This argument's major strength is the fact that it validly points to a number of examples and outcomes of the Constitutional Convention that clearly prove a significant degree of pluralism was at work in shaping the U.S. Constitution. From the different plans offered by different groups to the four basic principles of the Constitution, the argument makes a sound case for pluralism characterizing the workings of the Constitutional Convention. Despite this strength; however, the argument has one overriding weakness. It fails to consider the group of individuals responsible for the compromises and debates it labels pluralistic. All of the men responsible for the shaping of the U.S. Constitution were white, wealthy and powerful individuals who were primarily interested in protecting their own interests and those of their class, fellow elites.
The major strength of this article is that it provides insight into the elitist nature of the social classes responsible for shaping the new government. The white wealthy upper classes and powerful businessmen had the biggest influence in developing a government that was put in place to insure their own interests. Human nature is self-protective and cronyism and corruption existed then as now in the upper classes and government. One flaw of this argument is that it fails to mention that despite elitism characterizing the individuals who shaped the U.S. Constitution, that document has ruled a nation longer than any other in history without change. That document has also powerfully symbolized democratic values like liberty and freedom around the globe creating dramatic and positive change in other nations. As such, despite the elite nature of its framers and its design, the U.S. Constitution has justly and richly served the American people for over two centuries.
The U.S. is still run by both the pluralist and the power of t
...