Institutional Elites in America Thomas

Institutional Elites in America

Thomas Dye is one of the American political scientists which attempt to analyze the events on the political scene from an original point-of-view, by sustaining that every action undertaken by politicians has a personal interest behind. Therefore, in one of his books, "Who's running America?" - which contains the chapter "Institutional elites in America" -the political scientist uses Laswell's definition of politics, having an attempt to put even more closer the above-mentioned domain to the personal interests of the elites: "Politics is an activity by which people try to get more of whatever there is to get. It is not about the pursuit of liberty as much as it is about the struggle over the allocation of values in society. Simply put, it is about "who gets what, when, and how."

In addition, using all the information and considerations he has gathered throughout the time, the author's intention is merely to shape a concise, correct and real image of the American political system. In my opinion, his mission is accomplished, especially in the case of the discussion on the American elites' situation. Therefore, being inspired by Dye's ideas, the mission of this paper would turn into arguing that the American elites do not represent under any form the society that has produced them; moreover, there is a great difference between them and the usual American people.

In order to make a proper analysis which would sustain my thesis, the first step I am going to undertake consists in a narrowing a brief summary of the ideas exposed by Dye.

The authors starts his exposition by arguing that society is very poorly represented at the top-level, mainly that among 285 millions of people, only 5.800 occupy the top-positions in different domains, such as politics, business, law or media, from which only a small percentage -around 10%- have inherited the positions they currently occupy, the others having reached their status through struggle. Even though, Dye contradicts the statement that they would come from all the social strata by mentioning that the vast majority are from the overwhelmingly-upper and upper-middle classes of the society. In addition it happens quite frequently for conflicts to occur among these elites and they are also divided along some factions: the rich Western and Southern "cowboys" and the Eastern "Yankees," along liberal and conservative conceptions and also along Republican and Democrat political ideological belonging.

Moreover, the American economy is as well concentrated in the hands of some elites, which nonetheless sustain that the economy of their country should continue to walk on the globalization path. Dye considers that the financial institutions, the banks, are as well controlled by elites, just as in the case of politics, which he suspects to be dominated by interest groups officially represented on the political scene by actors which have been named and not voted. Consequently, the judicial power is surely under the influence of the elites, Dye argues, the main argument being that judges are appointed; another segment which finds itself in the same situation as the above-mentioned one is mass media. What seems even more astonishing is the fact that even civic organizations - which are merely intended to be totally dedicate to the people from all social strata - are controlled by the elites as well; what can be inferred from all the information revealed by Dye's study is the fact that many of these people, officially named "elites," occupy more than one position at the top-level and it oftenly happens for their positions to be in different domains.

In my opinion, "Who's running America' might prove in the end to be a very useful book, since it leaves aside the theoretical aspects and it is marked by its' author braveness to present the reality just the way it is: it is not about rules, norms and regulation, but about those who are named leaders and their own will.

Having Dye's arguments as a starting point I would therefore allow myself to state that the American elites do not represent the society they live in, despite their affirmations emphasizing this aspect. Moreover, the societal interests barely matter for them, their own interests occupying a primary position. As a first idea to emphasize this fact, it should be reminded that the American elites do not have social origins of every kind; thus, 10% of the nowadays top-officials have inherited their positions. As an example for this case, I would bring into discussion the situation of the current U.S. President George Bush Jr. whom, in my opinion, would have never reached this position if his father had not done it before, especially because before moving to the White House, he had never left his country, his first visit abroad being a presidential official one in Mexico.

The other part of the elite class, mainly its representatives that have reached their position through struggle, such as Bill Clinton, for example, usually come from the overwhelmingly-upper and upper-middle classes of the society. Therefore, these leaders, in my opinion, cannot represent some people they have never lived around and whom they cannot understand because of this.

Another aspect of the distance existing between the normal people and the elites is of racial concern; rarely has it happened for a black person or for a woman to occupy a leading position in any domain. This could be the reason for which many analysts expect the future U.S. presidential elections, to which Hilary Clinton is expected to candidate from the Democrats' part. The reasons for these discriminations are manifold, the best explanation being that, at least in what the elected positions are concerned, the American nation is not yet prepared to leave itself to be led by a person of color or by a woman. This affirmation might be seen somehow contradictory, since almost half of the U.S. population is of female gender and, on the other hand, these people's ethnical roots are extremely diversified, many of them being of Afro-American origin. In these circumstances, it might clearly be argued they are clearly discriminated in front of the white American males, a fact that should not happen. Therefore, this could be taken as the clearest evidence that Americans are not properly represented at the official level.

As a continuous path for my demonstration, I would put into evidence a rather socio-political aspect; it is commonly assumed many times that the greatest part of the magnates of the economic world have somehow inherited their positions, since it is hard to gather such an amount of wealth as in their cases in a lifetime period. On the contrary, it is not said they maintained the statute they received and they have not evolved, but it should be clearly enough that they had a high-ranked starting point. Therefore, these persons would never be able neither to understand the necessities of the poors nor not to deal with them, especially because they would encounter great difficulties in understanding the aspects of the above-mentioned cases.

If it was to be emphasized a current trend of the modern world, this would clearly state many businessmen have manifested a tendency of involving in the world of politics, especially because they have the feeling that the financial power they dispose by give them the right, or if not the right, at least the opportunity, to participate at the process of taking various decisions at the state level.

In my opinion, if these persons were only to remain at the stage of great businessmen there would not have been any problem, as in the economic capitalist world everyone only struggles for their interest and for that of the company it represents; on the other hand, when it comes about politics, all the actors which can be seen on its stage should maintain a real contact with the society, even when it comes to named officials. How can the Minister of Education, for example, argue that the system it represents has serious problems of ethnic background, when he does not know how poor many of the immigrants are and this is the main reason for which they cannot afford to offer their children the opportunity to study?

Another stage of public concern which is strongly influenced by elitist movements is mass-media itself; in this case, it might be argued that the process of influence is completed the other way around, meaning that the mass does not influence the elite, but the elite influence the mass, since they act as a kind of "seizure" for the events, facts and news that are broadcasted.

In a similar background, the fact that the judicial system in itself is controlled by the elites is as well a clear disadvantage for the lower strata of the society, as they cannot be properly judged by some persons who are not able to understand their difficulties in detail. The middle and lower-class people might experience the same situation when it comes about civic associations, about which Dye argues that they are under elitist control as well, where they should be indeed represented by persons of similar condition.

Despite all the above-mentioned fact, I was still able to find a counter-argument concerning the influence of elites, and this is in relationship with the political world. Thus, it can be easily noticed that many of the American's elected representatives come from the high strata of the society; this fact has been analyzed for many times and the most commonly-assumed conclusion was that people perceive them as being better-prepared for positions of the kind this being the reason for which they elect them. In addition, many of them seems to deal quite well with the situations they have to face and they also seem quite patient in listening to people and to their problems.