1: Chapter 1- Ideals and Reality- The Context of US Government

Political Culture

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. – That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…”

- Excerpt from the Declaration of Independence

Are all people truly treated as equals in the American political system? Why did Thomas Jefferson, in writing the Declaration of Independence, emphasize the rights secured by government but say little about the responsibilities individuals owe to it? And who exactly are “the American people”? Can we even speak of them as a unified group, given the extraordinary diversity of the United States in terms of race, religion, political beliefs, economic status, and more?

Despite this diversity, Americans do share, at least broadly, a set of common political beliefs and values, a concept known as political culture. Political culture refers to the widely shared attitudes, values, and beliefs about how government should function. To understand U.S. government and politics, it is essential first to understand this political culture, its shared vocabulary, founding myths, and symbolic ideals. This does not mean Americans all agree on political issues, they clearly do not. But they tend to express their disagreements using a common set of terms and ideals: liberty, democracy, equality, justice, "the American dream," and “our way of life,” to name a few.

Even social and political movements that challenge the status quo—such as the Civil Rights Movement, the Feminist Movement, or the LGBTQ+ Movement—often do so using the common language of American political culture. They appeal to the founding ideals of equality, freedom, and justice, seeking not to reject the American political tradition, but to fulfill it more completely.

While Americans may still share a common political culture, reflected in shared values, language, and ideals, there are growing signs that this consensus is fraying. Trust in the core institutions of American democracy has declined sharply in recent decades. In 2023, only about 16% of Americans reported that they trusted the federal government to do what is right “just about always” or “most of the time,” according to Pew Research Center. To put that in perspective, in 1964, during a period of relative political unity, roughly 77% of Americans expressed trust in their government.

This erosion of trust is not only deep but also increasingly partisan. Public confidence in government now tends to rise and fall based on which political party holds the presidency. When a Democrat is in the White House, Democrats express greater trust in government, while Republican trust declines, and the reverse is true when a Republican is president. This pattern suggests that many Americans now view government legitimacy less as a shared civic principle and more as a function of partisan alignment.

Political scientists warn that this growing distrust, if left unchecked, could weaken democratic norms, fuel polarization, and even lead to constitutional crises or political violence. Some commentators have raised concerns about a potential “cold civil war,” marked not by open conflict but by deep and potentially destabilizing divisions in society.

Perhaps the most urgent political question facing the United States today is this: What happens to a democracy when its people no longer trust its institutions? There is no single answer. But the chapters that follow will help you explore this issue from multiple angles, offering the tools to better understand, and participate in, the political system of which you are a part.

The United States is distinctive among nations in that its people are not bound together by shared ancestry, ethnicity, or religion, but by a set of shared political values. This political culture, grounded in ideals such as liberty, equality, and democracy, forms the foundation of American national identity. Because of this, understanding both the myths and realities of U.S. political culture is essential to understanding how American government and politics function. These foundational principles will be explored in this chapter to provide some context for the material covered throughout the rest of this textbook.

This chapter begins with an overview of the cultural foundations of American government and politics, examining how core values like individualism, liberty, and equality foster support for self-government and free markets. It will then explore different theories about how power is exercised in the United States, consider the basic question of why governments are necessary in the first place, and assess the growing influence of corporate capitalism on American political life. Finally, the chapter will address the decline of civil society and what that might mean for democratic participation and governance in the 21st century.

The History of Classical Liberalism

The political attitudes, values, and beliefs of the people of the United States are deeply rooted in the political philosophy of Classical Liberalism, a worldview that gained prominence in Western Europe, particularly in England, around the time of the American founding. Not to be confused with the term “liberal” as used in contemporary U.S. political discourse (a distinction discussed in the chapter on public opinion), Classical Liberalism, sometimes referred to as capital-L Liberalism, shapes the foundational political culture of the United States. Even modern conservatives and Republicans are considered Liberals in this classical sense because they embrace ideas such as individual liberty, limited government, and free markets.

