Assignment #6 - Due October 30th

[Mr. Kelly]

Read the document "Interest Groups 1" (you should have been e-mailed a
link). Answer the following questions.

Dahl

1. Is the thinking of the framers relevant to contemporary politics?
Does Madison have anything to say that resonates with the dynamics of
American politics in the twenty-first century?

2. What is significant about the evolution in academic thought
regarding interest group activity that took place between Truman’s The
Governmental Process and Dahl’s Who Governs?, and then between the
rise of pluralism and the events of the 1960s? Are you a pluralist,
hyperplurasit or elite theorist? Why?

3. With the increasing prevalence, political acumen, and practical
effectiveness of narrowly focused single issue interest groups, has
the time come for greater control on the behavior of citizens and the
activities of interest groups? Should groups, for example, be required
to look at more than one issue, or should they be required to explain
how their positions and interests would benefit the nation? Are these
efforts to regulate groups’ behavior, and do they infringe on
individual or group freedoms?

Truman

1. How does Truman define an interest group?

2. What is the political role of the individual in Truman’s analysis?

3. What does Truman feel about the assertion that there is an
inclusive national or public interest?


4. What are the major factors that determine the success of an
interest group in gaining access to government

[Buck Schroeter]

1. Is the thinking of the framers relevant to contemporary politics?
Does Madison have anything to say that resonates with the dynamics of
American politics in the twenty-first century?

I absolutely believe it is relevant to todays politics, while there
have been many changes in every facet of American society, but many
fundamental ideas stay the same, interest groups, in many ways, havent
changed a bit, there are many still out there and they still present
simillar issues, the entire tea party movement is an interest group,
just as maddison said they would, they united behind similar issues
with the government and while it didnt get the power to tyranize
society, it still had a lot of steam behind it.
Maddison said that a republican form of government (with a central few
leaders elected by the masses) would help to dilute the power of
factions due to the dispersed population and the ideals held within.
This holds true today, many factions, or interest groups dont get
nearly as much support as one would think due to simple geography.

2. What is significant about the evolution in academic thought
regarding interest group activity that took place between Truman’s
The
Governmental Process and Dahl’s Who Governs?, and then between the
rise of pluralism and the events of the 1960s? Are you a pluralist,
hyperplurasit or elite theorist? Why?

In Truman's The Governmental Process, the main message is that
interest groups are important to the governmental process because
their "fighting" and emergence is what tells government what policies
to make and what they need to work on, while in Dahl’s Who Governs,
the government is more of a mediator and tries to find middle ground
as opposed to simply learning from the group bickering. The
significance of this change is that it portrays the thought process of
America from, these groups are fighting to learn and teach one
another, to these groups are fighting and we need to step in.
I suppose I am an Elite Theorist due to my lack of knowledge
pertaining to any progress that has been made by interest groups,
therefore I am led to believe that all of the power is with the
wealthy because no headway has been made due to interest group's unity
(so far as I am aware).

3. With the increasing prevalence, political acumen, and practical
effectiveness of narrowly focused single issue interest groups, has
the time come for greater control on the behavior of citizens and the
activities of interest groups? Should groups, for example, be
required
to look at more than one issue, or should they be required to explain
how their positions and interests would benefit the nation? Are these
efforts to regulate groups’ behavior, and do they infringe on
individual or group freedoms?

Its a fine line between enforcing regulation on what is required to,
by extension, change government, and what will infringe on individual/
group freedoms. I believe it is necessary to enforce some regulation
on what these political action groups are doing because if you dont
you could end up with something along the lines of our legal system in
which people can make millions for the most trivial of things, and
just as that is not true justice and merely slows things down, to many
groups with to many claims will do the same thing. Therefore, i
believe that if there is a need, there is a clear purpose, and there
is progress being made by the group, then it should be allowed to
continue its activities. However, if it does not meet this criteria,
it should not be allowed to slow things down. America needs many
positions and differing opinions to function as it should, but there
is a point in which people begin to turn this into something more
trivial and it begins to lose meaning, so while these groups has a
purpose, and i am in support of them, they should also be regulated.

