Politics Is and What it Is Not.

¶ … politics is and what it is not. Some definitions of politics are examined. The applications of politics in society are explored. The paper also looks at some of the things that are not politics, and examines why these things are not politics. The role of politics is distinguished from the role of government, and the reasons for this are looked at more closely. This is a paper written in Harvard style that is actually three five page essays in one.

These three essays all answer specific questions about politics, particularly the theories of elitism and pluralism. What is Politics? Many people believe that politics is simply the workings of the government, the ins and outs of the daily process of making, enforcing, and interpreting the laws. This is certainly one aspect of politics. However, politics encompasses so much more than just this.

Politics also takes into account the structures of power and governing, wielding and shifting of power, conflict, change, scope of community relations, and negotiation that goes on at all levels of federal, state, and local government, as well as between people who are involved in the agencies that work with government and the organizations that try to influence government. Politics has a truly wide definition. However, in determining what politics is, it is easy to try to make the definition too broad and to forget what politics isn't.

This paper takes a look at what constitutes politics and what politics is not. Politics can simply be described as the craft of the state. This definition takes into account all of the aspects of governing a nation, and at all levels. The craft of the state involves making the laws, enforcing them, and interpreting them. It also involves determining the needs of the people of the state and trying to find ways to meet those needs.

Also involved in the craft of the state is the study of public opinion, the craft of lobbying the government, the administration of countless social programs, and the operation of political campaigns to select leaders for public offices. The craft of the state is, at least in today's modern world, a far-reaching, broadly scoped craft that has multiple levels and functions. It is complicated, but its complication also has a beauty, a grace, and a sense to it. True politics constitutes a multitude of things.

Elections and the process of being elected constitute true politics. In fact, this is politics in its purest form, because politics is at its very heart the delicate dance that takes place in the ever-shifting balance of power. Politicians and others in the government have power, and other people want that power. Since we live in a democracy, we are able to have elections, and the power that is coveted by so many is consequently transferred back and forth between people fairly often.

Elections are the vehicle through which this power is continually transferred. All of the activities that incumbents and those who are challenging them use to convince people to vote for them are part of the process of politics.

This means that campaign tours, campaign speeches, campaign literature that is handed out, debates between candidates, back room strategizing among the campaign staff, television appearances, and campaign ads that appear on television, radio, billboards, and in the newspaper are all part of politics because all of these things are part of the process by which power is brokered. Even the process of voting is part of what constitutes true politics, as the people are engaging in the mechanism by which the power will be transferred.

The activities of organizations and agencies that deal with the government and try to influence it also constitute politics. This is because by attempting to influence the government, the organizations that do this are trying to wield a little power themselves. Lobbyists who work for many non-profit organizations are good examples of people whose jobs are pure politics. These are people who are paid to try to influence lawmakers to make laws and policies that are favorable to the aims of the group for whom the lobbyist is working.

Since lobbyists have to employ all sorts of techniques in order to influence the government, and hence gain power in the government in an indirect way, the lobbyists are engaging in the process of politics on a daily basis. Lobbyists have to strategize and come up with campaign techniques in order to influence lawmakers, just as candidates who are running for office have to do these same things in order to convince people to vote for them.

Therefore, the organizations that work to try to influence the government can be considered part of politics. Even the functions of the government, such as making laws, enforcing laws, and interpreting laws are part of politics. This is because there is a lot of jockeying of power that goes on in the process of getting these things done in most modern democratic governments.

For example, in order to get a law passed, legislators in Congress have to convince each other, make deals with each other, and otherwise negotiate with each other. With any bill that is up for consideration to be a law, there will be lawmakers who approve of it and those who do not.

In order to convince other lawmakers to vote for a certain position, lawmakers have to engage in a good deal of negotiation with their peers in Congress, much like they would do with voters in a political campaign. The president, too, has to make deals and run negotiations with members of Congress in order to get items that are important to his own personal agenda passed.

Even federal judges feel the pressure of politics in their interpretations of laws and their rulings, as ruling one way could make them a candidate for the Supreme Court, while ruling another way could take them out of consideration. Really, of all of the components of government, only the U.S. Supreme Court is relatively free of politics, as these justices are appointed to their positions for life, and so do not have to jockey for power with anyone.

For all others in the government game, power is the word of the day, and every action undertaken by a member of the government is done so in a bid to gain and/or to wield more power. So, now that we know what constitutes politics, the question remains of what does not constitute politics.

Politics can be considered to be any action of a government or organization involved with the government or persons trying to become a part of the government that has as its base intention the gaining and/or wielding of power. Therefore, any action of the government or those associated with it that does not have the gaining and/or wielding of power as its base concern can be considered to be not politics.

In a democratic government, almost every action that the government takes is political in some way, shape, or form. The same is true for organizations involved with the government in a democratic nation. This is because being able to make and influence law and public policy involves a lot of power, and through elections, this power can frequently change hands, thus resulting in a large number of people who are always trying to gain power, because they know that it is possible for them to get this power.