Classical Liberalism was championed by influential political thinkers such as Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and others who challenged the rigid social and religious hierarchies of their time. These thinkers began reimagining the relationship between the individual and society, questioning long-standing assumptions that individuals must be subordinate to state or church authority and laying the intellectual foundation for many of the principles enshrined in the U.S. Constitution and American political culture.

For centuries, the prevailing belief was that a stable society required individuals to be subordinated to collective authority, be it monarchy, religion, or tradition. However, disruptive historical forces began to shift that thinking. The Black Death of the 14th century, which wiped out roughly one-third of Europe’s population across all classes, created economic and social upheaval that opened up new opportunities for survivors. Then, in 1517, Martin Luther challenged the Catholic Church’s monopoly on religious knowledge with his 95 Theses. Luther argued that individuals could engage directly with scripture without needing a priestly intermediary. His ideas helped spark the Protestant Reformation and emphasized individual conscience, further elevating the role of the individual in both spiritual and social life.

Classical Liberals built on this shift by asserting that individuals were rational, reasonable, and self-interested and thus deserving of liberties and rights. They rejected the notion that people’s destinies were predetermined by birth, class, or religious authority. Instead, they believed all individuals were fundamentally equal in their capacity for reason and moral agency. Because individuals could understand the world around them, they could be trusted to make their own choices. And because they were reasonable, they could govern themselves and interact peacefully in society. This view of human nature led directly to support for individual rights, limited government, private property, and free markets.

To you, reading this today, this way of thinking might feel obvious, of course people are rational, reasonable, and self-interested. But at the time, this focus on the individual was representative of, literally, a new way of thinking about the individual and society; a way of thinking that has still not yet taken root throughout the world.

Building on these foundations, John Locke offered one of the most influential formulations of Classical Liberal thought. He argued that legitimate political power arises from the consent of the governed, as individuals voluntarily surrender some personal freedom through a social contract establishing a government in order to secure protection of their rights. The creation of government, Locke believed, is legitimate only if it reflects the consent of the governed and exists to protect their natural rights, in particular life, liberty, and property. If a government violates this contract or fails to serve the common good, it loses its legitimacy, and the people have both the right and the duty to reform or replace it.

While Locke’s principles provide the philosophical foundation for democracy, the effectiveness of a democratic system depends on how citizens engage with government and politics in practice. Despite the widely shared belief that individuals are rational and capable of self-government, research consistently shows that many Americans possess limited or superficial knowledge of U.S. government and politics. Consider the following questions:

1. What is the name of your Congressional representative?
2. Who are your two U.S. Senators?
3. Who is the current Secretary of State?
4. Who is the Secretary of the Interior?
5. Who is the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court?

If you're unsure of the answers, you're not alone. Surveys indicate that a significant portion of Americans struggle with these questions. For instance, a Pew Research Center survey found that only 35% of Americans could name their Congressional representative. Similarly, a FindLaw.com survey revealed that nearly two-thirds of Americans couldn't name a single member of the U.S. Supreme Court.

This lack of basic political knowledge raises concerns about civic engagement and the effectiveness of democratic participation. If citizens are unaware of who represents them or how their government functions, it raises serious questions about how effectively they can participate in, or hold accountable, the system that governs their lives. Understanding the structure of government and its key figures is essential for meaningful participation in a democratic society.

Beyond gaps in knowledge, broader cultural values also shape how Americans engage with politics. The American emphasis on self-interest often finds expression in a strong cultural focus on material acquisition; if the United States has a national religion, some might argue it is consumerism. Consumerism refers to the tendency to purchase goods not solely for practical use, but because they serve to enhance social status or fulfill a sense of personal identity. Mass media play a powerful role in promoting the idea that emotional or social fulfillment can be achieved through consumption. Yet, this preoccupation with possessions rarely prompts reflection on the deeper implications of such values, after all, as the saying goes, “he who dies with the most toys… is still dead.”

This consumerist mindset also extends to political behavior. Just as products are marketed to fulfill desires, political candidates and policies are often packaged and sold like commodities, emphasizing image over substance, emotion over evidence. Voters may approach elections as consumers, seeking leaders who align with their personal identity or offer simple solutions to complex problems. Campaigns increasingly rely on targeted advertising, data analytics, and emotional appeals rather than substantive policy debate. In this environment, politics can feel more like a marketplace of slogans than a forum for democratic deliberation, raising important questions about the health of civic life and the capacity of democratic institutions to address real challenges.