Truman


1. How does Truman define an interest group?

"Any group that, on the basis of one or more shared attitudes, makes
certain claims upon other groups in the society for the establishment,
maintenance, or enhancement of forms of behavior that are implied by
the shared attitudes."
In other words, groups critiquing other groups to enhance eachother.

2. What is the political role of the individual in Truman’s
analysis?

The needs of the person are facilitated by the groups, so the person,
by himself, plays no role.

3. What does Truman feel about the assertion that there is an
inclusive national or public interest?

He says it can not be proven, for no matter what, there will always be
groups for and against everything.

4. What are the major factors that determine the success of an
interest group in gaining access to government

How pressing the need of the group is, how well the group is
represented, how popular the group is among the people, how effective
the group is at conveying their ideals, and how well the group is
organized.

[davidlee...@yahoo.com]

1. Is the thinking of the framers relevant to contemporary politics?
Does Madison have anything to say that resonates with the dynamics

ofAmerican politics in the twenty-first century?
The thinking is not relevant. Madison was more concerned about how
dangerous an interest group to be while nowadays the people are
fighting for their freedom to have an interest group. One of the
things Madison says is that if the government doesn't allow the people
to go for their self interest then they are taking the people's
freedom away. 

2. What is significant about the evolution in academic

thoughtregarding interest group activity that took place between
Truman’s TheGovernmental Process and Dahl’s Who Governs?, and then
between therise of pluralism and the events of the 1960s?  Are you a

pluralist,hyperplurasit or elite theorist?  Why?

With Truman the interest group is seen as more of a necessity. They
help the government by bringing issues that are important to the
people to the government's attention. In Dahl's point of view an
interest group is merely something that needs to be controlled by the
government. Two interests groups could be completely different but the
government basically tries to please both, so instead of creating a
policy for the greater good of the country, policies are being made to
satisfy an interest group. I would say I am an Elite theorist,
basically the power is in the wealthy. The government tends to please
those willing to give them the most money.

3. With the increasing prevalence, political acumen, and

practicaleffectiveness of narrowly focused single issue interest
groups, hasthe time come for greater control on the behavior of
citizens and theactivities of interest groups? Should groups, for
example, be requiredto look at more than one issue, or should they be
required to explainhow their positions and interests would benefit the
nation? Are theseefforts to regulate groups’ behavior, and do they

infringe onindividual or group freedoms?

I think there really shouldn't be a regulation to have groups focus on
more than one issue. If that happens no issue will ever truly get
resolved because now all the energy and money is going to many issues
than one big one. The amount of work,support, and effort needed to fix
an issue will be decreased because of the split focus.Truman

1.    How does Truman define an interest group?

Truman defines an interest group as a group with shared beliefs that
makes claims on another group about behavior, maintenance, etc.

2.    What is the political role of the individual in Truman’s
analysis?

There is almost no role for the individual. The needs are handled by
the group not the individual.

3.    What does Truman feel about the assertion that there is
aninclusive national or public interest?

Truman feels that there is no proven public interest. On any issue
there will be a group for and against it.

4.    What are the major factors that determine the success of

aninterest group in gaining access to government

Major factors will included how popular the group is, how it brings
the issue to public attention, the organization of the group, and how
important the issue is to the majority of the people.

[Christy Nguyen]

1. Yes! Just like Madison feared, interest groups elevate their
interest about the national interest. This is not the case for all
interest groups, but it defines many- especially the groups serving a
small percentage of the population. For example, the tobacco interest
group is concerned about their profit/industry. While their concerns
effect those involved in their industry (including farmers), the
national interest is to decrease the production (or it should be) of
tobacco.