Democratic governments are by nature highly political. However, non-democratic governments are not so political. In fact, the less free and democratic a nation is, the less political it is. Consider the pure monarchy. The king or queen in a nation such as this has all of the power. There is no hope of anyone else ever getting as much power as the monarch. Therefore, all of the functions of the government are non-political, as the monarch makes all of the decisions.

This is not, however, to say that politics is totally non-existent in a nation such as this. Power struggles that constitute politics occur behind the scenes among potential heirs to the throne and among people who would like to gain access to the monarch in order to possibly have influence over him or her. The same is true in a dictatorship, or really any other type of government except possibly in a pure communist system (though a pure communist government has yet to exist).

Politics is basically the struggle to gain and wield power. Any function of the government that involves a person or persons trying to gain and/or wield power can be considered to constitute politics. Democratic nations are highly political by their very nature. On the other hand, any function of government that does not involve the struggle to gain and/or wield power does not constitute politics. The less democratic a nation is, the less political it will be.

However, some politics will occur in any sort of government, though usually behind the scenes. This happens due to pure human nature, as we all want power. References Marsh, David and Stoker, Gerry (eds), Theory and Methods in Political Science (London, Macmillan, 2002). Introduction and Chapter 1. Schwarzmantel, J., The State in Contemporary Society (Harvester, 1994). Chapter 1. Abstract This paper examines the political philosophies of elitism and Marxism. The concepts associated with both philosophies are explored in-depth. The applications of both theories are also explored in-depth.

Finally, the differences in the idea of political dominion that exist within these two philosophies are explored in-depth. Elitism and Marxism: The Differences in their Explanations of Political Dominion Elitism and Marxism are two political philosophies that are diametrically opposed to one another. While Marxism promotes the rule and control of the people at large, elitism focuses on how real political authority is only held by a few ruling elite.

While Marxism promotes communism as a way of life, where all people work and live together for the common good, the theory or elitism leans toward monarchy and oligarchy. The two can not peacefully co-exist. This paper examines the differences in how the political philosophies of elitism and Marxism explain political dominion. Elitism states that a country can only ever really be ruled by a small number of people -- the elite. It is difficult to get into the elite. Normally, most people must be born into it.

There are certainly examples of the ruling elite in our nation, manifested in families that seem to produce leader after leader. The Kennedy family, the Bush family, the Adams family, the Rockefeller family, and the Roosevelt family have all produced their fair share of political leaders in this nation. At times, it has seemed as if the members of these families were able to rise to political prominence simply on the basis of their family name alone.

This has been particularly true of members of the Kennedy family, a family which has at times seemed to be America's equivalent of a royal family. The mere mention of the Kennedy name is enough to get people in this country to take seriously what a Kennedy family member has to say about politics. The Kennedy family and other politically influential families in the United States are perfect examples of what constitutes the ruling elite as far as the theory of elitism goes.

Of course, in a nation such as the United States, it is somewhat easier for a person to rise to the ranks of the political elite than it would be for someone in a less democratic and freedom-loving country. There are avenues open to people, channels that they can take that have the potential and ability to raise someone up to that level. However, it is much easier to gain access to these ranks if one is born into such a family.

Further, it takes money for the average person to gain access to the ranks of the political elite, something that the majority of Americans do not have nearly enough of to become a part of something like this. In fact, the political elite in the United States are not restricted to being politicians. In actuality, the political elite do not even have to be well-known, or even known at all.

The theory of elitism states that in an elitist society, many things are run behind the scenes by the wealthy, upper-crust of society. It is this wealth that allows extremely wealthy people to buy political influence. We have all heard the tales of wealthy people "buying" their Congressperson by using their money to ply that Congressperson into doing whatever the wealthy person wants. The fact is, this can and does happen, even though it happens behind the scenes where the average voting American can not see it happening.

The wealthy in America have an enormous influence over the workings of the government because their money allows them to have this influence. In an ideal society, of course, money would not be able to stand in the way of the public good. However, in reality, money does talk, and it will make amazing things happen. Money even has the power to influence the president and the judiciary.

The right money given, or the things done with money in exchange for political support can cause drastic changes in the way the country operates, sometimes seemingly overnight. In elitism, money is what buys political dominion. Most of the politically elite families in America today are there because they initially had enough money to get there, even the Kennedys. This is a very different idea of political dominion than that put forth by the Marxist philosophy.

The Marxist philosophy is also the communist philosophy, and there is no room for the influence of wealth in a communist state. In fact, such influence is looked upon with loathing and is actively fought against. The very beginnings of a communist nation, according to Marxism, will take place with the overthrow of those very ruling elite that are so important to elitist political theory.

The communist, or Marxist, revolution will begin with the working class people -- the proletariat -- becoming fed up with the rule of the elite -- the bourgeoisie. The elite will have had power for a long time, and will have kept getting more wealthy as the working class people never got ahead financially. The wealthy elite, because they value money and the power it brings, will have instituted a system of capitalism in the nation, which is based on the exchange of money.

This system of reliance on money will keep the working class dependent on the jobs given to them by the wealthy in order to survive. The working class will keep working to buy the increasingly expensive necessities that the wealth of the elite provides. Eventually though, the working class will become frustrated with the continual oppression that they receive from the elite. The proletariat will rise up and will conquer the elite, doing away with capitalism and the system of money buying influence, power, and comfort.

