The key result of Bartels' analysis was that "senators...were vastly more responsive to affluent constituents than to constituents of modest means" (Bartels: 253). We can see this in elected officials voting or acting with obligation to donors and not necessarily to the average citizen, and in the pervasive nature of elite influence through social ties (Domhoff). While this seems explicitly undemocratic, one could argue the problems with this political inequality can be mitigated by the groups working on specific issues who might better represent citizen concerns. In his discussion of the effect of public opinion on policy, Burstein reports that his "results are consistent with the possibility that interest organizations and parties enhance responsiveness rather than reducing it" (Burstein: 35). Additionally, Cigler and Loomis posit that as political parties have weakened, interest groups have expanded in number and magnified their influence - a notion that also supports such an argument.
An important questions remains - are organizations whose missions reflect an explicit purpose in representing the under-represented helping to mitigate this inequality? Dr. Strovolitch identifies the ways in which these organizations may in fact do the opposite. An example she provides is that of the field organizer at a women's organization who in discussing organizational support for affirmative action, remarked that women on welfare "don't go to college, but that's a smaller and smaller set of people" (Strovolitch: 12). Regarding welfare reform (which the author categorizes as a disadvantaged-subgroup issue), this same woman admitted they were not as active as they were on other issues. Another respondent reflected an avoidance of seemingly applicable but controversial issues that might disturb their base of support.
Strovolitch's findings serve as a potent defense against the idea that interest groups are filling the representational void. If the tendency is for organizations to drift toward majority and advantaged-subgroup issues, what effect does this have on political inequality? Is this drift a conscious one, or does the political system force their hands? Do you see ways in which interest groups are successful in reducing inequality?
Great thoughts and questions Michael. In regards to your first question, the effect obviously exacerbates political inequality in the United States, however, in a manner that is comparatively egregious. Instead of inequality being more explicit, interest groups that are claiming to represent disadvantaged subgroups are covering up the issue through their sweeping statements of political representation, thus perpetuating the problem of inequality and shrouding the awareness needed for positive change to occur. This problem was seen regarding the issue of human trafficking, where for years when it first became a concern, various interest groups would gather and publicly denounce the atrocity, however, do very little about it. As a result, these activities gave the illusion that something was being done, when in fact, very little activity was occurring to help the marginalized groups affected.
In respect to your last question, interest groups are most successful in reducing inequality when a broad array of players are involved from multiple different spheres of society. Anit-human trafficking efforts, for instance, have significant clout in Minnesota now because the work is a partnership typically between city police departments, city/county attorney's, and non-profits (a common output of this partnership is the John School, a program employed to decrease the recidivism rate of sexual offenders). Therefore, the more diversified the players in an effort, the more likely the success in addressing issues of inequality.
I think your question asking if the organizational drift toward majority and advantaged-subgroup issues is conscious is really interesting. It seems to relate to Bartels’ findings that senators give more weight to the views of higher-income citizens than those who are middle or low-income. In the case of the senators, Bartels found that their biases toward higher earners were not due to differences between rich and poor constituents’ voter turnout, contact with elected officials or political knowledge. He argues that senators’ bias toward higher earners may be related to the fact that many senators are themselves more affluent than most Americans. He also discusses the idea that our political system may place specific kinds of people in positions of influence, giving voice to more elite groups. I wonder if these factors are also at work in organizations that exist to represent minority populations. Perhaps the people who exert the most influence in these organizations identify with advantaged sub-groups and have a subconscious bias to issues pertinent to the majority. If this is the case, it would seem that our political system does impact the environment in which minority-focused organizations operate and their potential to truly represent disadvantaged subgroups.
Disadvantaged subgroups receive less attention or support because, in part, there is less overall support for those policies. It is easier to for a women’s group to gain positive and widespread support for a mission centered around an advantaged subgroup or a majority. Additionally, Laura I think you are right in suspecting that the people in charge of interest groups generally reflect their own experiences of privilege in the work of their organization. Americans tend to think optimistically, so for many disadvantaged subgroups, perhaps policies such as welfare reform are not the focus because even those who it will affect tend to think that someday they will become middle class. Like Verba states, there are downsides in having too many people represented, and I think interest groups self-select issues to remain relevant to the broader political arena.
What I found more alarming than an overall neglect of disadvantaged subgroups is the overall underrepresentation of social welfare organizations representing poor and low-income populations - a fraction of 1% of the groups in DC according to Strolovitch. This would indicate that the groups themselves are marginalized, forcing them to advocate for the issues that get attention. I find it difficult to believe that organizations created to give a voice to the voiceless purposely neglect the most challenging issues. On the contrary I think these groups are founded with the most benevolent of intentions, only to face the realities of a political system that gives a voice not to the voiceless, but the well heeled. With that said, if any of you have been watching House of Cards, CWI shoots my theory full of holes.