2. Truman believes interest groups are beneficial to the country
because they bring attention to specific issues and ensure these
issues are on the government's agenda. The government process should
be seen "as the interaction of interest groups." Dahl, on the other
hand, sees the government's role as more of a "check" because interest
groups see their issue as more important and it is up to the
government to prioritize and compromise.
I am a hyper-pluralist. There is money and votes everywhere for
politicians, and I do not think they know how to say no.

3. YES. I especially agree with requiring interest groups to explain
how their position benefit humanity or the nation as a whole. It is
not infringing on group freedom; we would not be forcing them to do
someone morally wrong- we just want to understand their logic and why
we should support their goals.

Truman:

1. A group with the same beliefs and has a goal regarding that belief.

2. The individual influences an interest groups with his/her behavior
and attitude.

3. He says it does not need to be accounted for because it does not
exist, but that doesn't mean they should "omit" it from their actions/
goals.

4. How the group is viewed by the public, the organization or
"internal characteristics," and what government they are trying to get
involved in.

On Oct 24, 11:25 am, "Mr. Kelly" <mrkellyatak...@gmail.com> wrote:

[rojas_m...@yahoo.com]

1. Is the thinking of the framers relevant to contemporary politics?
 Does Madison have anything to say that resonates with the dynamics of

American politics in the twenty-first century? In my opinion the
framers are relevant to contemporary politics. Madison said that a

republican form of government (with a central few leaders elected by
the masses) would help to dilute the power of factions due to the

dispersed population and the ideals held within. True today, many
factions, or interest groups don’t get nearly as much support as you
would think.2. What is significant about the evolution in academic

thought  regarding interest group activity that took place between
Truman’s The  Governmental Process and Dahl’s Who Governs?, and then
between the rise of pluralism and the events of the 1960s?  Are you a

pluralist, hyperplurasit or elite theorist?  Why? Truman believes
interest groups are good to ward’s society since help issues get
solved. While Dahl believes that interest groups are something that
needs to be controlled by government. Elite theorist since I believe
many things in government are run by money especially interest groups.

 3. With the increasing prevalence, political acumen, and practical
effectiveness of narrowly focused single issue interest groups, has
the time come for greater control on the behavior of citizens and the
activities of interest groups? Should groups, for example, be required
to look at more than one issue, or should they be required to explain
how their positions and interests would benefit the nation? Are these
efforts to regulate groups’ behavior, and do they infringe on

individual or group freedoms? I believe we should have a little more
control on interest groups. We should not control them on how they fix
the issue but just make them tell everyone what they are up to and how
they are doing it just updates to the nation. This does not take away
freedom since just being asked to support the nation. Truman 1.    
 How does Truman define an interest group? Truman defines interest
groups as people gathered together with the same beliefs and has a
goal having to do with that belief. 2.      What is the political role
of the individual in Truman’s analysis? No role since it’s a group
effort. 3.      What does Truman feel about the assertion that there
is an inclusive national or public interest? Should not be accounted
for since don’t exist. 4.      What are the major factors that

determine the success of an interest group in gaining access to

government? How organized the group is, how well they spread word
around, and how well they take action in working as one to solve the
issue. 

[Raichal]

1. Is the thinking of the framers relevant to contemporary politics?
Does Madison have anything to say that resonates with the dynamics of
American politics in the twenty-first century?

-I believe that it is still relevant to contemporary politics because
they haven't changed much at all. Madison says that people join
interests groups not because they support their views, but because
they equate with those views of the "public interest", and that is
still true to this day in almost every way. People rarely join a group
because they back everything that the group stands for.

2. What is significant about the evolution in academic thought
regarding interest group activity that took place between Truman’s The
Governmental Process and Dahl’s Who Governs?, and then between the
rise of pluralism and the events of the 1960s? Are you a pluralist,
hyperplurasit or elite theorist? Why?