Cultural expectations around morality have also influenced American political life. While Americans have long valued the belief that reason should guide behavior, this ideal has often taken the form of high moral standards for elected officials, sometimes beyond what most private citizens could meet themselves. Yet, these standards appear to be shifting. The political rise and continued relevance of figures with well-publicized personal controversies suggest that for many Americans, partisan loyalty now out weights personal morality. Public judgment remains uneven; some leaders are harshly condemned for personal indiscretions, while others are excused, largely depending on partisan allegiance.

Fear and misperception also shape political engagement. Americans are often fearful of issues that are statistically rare or misunderstood. Media coverage and public discourse amplify concerns about terrorism, civil unrest, immigrants, or transgender individuals, even though these groups pose no widespread threat. Meanwhile, pressing and complex issues such as climate change, wealth inequality, and access to healthcare often receive far less attention. This culture of fear, combined with a strong belief in individualism and self-reliance, frequently leads to skepticism—or even hostility—toward government programs designed to help marginalized or vulnerable populations, as well as toward efforts to address complex societal problems. It also influences attitudes toward justice, which often emphasize retribution over rehabilitation, reflecting a broader pattern of skeptical or punitive public judgement.

This environment of fear and skepticism contributes to widespread cynicism about government. Sensationalist media, partisan rhetoric, and decades of political scandals have fostered the perception that public officials serve special interests rather than the common good. This sentiment, captured in Ronald Reagan’s famous claim that “government is not the solution; government is the problem”, has become a cultural touchstone. Yet, this textbook aims to challenge that view. As you read, reflect, and learn, you are engaging in the essential civic work of replacing resignation with informed political engagement. Knowledge is the first step toward meaningful participation, and you’ve already taken it.

In addition to fear and cynicism, American political culture is also marked by a troubling propensity for violence. The United States was founded in revolution and has long celebrated myths of the frontier and self-reliance that often equate strength with the capacity for force. This cultural backdrop helps explain the country’s exceptional levels of gun ownership and tolerance for political rhetoric steeped in conflict. Recent events—including the January 6th attack on the U.S. Capitol and the assassination attempt on presidential candidate Donald Trump—highlight how partisan hostility and mistrust in institutions can escalate into violent action. While most Americans reject political violence, its persistence demonstrates that violence remains an enduring, if troubling, element of American political culture and a serious challenge to democratic stability.

Open to Debate:
Equality of Opportunity

Cultural beliefs are just that, beliefs. While they may be widely shared and upheld as ideals, this does not mean that everyone agrees on their underlying assumptions or definitions. The way these beliefs are implemented in practice is open to debate. In many cases, these beliefs function as myths, stories or narratives that serve to justify and obscure existing power relations and class structures. Anthropologist Bronislaw Malinowski’s work among the Trobriand Islanders illustrates how myths can legitimize material inequality, power relations, and social control; myths are both products of and justification for existing power relations. In any society, myths help elevate that society’s values as universal truths, providing the "background assumptions" that shape cultural and political understanding. Politically, practices that align with these background assumptions, those that lie just beneath the surface of public attention, are more likely to be accepted by the broader culture.

Figure \(\PageIndex{1}\): Equality is one of the central ideals of American political culture, yet its meaning remains contested. While the United States emphasizes equality of opportunity, debates continue over whether social and economic conditions truly provide all individuals with a fair chance to succeed. (Image Credit: Joseph Braunwarth via OpenAI, CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)

An interesting example of how political belief intersects with political myth is the American idea of equality. In the United States, the notion of equality of condition, the idea that everyone should have roughly the same material circumstances, is generally rejected. Instead, the prevailing belief is in equality of opportunity, the idea that individuals differ in talent and motivation and will be rewarded based on merit. However, even the concept of equality of opportunity is open to debate. Some believe that true opportunity requires active government support, such as quality education, healthcare, or protection from the disadvantages of poverty. Others maintain that individuals should succeed or fail based solely on their own efforts, without relying on public assistance. In reality, Americans do not start from a level playing field when competing for political or economic rewards.

