Politics as Group Activities
An essay by Nicholas Lemann about the once forgotten, provocative Arthur Bentley provides a definition of politics: all politics and all government are the result of the activities of groups. Politics is a never-ending, small-bore struggle for advantage among constantly shifting coalitions of interest groups. Bentley called this “pluralism.” There is no such thing as a “transcendent public interest;” all politics at all times involve dealmaking. As politicians succeed, they become more obviously attentive to interest groups, more obviously engaged in bargain and compromise. “Public opinion” does not exist, as there is no such thing as “the public.” There are only groups. Opinions don’t matter – only actions do. Abstractions like “the people” and “the popular will” have no real content. “The public interest” is a useless concept, Lemann characterizes Bentley as writing, because “there is nothing which is best literally for the whole people.” Every political force of influence is an interest group: states and cities are “locality groups,” the legal system is a collection of “law groups,” income categories are “wealth groups,” devoted followers of a popular politician are “personality groups;” interest groups lie at the heart of monarchies and dictatorships as well as of democracies. People get involved in politics to get things they want, yet they matter politically only as members of groups and groups matter only when they act. But political life is complicated: nobody is a member of only one interest group, and no interest group stands apart from other groups and behaves in a single, consistent way. Alliances are constantly shifting. No realm of government is immune to interest-group pressures, including the judiciary. Do these characterizations have useful explanatory power?
People come together ultimately not to get something, but to enjoy being together.
There is something inherently worthwhile in gathering in a public assembly.
The ancient Greek word for “assembly” is ekklesia.
If people don’t have a language to express their desire to be together, to share life together, then — and only then — is collectivity reduced to the mere pursuit of interests. And people get tired of shifting from one group to another, being in multiple groups, trying to get this or that. They try to find one group that demands their allegiance, that they will die for. This desire is most often expressed in secular nationalism.
But there is one true word for our desire to be together, not to pursue any interest, but to celebrate the gift of our common life. That word is Jesus Christ. In Him we celebrate our common life not “against” any other group (which is always implicit in the pursuit of “our” interests, as it is also in secular nationalism), but as including all groups (this is what “Catholic” means).
There is a way for people to come together not out of desire to protect contingently shared interests, but to celebrate their togetherness: they can come together to adore the source of their common life, and affirm their bonds. They can do this in the Church.
There is one thing that is the best for everyone, that everyone needs most of all, that is common to all as an aspiration that makes us one: Love, whose name is Jesus Christ.
Mr. Jones,
I agree with this. I also wish to insert my own pet obeservation that the individuals that join any one group likely has similar “dispositions” to other memebers of this group with regard to their own set of “virtues.”
For example, conservatives required extensive discussion that the death penalty was wrong by Church leaders and continual reminder of the commentary of the catechism before movement more in sync with teaching occurred. I label this disposition “top down” instruction-a characteristic of conservative Catholics. Without critique-just a commentary. This probably plays a role in the dynamics of a “group” of “same-interest” individuals, would lead to activity and promotion of the interest in a specific way, etc.
And how one labels the priorities of one’s groups-community for some, private property ideals for others, probably comes from this set of internal dispositions. Humans in general are far less unique in when considered in large numbers and certainly share a lot of common traits (hence “marketing” as a field works). Which mean that the group thing characterizes folks probably better than an individual would really want to admit.
This is a theory of politics with which I agree.