-Truman believed that you could only understand politics by
understanding the interaction of interest groups while Dahl stated
that it could be understood by people affiliation with nominations,
education, and urban redevelopment. Pluralism forced politicians to
focus on various subjects and groups rather than appealing to just one
group in particular. I believe that i am a pluralist because of that
very reason that i stated before. I enjoy the thought of the govt
focusing on many issues and people rather than just an elite group,
which are usually the most radical of everyone.

3. With the increasing prevalence, political acumen, and practical
effectiveness of narrowly focused single issue interest groups, has
the time come for greater control on the behavior of citizens and the
activities of interest groups? Should groups, for example, be required
to look at more than one issue, or should they be required to explain
how their positions and interests would benefit the nation? Are these
efforts to regulate groups’ behavior, and do they infringe on
individual or group freedoms?

-I think that groups should look at more than one issue that way they
can explain how their positions and interests would benefit the nation
more clearly and in depth. i don't believe that they infringe on
individual or group freedoms, if anything, it helps expand it.

Truman

1. How does Truman define an interest group?

-Truman defines an interest group as any group, that on the
basis of one or more shared attitudes makes certain claims upon other
groups int eh society for the establishment, maintenance, or

enhancement of forms of behavior that are implied by the shared
attitudes.

2. What is the political role of the individual in Truman’s
analysis?

-the individual means nothing for it is represented in the
group. The group is the importance.

3. What does Truman feel about the assertion that there is an
inclusive national or public interest?

-There will always be a group for everything and everyone.
There is no stopping it because as long as new ideals pop up, a group
will be created to support it.

4. What are the major factors that determine the success of an
interest group in gaining access to government

-Strategic position in the society, internal characteristics,
and the government itself

[hailica...@yahoo.com]

1. Is the thinking of the framers relevant to contemporary politics?
Does Madison have anything to say that resonates with the dynamics of
American politics in the twenty-first century?

The thinking of the framers is relevant to contemporary politics but
we have forgotten how our government started. The framers wanted to
keep the people happy and run the government the way the citizens
wanted it to be run; now politicians only care about their pay check.
Madison feared interest groups and said that people rarely join them
because they agree with everything the group stands for, people
usually join because they have a tie with the group or agree with some
things.

2. What is significant about the evolution in academic thought
regarding interest group activity that took place between Truman’s The
Governmental Process and Dahl’s Who Governs?, and then between the
rise of pluralism and the events of the 1960s? Are you a pluralist,
hyperplurasit or elite theorist? Why?

Truman thought that people could only understand politics if they
understood the interactions of interest groups. Dahl, on the other
hand, believed that citizens could understand politics if they became
involved with their community and elections. When politicians have to
focus on various subjects and groups rather than just one group,
pluralistic political action is taking place. I’m a pluralist because
I believe politicians should be focusing on many different people,
groups and issues, not just the elites of the country.

3. With the increasing prevalence, political acumen, and practical
effectiveness of narrowly focused single issue interest groups, has
the time come for greater control on the behavior of citizens and the
activities of interest groups? Should groups, for example, be required
to look at more than one issue, or should they be required to explain
how their positions and interests would benefit the nation? Are these

efforts to regulate groups’ behavior, infringe on individual or group
freedoms?
Interest groups should be more regulated because from what I’ve seen
they tend to cause trouble. If they want to focus on one issue that’s
fine but they need to explain how their group is bettering the
country. This would not infringe on their rights because it would be
like running a business. Business’ need to show what their actions
accomplish and so should interest groups.

Truman

1. How does Truman define an interest group?

He defines an interest group as a group of people with similar
beliefs.

2. What is the political role of the individual in Truman’s analysis?

The individual is of no importance because the only thing that truly
matters is the group.

3. What does Truman feel about the assertion that there is an
inclusive national or public interest?

New interest groups will be made until the end of time because people
want to feel like they are important, if a part of a group, you are a
part of change.

4. What are the major factors that determine the success of an

interest group in gaining access to government?
An interest groups success is based on the relevance of their topic
(right now that would be abortion or immigration), the groups’
organizational skills and how well they can articulate the groups’
stance.