A useful analogy is that of a card game. Success in cards often depends on the hand you're dealt. While some skilled players can win with a poor hand, it is much easier to win with a strong one. In life, people are not dealt hands randomly. Circumstances such as family wealth, physical attractiveness, innate talent, and access to quality education vary widely. Some people also face systemic obstacles, including racism, sexism, or disability or illness.

While factors like attractiveness or talent are largely beyond one’s control, a society committed to true equality of opportunity would need to offer what political scientists call positive freedoms, the tangible resources and conditions that allow individuals to compete equally. These include access to high-quality education, healthcare, and freedom from discrimination. Without these supports, the playing field is uneven, and one’s ability to succeed is compromised. Although the United States widely embraces the myth of social mobility, the idea that anyone can rise "from rags to riches", the reality is more sobering. While individuals may see their income increase over their careers, those born into poverty in the U.S. are statistically very likely to remain in poverty. On the other hand, there are no formal legal barriers to success, and many public institutions, such as public schools, libraries, and healthcare programs, exist to provide some degree of equal opportunity.

So, is the idea of equal opportunity in the United States something of a myth, one that benefits some while disadvantaging others? Evidence suggests that those who benefit most from the current social hierarchy have a vested interest in maintaining it. Support for the principle of equality varies across socioeconomic lines: wealthier individuals tend to be more resistant to expanding political equality, while lower-income individuals are generally more supportive of it. New programs aimed at increasing opportunity, like universal healthcare, are often hotly contested. At the same time, institutions intended to promote equal opportunity, such as public education, differ dramatically in quality between affluent and poor areas. Some proposed reforms, like school voucher programs, may further exacerbate inequality by diverting resources away from underfunded public schools. Additionally, rising tuition and fees at public colleges and universities create further barriers to opportunity for many students.

Do we truly have equality of opportunity in the United States? The answer, like many in American political life, remains open to debate.

Democracy

If we begin with the assumption that individuals are rational and capable of making informed decisions, it follows that people should have an equal and free opportunity to govern themselves in accordance with their own interests. Within the political culture of the United States, founded on Enlightenment ideals of individual liberty and autonomy, democracy, or self-government, emerges as the most appropriate and legitimized mode of governance.

Historically, political power was often justified by brute strength, what philosophers call the principle of “might makes right.” As the character Thrasymachus cynically asserts in Plato’s Republic, “justice is nothing more than the advantage of the stronger.” For centuries, monarchs claimed legitimacy through the “divine right of kings,” asserting their authority as God-given and beyond challenge. In contrast, modern democratic systems are founded on the principle of legitimacy through the “consent of the governed.” This concept lies at the heart of democratic governance.

The word “democracy” originates from ancient Greece, specifically the fifth-century B.C. city-state of Athens. It derives from the Greek words demos (the people) and kratein (to rule), literally meaning “rule by the people.” This idea was famously echoed by President Abraham Lincoln in the Gettysburg Address: democracy is “government of the people, by the people, for the people.”

In a political culture like that of the United States, grounded in individualism rather than consensus, it is unrealistic to expect unanimous agreement in public decision-making. Individualism implies diversity in thought, priorities, and interests. If consensus were required for all political decisions, change would become nearly impossible, and policy would default to the status quo. For this reason, American democracy relies on majority rule to determine electoral and legislative outcomes. This process aligns with the principles of classical liberalism: each individual expresses their preferences (usually through voting), and the aggregate decision reflects the majority’s will.

Given the size and complexity of the United States, representative democracy is necessary. Rather than voting directly on every issue, citizens elect representatives to govern on their behalf. However, some jurisdictions do make use of direct democracy mechanisms, such as ballot initiatives and referenda, where citizens vote directly on laws or policy proposals.

