Special interest groups

political mainstream. The idea for these groups spread as others saw the effect one group could have on a political party. Eventually, "special interest groups" included mainstream subjects such as education, and large organizations such as the NEA.

While one person can affect the government, doing so is difficult and very time consuming. A more efficient use of time is to organize others of a like opinion into a group that shares the responsibilities and duties of petitioning the government for the change of benefit dictated by that opinion.

One negative aspect of this development is that once the group is organized it exists. Groups that exist do not cease to exist when they have completed their raison d'etre. Instead they find a new reason to exist, one of which is additional power. In fact, an advantage and a disadvantage of special interest groups is the issue of power wielded. To see citizens organizing into groups to direct the government would have heartened Jefferson. On the other hand, to see these groups operated by a handful of people despite the large memberships would have heartened Boss Tweed.

The NEA is a good example of these two sides of the special interest group. Sroufe (47) quotes Drew in the 9-8-80 "Reporter at Large" section of the New Yorker magazine that having obtained their Department of Education, the NEA wanted to

. . .
at group that much more "special". Perhaps the only reason others resent and vilify the NEA is because their size gives them so much power and influence. Size easily translates into money, which can be spent on candidates who support their liberal proposals. While money and advertising do not guarantee success, as Michael Huffington's California senate campaign proved, a special interest group's support is a proven help, as Carter's 1976 campaign proved. Yet, the only reasonable answer to such influence is to organize one's own special interest group to counteract that influence. If one still cannot find enough people to wield as much influence as one's competitor, that is the American way. References Sroufe, Gerald. (1993) Political Processes and Social Issues, Nova University. Wirt and Kirst begin chapter 3 of The Politics of Education: Schools in Conflict by calling the apolitical school a "myth." He notes that the delineation of this myth needs to be "recast from a broader perspective on the State-School relationship (43). Three views of this interlinking are found in classical political theory, democratic theory, and systems analysis." The Civitas framework on civic education is a federally provided context
. . .

Some common words found in the essay are:
Education NEA, Wirt Kirst, Plato Aristotle, , Schools Conflict, Huffington's California, Wirt Kirst's, Tweed NEA, Heinz Eulau, Plato Republic, wirt kirst, civitas framework, politics education, civic potential, civic education, schools conflict, politics education schools, education schools conflict, education schools, civitas framework civic, teach students, framework civic, michael kirst, framework civic education, classical political theory,
Approximate Word count = 1750
Approximate Pages = 7 (250 words per page)

More Essays on Special interest groups