[Grace Ivie]

Dahl

1) I believe the thinking of the framers is relevant to contemporary
politics. Interest groups give too much power to one side of an
issue, and are often for peoples self interests and not for the common
good. He warned that free men are more likely to try to oppress each
other than to cooperate for their common good.

2) The change in the thought process that occurs from Trumans the
governmental process, and Dahls who governs is that the governments
position changes. This evolution is significant because it shows the
difference in how the government handles interest groups. The change
from the rise of pluralism to the 1960s was important because it made
americans question the democratic system. I consider my self to be a
pluralist.

3) Yes. I believe that groups should be required to explain how their
interests benefit the nation so that interest groups don't become self
serving. Interest groups should be organized to help more than one
group so that it is for the common good. I don' t think there is a
harm in only having one issue that a certain group is interested in,
so they should not be forced to look at more than one issue if they do
not want to.

Truman

1) Truman defines an interest group as a group that judges another
group so that other things can be maintained, made better, or
established.

2) The group is the one that handles any needs that come up, so the
individual unnecessary to the political role.

3) Truman says that a public interest does not exist because there is
not one side to any issue, so it does not need to be accounted for.

4) Major factors that determine the success of an interest group
include, how the public sees the group, the groups organization, the
significance of the issue, and how well the group takes action to fix
the issue.

[greg...@yahoo.com]

On Oct 24, 11:25 am, "Mr. Kelly" <mrkellyatak...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Read the document "Interest Groups 1" (you should have been e-mailed a
> link).  Answer the following questions.
>
> Dahl
>
> 1. Is the thinking of the framers relevant to contemporary politics?
> Does Madison have anything to say that resonates with the dynamics of

> American politics in the twenty-first century? Yes, Tension still exists between
fundamental freedoms to pursue self-interests and selfish ends, on the
one hand, and the need to protect
and promote the good of the larger community, on the other. People
organize into groups to pursue their
ends, a process protected by the Constitution's right of association
and one which continues to expand its
influence and enhance its political strength and savvy as single-issue
groups become more common.

>
> 2. What is significant about the evolution in academic thought
> regarding interest group activity that took place between Truman’s The
> Governmental Process and Dahl’s Who Governs?, and then between the
> rise of pluralism and the events of the 1960s?  Are you a pluralist,
> hyperplurasit or elite theorist?  Why?

> Truman and Dahl both concentrated on the importance of interest group activity in producing governmental results. However Dahl's pluralism, marked an advance from Truman's group theory by casting a strongly approving light on the activities of groups. I'm not so sure what I am, but I believe that the government is all about money and runs on it, in that case it'd be Elite theorist.

> 3. With the increasing prevalence, political acumen, and practical
> effectiveness of narrowly focused single issue interest groups, has
> the time come for greater control on the behavior of citizens and the
> activities of interest groups? Should groups, for example, be required
> to look at more than one issue, or should they be required to explain
> how their positions and interests would benefit the nation? Are these
> efforts to regulate groups’ behavior, and do they infringe on
> individual or group freedoms?
>
> Truman
>
> 1.      How does Truman define an interest group?

Any group that, on the basis of one or more shared attitudes, makes
certain claims upon other groups in the society for the establishment,
maintenance, or enhancement of forms of behavior.

> 2.      What is the political role of the individual in Truman’s analysis?

The political interests of the individual are essentially accommodated
by groups.

> 3.      What does Truman feel about the assertion that there is an
> inclusive national or public interest?

He feels that the assertion cannot be proved.

> 4.      What are the major factors that determine the success of an
> interest group in gaining access to government

Access is determined by the group's strategic position in society, the
internal characteristics of the group, and factors peculiar to the
governmental institutions themselves.