While democratic governance may appear ideal in theory, it also raises serious challenges. Plato, in The Republic, criticized democracy as a flawed system prone to populism and mediocrity. He argued that the masses would elect leaders in their own image, average in intelligence, virtue, and judgment, and that these leaders would pander to short-term desires rather than serve the long-term good of the community. Furthermore, he feared that the general public, driven by self-interest and emotion, would be easily manipulated by demagogues, leaders who exploit fears and prejudices for political gain.

Plato’s solution was to limit political participation to a class of trained, wise rulers, an idea that clashes with contemporary democratic ideals of inclusion and equality. Still, his critique highlights a persistent tension in democratic systems: the possibility that the majority may use its power to infringe upon the rights of minorities. This phenomenon is often referred to as the irony of democracy, that democratic processes can be used to enact undemocratic outcomes. Consider a hypothetical example: suppose a majority of citizens or their elected representatives decided to restrict certain political rights for individuals with tattoos, based on the unfounded belief that tattooed individuals are morally suspect. Even if this decision were made through democratic procedures, it would conflict with core democratic values such as political equality and protection of individual rights. In a healthy democracy, constitutional protections, judicial oversight, and public education are essential safeguards against such abuses of majority rule.

In sum, while democracy remains a powerful ideal—rooted in individual freedom and collective self-governance—it is not without limitations or contradictions. Understanding these complexities is essential to being an informed and responsible participant in the democratic process.

Open to Debate:
The Limits of Majority Rule

While it may be far-fetched to imagine a modern democracy revoking political rights from individuals based solely on superficial traits like having tattoos, the United States has a long history—and, in some cases, a continuing pattern—of restricting the rights and liberties of certain groups based on ethnicity, religion, gender, or sexual orientation. In California, for example, one of 26 states that allow for citizen-initiated statutory changes, a clear pattern has emerged in ballot initiative outcomes. While only about one-third of all citizen initiatives are approved by voters overall, nearly three-fourths of those that aim to limit the rights of racial, ethnic, or LGBTQ+ minorities pass. Many of these measures are later overturned in court because they violate constitutional protections, underscoring the fact that popular approval does not necessarily equate to ethical soundness or constitutional legitimacy.

As Winston Churchill once quipped, “The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.” This critique highlights enduring tensions within democratic governance:

· Can a large, diverse society be effectively governed if individuals primarily act in their own self-interest?

· Are citizens too uninformed or too easily manipulated by charismatic demagogues to make responsible political decisions?

The answers to these questions remain open to debate.

The Majoritarian Model of Democracy

The core idea behind majoritarianism, also known as popular democracy, is that true political power resides with the people. In this model, change occurs from the “bottom up,” as ordinary citizens, acting through their elected representatives, drive political decisions and reform. Democracy, in this view, is more than just a method for tallying votes, it embodies a set of fundamental values and principles.

At the heart of majoritarian democracy is the belief in popular control: the idea that government should reflect the will of the people over time, not the other way around. For popular control to be meaningful, several conditions must be met:

• Widespread and effective participation: Citizens must have the opportunity to be involved in the political process, not just on Election Day, but in shaping policy and debate.
• Access to high-quality information and deliberation: A well-functioning democracy requires that people have exposure to accurate, comprehensive, and meaningful political information so they can make informed decisions.
• Political equality: This principle extends beyond the basic “one person, one vote” rule. It includes equal access to the political process in all its forms—voting, organizing, petitioning, running for office, and beyond.

Additionally, majoritarian democracy depends on legal limitations on government power. These safeguards include fixed terms of office, free and fair elections with genuine choices among candidates, and the protection of essential political rights such as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, the right to assemble, and the ability to form political parties. Crucially, the rights of minorities must also be protected from the potential tyranny of the majority.

In this model, the legitimacy of government comes from the people, and the effectiveness of democracy depends on their informed and active participation.

The Pluralist Model of Democracy

How can democracy function if many citizens are uninformed, disengaged, or indecisive? Individuals often lack the time, resources, or influence to pursue political change on their own. However, pluralism offers a solution: people can band together in interest groups to amplify their voices and advocate for their shared goals.

