expose matters of interest and consequence to the public. Without this protection, reporters would not have been able to inform the public about such serious issues as Watergate, for instance.