[Hersson Cruz]

-Dahl
1) Madisons belief that interest groups and faction would unite behind
common issues is absolutely correct. Groups like the NRA have been
become a major pillar of support for candidates seeking republican
nominations and other smaller groups also play a role in today's
politics. Madison was also partially right about the inability of
parties and interest groups to gain support because in todays modern
age the ability to communicate around the nation is only a phone call
away.
2) Truman tries to explain who runs political policy while Dahl tries
to draw a connection between interest groups as well as the people. If
any, I would be a hyperpluralist because I feel the interest groups in
politics is just a front for blatant bribery and corruption.

Truman
1) Truman describes interest groups as a group of people following a
common beliefs, trying to make their belief policy through the
degradation of opposers and.
2) People depend on the group so the individual is just a follower in
the group.
3) Trumans says that there is no proven public interest, and the every
issue will have a group for or against it.
4) Major factors will included popularity, presentation of the issue,
organization, and importance.

[Adrian Gonzales]

Dahl:
1. Yes, it is completely relevant to contemporary politics. Twenty-
first century interest groups generally are more concerned about
themselves rather than what is better for the nation as a whole. This
is something that Madison was concerned about.

2. Truman believes that interest groups bring attention to issues that
may be overlooked, thus, ensuring their presence in the government’s
agenda. Dahl, however, views interest groups as topics that need to
taken into heavy consideration and be prioritized and hopefully lead
to an agreement. I am a pluralist because I believe in the definition
of it. Pluralist theory- interest groups compete in the political
arena with each promoting its own policy preferences through organized
efforts

3. I agree that interest groups should be required to explain how
their positing benefits humanity/nation as a whole.
It is NOT infringing on the groups freedom. It would give each
interest group a chance to express what they believe in and not let
the media or other sources manipulate or demonize them.

Truman:
1. A group that has the same or similar ideas/beliefs and has the same
goal.
2. The individual(s) heavily influence interest groups with their
beliefs.
3. It does not need to be accounted for because it does not exist.
4. The organization, the sector of the government, and how the public
eye views them.

[Noamy Lopez]

Dahl
1. Is the thinking of the framers relevant to contemporary politics?
Does Madison have anything to say that resonates with the dynamics of
American politics in the twenty-first century?

the constitutional implications of a federal government's "size,
scope, and complexity" are far beyond anything that the framers could
have possibly imagined. Madison said "you must first enable the
government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to
control itself."

2. What is significant about the evolution in academic thought
regarding interest group activity that took place between Truman's The
Governmental Process and Dahl's Who Governs?, and then between the
rise of pluralism and the events of the 1960s? Are you a pluralist,
hyperplurasit or elite theorist? Why?

Truman believed that if people understood the interactions of interest
groups they would understand politics. Dahl believed that if citizens
became involved with their community and elections they would
understand politics. Pluralistic political action occurs when

politicians have to focus on various subjects and groups rather than

just one group. I am a pluralist because I believe that numerous
distinct ethnic, religious, or cultural groups should be present in
government.

3. With the increasing prevalence, political acumen, and practical
effectiveness of narrowly focused single issue interest groups, has
the time come for greater control on the behavior of citizens and the
activities of interest groups? Should groups, for example, be required
to look at more than one issue, or should they be required to explain
how their positions and interests would benefit the nation? Are these
efforts to regulate groups' behavior, and do they infringe on
individual or group freedoms?

I believe the time is not now because groups have many ways by which
to attempt to influence policy which can meet people's needs. All
groups who want to press their causes in the state's political system
have a range of powerful tools available to them.

Truman
1. How does Truman define an interest group?

His definition is a shared-attitude group that makes certain claims
upon other groups in society. If and when it makes its claims through
or upon any of the institutions of government, it becomes a political
interest group.

2. What is the political role of the individual in Truman's analysis?

The political interests of the individual are essentially accommodated

by groups. The individual as such does not affect politics.

3. What does Truman feel about the assertion that there is an
inclusive national or public interest?

He feels the assertion cannot be proved. Even during wartime, when it
seems likely that everyone would agree that the war, if it is a
defensive war such as World War II, is in the national interest, one
finds interest groups opposed to the fighting.