In the pluralist model, public policy is shaped through competition and negotiation among diverse interest groups, including citizen organizations, trade associations, labor unions, and corporations. The government acts as a neutral moderator, managing the conflicts that emerge from these competing demands. In a large, diverse society like the United States, pluralism may be the most practical way to ensure that all voices are heard and that government remains responsive to a variety of interests.

The roots of pluralism in American political thought can be traced to James Madison’s Federalist No. 10, where he argued that a large republic with many competing interests, or “factions”, would prevent any single group from dominating the political process. This idea was shaped by early American experiences with religious pluralism, as many colonists had fled religious persecution in Europe. The cultural embrace of religious diversity helped lay the groundwork for political pluralism and may have contributed to the U.S. avoiding the kind of authoritarian rule that plagued many European nations.

Democratic theorists like Robert Dahl have praised pluralism as a safeguard for democracy, especially in a society where many citizens may be politically passive. By enabling people to influence policy through collective action, pluralism can help balance the power of elites and ensure broader representation.

However, pluralism is not without its critics. A major concern is that not all groups have equal power. Corporate and industry groups often have far more financial and organizational resources than grassroots citizen organizations. Some groups, such as the poor, the homeless, or future generations, may struggle to organize at all. Ironically, these are often the groups most in need of political representation and protection. Critics argue that when wealth and influence determine which voices are heard, pluralism risks reinforcing inequality rather than correcting it.

The Elitist Model of Democracy

While democratic theory often emphasizes popular control or group-based representation, some political analysts argue that real power in the United States is concentrated in the hands of a relatively small and privileged group. According to the elitist model, political power is not broadly distributed among the public or interest groups but is instead held by a small number of wealthy and influential individuals—those who dominate business, finance, media, and high-level government positions.

Elitist theorists argue that the same people or networks occupy key leadership positions across various sectors of society. These individuals are often well-connected, highly educated, and economically advantaged. Through campaign donations, access to decision-makers, control of major institutions, and influence over public discourse, elites are able to shape public policy to reflect their interests, often regardless of popular opinion or electoral outcomes.

Some critics go further, arguing that the United States increasingly resembles an oligarchy, a system in which political and economic power is concentrated in the hands of a small, wealthy elite. From this perspective, elites do not merely exert disproportionate influence but effectively dominate the policymaking process in ways that preserve their wealth and status. The term underscores concerns that democratic accountability may be too weak to constrain entrenched interests, raising the question of whether the United States functions less as a democracy and more as a government responsive primarily to the few rather than the many.

Unlike pluralists, who see competition among groups as a check on concentrated power, elitists believe that this competition is largely an illusion. Even when different groups appear to be in conflict, the outcomes often benefit elite interests or fall within a narrow range of acceptable policy choices defined by those in power.

Critics of the elitist model argue that it underestimates the influence of grassroots movements, public opinion, and democratic institutions. However, supporters point to enduring inequalities in wealth, access, and influence as evidence that elites continue to wield disproportionate control over government decisions. They note, for example, how corporate lobbying, high-dollar campaign financing, and media consolidation can drown out the voices of ordinary citizens and perpetuate policies that benefit the few at the expense of the many.

In sum, the elitist model challenges us to question the extent to which democracy is truly realized in practice and encourages closer examination of who exercises power in the American political system, and why.

Open to Debate:
To What Extent Is the U.S. a Democracy—or an Oligarchy?

In an elite democracy, elections provide a means for the public to select from among elite candidates, those with access to wealth, education, influence, and institutional power. In this model, democracy becomes a mechanism for legitimizing elite rule rather than challenging it. Does this describe the United States? Consider the following questions:

· Are there key positions in influential industries—such as media, finance, defense, and consumer goods—that carry far more political and economic power than the average citizen?

· Do these elites share a general outlook on how society and the economy should be structured? While there may be partisan and policy differences, many analysts argue that elites are united by their shared class interests and a commitment to maintaining the status quo. For example, 1% of Americans control roughly one-third of the nation’s wealth and hold 85% of all voting stock shares, giving them disproportionate influence over corporate and economic decisions.

