Two-Dimensional Thinking and Interest Groups

Contrary to the pluralist approach, however, elitists argue that policy decisions are made under the heavy influence of certain small (but equally powerful) groups that are controlled by a very small group of wealthy individuals. Due to the incomparable power of the elite, the influence of other interest groups is, at best, minimal.

Both the pluralist and the elitist approach offer useful insights, and in an effort to reconcile their disagreements, it can be argued that, for the free market of ideas to work, it is necessary (although probably not sufficient) that all groups possess the much needed means to have their voices heard. Because otherwise, certain factions, or in James Madison’s words, ‘a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest’, can influence the policy outcome in a way that will serve the interests of only a small minority – while violating ‘the rights of other citizens, or ... the permanent and aggregate interests of the community’.

Two-Dimensional Thinking in American Politics

American politics is cursed with the prevalent belief that problems can be solved either one way or the other – which, almost always, translates into a choice between Democratic and Republican cures to the issues. Two-dimensional thinking makes many American people subscribe to one of the two pre-arranged policy baskets, and support everything in the basket as a whole, rather than considering each issue individually.

Forming opinions based on partisanship rather than individual thought eliminates the concern of looking for alternatives when facing policy conflicts, and produces individuals who conform to one of the two common forms of argument on each policy choice. It is not a rare case for such individuals to ignore other viewpoints by simply protecting what they believe to be true, and filtering out information they do not want to receive.

Debates on the U.S. Tort laws is one of the many examples to the two-dimensional thinking and its relation to interest group politics. Insurance companies, big corporations, pro-business interest groups, and conservative think tanks in the United States lobby for a Tort reform in an effort to limit tort litigation and damages, while consumer, lawyers, and labor groups lobby for the existing state of Tort legislation.

Those who lobby for a Tort reform focus mostly on frivolous law suits, and argue that the current Tort laws do not serve justice but irresponsibility. They talk about how the current Tort laws increase the costs of products and services – eventually financially hurting the society also.

Those who lobby against a Tort reform, on the other hand, view the issue from a consumer-rights viewpoint, and focus mostly on the responsibility of corporations to produce safe products, and argue that a Tort reform would only help large corporations in escaping from paying just compensation to their customers for damages that occurred due to their malpractices or defective products.

Both sides focus on certain arguments that would prove their point right, and ignore the counter-arguments – although, in actuality, both arguments have truth in them. Although unethical, this form of struggle is quite natural from the interest group politics aspect of the issue, since interest groups, by nature, focus on not ethics but accomplishment of policy goals. For example, in their book ‘Distorting the Law: Politics, Media, and the Litigation Crisis’, William Halton, a professor at the University of Puget Sound, and Michael McCann, a professor at the University of Washington, Seattle, provide a scholarly analysis of how tort reformers use various techniques to get into and misuse mass information channels in an effort to manipulate public opinion. Such practices pose significant threats to the right to accurate and complete information, and as all lobbyists involved in the process try to prove their opposing points, the society is fooled as a whole. In that sense, the pluralist approach miserably fails.

As far as the relationship between interest group lobbying and public opinion is concerned, it is safe to say that interest group lobbying tends to bipolarize (or multipolarize) the public opinion under the cover of 'pluralism'. In other words, free market of ideas, shifts the public opinion towards certain views that carry the most weight in terms of representation and power. Even when more than one (or more than several) views prevail in the market, the public opinion therefore tends to conform to the interest-group-driven policy choices.

Existence of multiple views in the marketplace does not necessarily assure the prevalence of accurate and complete information so long as the opinions presented rest on not knowledge but manipulation. If a boxer is badly hit on the right side, a second hit on the left will not cancel the effect of the first one out. It will just make things worse.

This is why scholarly works that rest on scientific analysis of information are particularly important, since, unlike lobbying efforts, such studies are not conducted to influence legislation. Instead, they merely aim to produce knowledge, which is the only cure to two-dimensional thinking.