4. What are the major factors that determine the success of an

interest group in gaining access to government?
The prestige of the group in society is an example of the first
factor. An example of a factor in the second category is the degree
and appropriateness of the group's organization cohesion the skills of
leadership; and the group's resources in numbers and money. In the
third category is the fact that the American political system contains
a number of points of access due to the separation of powers,
federalism, and the lack of cohesive national parties.

[Bridget Gonzalez]

Dahl

1.) Yes, I do think that it is still relevant to today's politics.
Interest groups have pretty much stayed the same throughout american
history and they still pose a threat to the government.
2.) In Truman's work he is more concerned about how interest groups
help the governent and how they help the government focus their
concern on certain policies. However, in Dahl's work his only concern
is trying to please everyone and not have on interest group become
more powerful over the other. So, instead of focusing on policies and
other important things, he spends most of his time trying to keep a
balance and please everyone. I'm probably an elite theorist because
unfortunately the way the government works, the people with more money
have a say in the government. While, the poor people are left behind
and have no say.
3.) I do believe that all interest groups should be much more
regulated because i think they have too much freedom. I think with
more regulation and with focusing on only one important issue, more
things can be accomplished.

Truman

1.) He defines an interest group as a group of people with similar
beliefs and attitudes and they make claims about other groups and
issues.
2.)The individual is pretty much usual because they are controlled by
a group
3.)Truman believes that one can not prove a public interest because
there will always be individuals who are for or against an issue/
policy.
4.) One of the most important thing an interest groups needs in order
to gain access to government is organization and money. The group
needs to be familiar and popular to the public, so the more money they
have to express their ideas amongst the public, the better chances
they will have access to governemtn.

On Oct 24, 10:25 am, "Mr. Kelly" <mrkellyatak...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Saba Zenaw]

Dahl 1. Is the thinking of the framers relevant to contemporary politics? Does Madison have anything to say that resonates with the dynamics of American politics in the twenty-first century? The thinking is not relevant because Madison was more concerned about how dangerous an interest groups would be but these days the people are fighting for their freedom to have an interest group, also Madison says that if the government doesn't allow the people to for their self interest then there taking the peoples freedom away.

2. What is significant about the evolution in academic thought regarding interest group activity that took place between Truman’s The Governmental Process and Dahl’s Who Governs?, and then between the rise of pluralism and the events of the 1960s?  Are you a pluralist, hyperplurasit or elite theorist?  Why?

The main message in Truman's, The Government Process is that interest groups are important to the government process because there fighting and emergence is what the government policies make and what the need to work on. But in Dahl's who governs the government is more of a mediator and tries to find middle ground as opposed to simply learning from the group bickering at each other.

3. With the increasing prevalence, political acumen, and practical effectiveness of narrowly focused single issue interest groups, has the time come for greater control on the behavior of citizens and the activities of interest groups? Should groups, for example, be required to look at more than one issue, or should they be required to explain how their positions and interests would benefit the nation? Are these efforts to regulate groups’ behavior, and do they infringe on individual or group freedoms?

I believe that interest groups should be able to look at more than one issue at a time because the issue would be fixed faster and the American peoples voice would actually be heard. I don' t think the infringe on individual freedoms or group freedoms because you are speaking for Americans therefore you have to tell the people and should tell them how a certain issue benefits as a whole when the problem gets fixed. Truman 1.    How does Truman define an interest group?  Truman describes groups that have the same or similar ideas, beliefs or goals. 2.    What is the political role of the individual in Truman’s analysis? Individuals are really influenced by interest groups within there believes. 3.    What does Truman feel about the assertion that there is an inclusive national or public interest? It's not really necessary because it doesn't exist. 4.    What are the major factors that determine the success of an interest group in gaining access to government.  Well it all depends on the organization and the government and how they are viewed from the peoples view. -Saba Zenaw