· Can this concentrated economic power translate into political power? Many of the chapters ahead will explore the mechanisms by which this occurs, including campaign finance, lobbying, and media ownership.

· Are elected officials, regardless of party, ultimately aligned with the interests of economic elites? Critics argue that both Democrats and Republicans often promote policies that favor elite priorities, regardless of voter preferences.

· In our elections, are voters simply choosing between competing members of the elite class?

· Do candidates who challenge elite interests have a realistic chance of gaining major political power?

· Do elites ever lose on policy issues that matter to them, or do they largely control the political agenda through access to resources and media influence?

The answers to these questions don’t have simple answers. However, they suggest that an elite system or – even an oligarchy – may dominate the political landscape in the United States. However, it would be premature to dismiss the influence of both organized interests and the general public. This raises the question of to what extent are citizens largely uninformed or disengaged from politics? As we will explore in later chapters, the answer is complex. On one hand, it can be argued that those who show little interest in politics are simply latent in their disinterest; if they were directly affected by government decisions, they might be more likely to mobilize and exercise their democratic power.

Or is the public too fragmented on key issues, such as abortion, LGBTQ+ rights, environmental policy, and tax reform, to act as a cohesive force in governance.

Figure \(\PageIndex{1}\): Political power ultimately rests on the support of the masses. While elites may shape the political agenda and sometimes foster divisions that weaken collective action, they must still compete for public support—making the people both the foundation of political authority and a potential check on elite power in a democracy. (Image Credit: Joseph Braunwarth via OpenAI, CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)

Do elites recognize the potential power of a well-educated, informed, and engaged citizenry, and strategically foster divisions, around race, religion, and other contentious issues, to prevent unity on shared economic concerns.

However, if the political system is indeed controlled by elites for their own benefit, why do they continue to enact policies that cater to the masses, even at some cost to themselves? Is it the masses – not the elites – who ultimately hold real hold power? At the very least, the masses appear to serve as a check on elites, with the competition for votes being one of the key distinctions between a democracy and a dictatorship.

Is our democracy ultimately ruled by an elite? The answer to this question remains open to debate.

In short, evidence supports the existence of all three models: majoritarian, pluralism and elite How is this possible? All models are relevant and all, essentially, function at all times, it really depends on what one looks at and what questions one asks; different models may be more or less relevant in different situations.

Collective Action and the Role of Government

Figure \(\PageIndex{1}\): Lighthouses are public goods because no one can be prevented from benefiting from it and therefore they must be provided by government. (Image Credit: Cabrillo National Monument, via Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA 4.0)

Sometimes, individuals can achieve greater benefits by working together than by acting alone, even if cooperation involves personal costs. This situation is known as a collective action problem. It arises when individuals face a conflict between their immediate self-interest and the long-term interest of the group. While the benefits of collective action—like clean air, public safety, or national defense—are shared by everyone, the costs are often borne individually and upfront. This mismatch can lead to widespread inaction, ultimately harming society as a whole.

A Lighthouse in San Diego: A Classic Example

One example of a collective action problem would be the construction of a lighthouse. In San Diego, boats must navigate around the dangerous rocks of Point Loma to enter San Diego Bay. Under conditions of darkness or poor weather, this can be hazardous. All who use the bay, pleasure boaters, commercial shippers, and fishermen, would benefit from the construction of a lighthouse.

Now imagine that these boaters recognize the need and decide to build one. Each would gain long-term safety benefits, but contributing money toward construction involves an immediate personal cost. If the boating community were small and close-knit, members might appeal to one another directly to fund the lighthouse. But in a large, dispersed, and loosely connected group, coordination is difficult. Some people will inevitably choose not to contribute, even though they still benefit from the lighthouse. These individuals are called free riders, they receive the benefit of a public good without paying for it.

Why do free riders exist? Because the lighthouse is a public good; it is non-excludable (no one can be prevented from using it) and non-rivalrous (one person’s use doesn’t diminish its value to others). You can’t turn off the lighthouse for non-payers, and so there is little incentive for anyone to contribute voluntarily.

This is the essence of the collective action problem: individuals acting in their self-interest end up undermining the group’s long-term benefits.