The proletariat will then begin a short dictatorship in which they will completely do away with the trappings of the elite. The elite will experience a short time during which they are downtrodden by the dictatorship of the proletariat.

However, as Marxism puts forth the idea of equality of all, it will not be long before the dictatorship of the proletariat is not needed any longer, and societal attitudes will have changed enough so that the true intent of Marxism -- the equality of all and each supporting the other -- will take place. Once this is achieved, there will be no political dominion, because there will be no social hierarchy. Everyone will be equal.

Everyone will be free to follow his or her own passions, since there will be no monetary system for the exchange of goods and services. Instead, everyone will help out in making sure that everyone's needs are met. People will have a real reliance on each other, and this will give people the ability to explore with leisure who they really are and what they enjoy.

The motto of Marxism is "From each according to his ability and to each according to his needs." This means that everyone in a Marxist society will contribute to the good of the entire society as he or she is able, and will take from the efforts of society that which he or she needs. There is no political dominion in a system such as this, because everyone is equal. It is much like a commune is today.

In fact, communes are communist societies on a smaller scale than the Marxist system. Normally, there is a council, which is made up of all of the adults in the society. These adults periodically get together in order to ascertain the needs of the community and determine how these needs should be met. A communist society on a large scale would do this, also. All of the members of the community would meet to determine what the community needed and how these needs were going to be met.

Communities would be organized on a local level, and each community would take care of its own. As can be seen, there are similarities and differences between the elitist and Marxist political philosophies. In the elitist philosophy, the ones who hold all of the political power are the ones who have the money. Money is instrumental in an elitist society, because money makes things happen, and money can buy political influence. Money can also be used to keep the non-elite down. This is where Marxism comes in.

In Marxism, those who are not of the elite overthrow the elite and institute a society in which there is no elite, but instead equality amongst all, and a society in which money has no meaning and so can not buy influence. In elitism, political dominion is held by those who have money. In Marxism, the elite with money are also the ones with political dominion initially.

However, since those without money are more numerous than those with it, the elite are soon overthrown in Marxist philosophy, and a system is created in which political dominion is no longer needed. References Marx, K. And Engels, F., The Communist Manifesto, 1998 ed. Marx, K., "Preface to the Critique of Political Economy." A Critique of Political Economy. 1992 ed. Abstract This paper takes a look at the theories of elitism and pluralism and examines them for what they are.

The basic concepts and precepts of elitism and pluralism are explored and examples are given. Most of the examples come from the United States itself. The rest of the paper deals with whether or not elitism and pluralism can every be reconciled to one another, and the reasons how this can be. Can Elitist and Pluralist Theories Be made Compatible? Elitist and pluralist theory seem on the first glance to be diametrically opposed to one another in spirit and application.

Elitist theory, after all, proclaims that people can only gain power in society through wealth and a strong network of influence. Pluralist theory, on the other hand, states that true power in society is gained when one joins groups that band together to represent the interests of the people; to a pluralist then, power comes in numbers rather than by money. Elitist theory promotes rule by a few, while pluralist theory promotes rule by the many. It would seem as if the two theories can never be reconciled.

This paper explores whether or not the theories of elitism and pluralism can every truly be reconciled. Elitism focuses on the influence of power and money in gaining political influence. It is difficult to get into the elite. Normally, most people must be born into it. There are certainly examples of the ruling elite in our nation, manifested in families that seem to produce leader after leader.

The Kennedy family, the Bush family, the Adams family, the Rockefeller family, and the Roosevelt family have all produced their fair share of political leaders in this nation. At times, it has seemed as if the members of these families were able to rise to political prominence simply on the basis of their family name alone. This has been particularly true of members of the Kennedy family, a family which has at times seemed to be America's equivalent of a royal family.

The mere mention of the Kennedy name is enough to get people in this country to take seriously what a Kennedy family member has to say about politics. The Kennedy family and other politically influential families in the United States are perfect examples of what constitutes the ruling elite as far as the theory of elitism goes.

Of course, in a nation such as the United States, it is somewhat easier for a person to rise to the ranks of the political elite than it would be for someone in a less democratic and freedom-loving country. There are avenues open to people, channels that they can take that have the potential and ability to raise someone up to that level. However, it is much easier to gain access to these ranks if one is born into such a family.

Further, it takes money for the average person to gain access to the ranks of the political elite, something that the majority of Americans do not have nearly enough of to become a part of something like this. In fact, the political elite in the United States are not restricted to being politicians. In actuality, the political elite do not even have to be well-known, or even known at all.

The theory of elitism states that in an elitist society, many things are run behind the scenes by the wealthy, upper-crust of society. It is this wealth that allows extremely wealthy people to buy political influence. We have all heard the tales of wealthy people "buying" their Congressperson by using their money to ply that Congressperson into doing whatever the wealthy person wants. The fact is, this can and does happen, even though it happens behind the scenes where the average voting American can not see it happening.

The wealthy in America have an enormous influence over the workings of the government because their money allows them to have this influence. In an ideal society, of course, money would not.