Why Not Let the Market Provide It?

In a society that values free markets and private enterprise, one might wonder: why wouldn’t a company build the lighthouse for profit? The problem is that private companies rely on profits, and public goods don’t offer a reliable revenue stream. Because no one can be excluded from benefiting, there is no way to enforce payment. Even if a company wanted to help, it would be economically irrational to do so.

Government as the Solution

To solve such problems, the decision-making must shift from individuals to the collective. This is where government steps in. Government has the unique authority to compel contributions, usually through taxation, and to make collective decisions on behalf of society. If the public agrees that the benefits of a lighthouse outweigh the costs, government can fund and construct it, ensuring everyone benefits.

This logic applies not only to lighthouses but to many other public goods: national defense, clean air, public health, transportation infrastructure, and more. These goods are underprovided or not provided at all by markets, due to the free rider problem.

For example, pollution creates a negative externality, an economic cost imposed on others that isn’t reflected in the price of the polluting product. Polluters benefit privately while society pays the cost. Without government regulations, such as emission limits or pollution taxes, there’s little incentive for individuals or companies to reduce pollution voluntarily.

Public Goods vs. Public Services

It’s important to distinguish between public goods—which are non-excludable and non-rivalrous, like clean air, national defense, or lighthouses—and public services, which can be provided either by the government or private markets. Services like fire protection, public education, healthcare, and libraries are often provided by government not because the market can’t provide them, but because society has decided they should be accessible to everyone, regardless of ability to pay. These decisions are often rooted in values like political equality, social justice, and equal opportunity.

Real-World Examples of Collective Action

Understanding collective action problems helps explain a wide range of political issues and government policies. Consider:

· Climate change: Greenhouse gas emissions contribute to global warming, but the effects are distributed globally and over time. Since polluters rarely bear the full cost, emissions continue unless governments intervene with carbon pricing, regulations, or international agreements.

· Public health: Vaccination programs protect not only the vaccinated but also the community at large through herd immunity. However, if too many people choose to “free ride” by skipping vaccines, disease outbreaks can return. Government mandates or incentives help maintain high vaccination rates for the collective good.

· Transportation infrastructure: Everyone benefits from well-maintained public roads, but no one can be excluded from driving on them based on their tax contributions. Governments use taxes to fund road construction and maintenance for the common benefit.

The Political Dimension While most Americans accept that government should provide certain public goods and services, there is ongoing political debate about which public services should be offered, how much should be spent, who should pay, and whether these services should be managed by local, state, or federal government These debates often reflect ideological differences about the proper role of government in society. Some advocate for limited government and more market solutions, while others emphasize collective responsibility and public investment.

Ultimately, these disagreements, and the political processes used to resolve them, are what make American government so dynamic and important to study. At its core, political decision-making is about how we manage shared problems and balance individual freedom with collective responsibility. Understanding the logic of collective action helps us better appreciate the essential functions of government and the constant negotiation of competing values in a democracy.

Corporate Capitalism and the Concentration of Power

At the time of the nation’s founding, most businesses were small, local, and relatively limited in scope. Government’s role in the economy was therefore modest. But as the American economy industrialized and expanded, businesses grew larger and more complex. Today, the U.S. economy is dominated by large corporations. While corporations make up less than 20 percent of all U.S. businesses, they account for over 90 percent of total business output. This concentration of economic power is especially evident in sectors like finance, energy, telecommunications, and technology.

These corporations are not just economic actors, they are also political players. U.S. law grants corporations many of the same rights as individuals, including the right to spend money on political campaigns. This gives them substantial influence over public policy, often outmatching the influence of individual citizens or smaller businesses. For example, in recent years, the combined annual revenue of just two U.S. corporations—Walmart and Amazon—has exceeded $1 trillion. By contrast, the total annual sales of all 2 million U.S. farms is around $550 billion. This comparison illustrates the immense scale of corporate power relative to the traditional small-business backbone of the American economy. The rise of large corporations has also made it more difficult for small businesses to start, survive, and compete, further reinforcing the dominance of already powerful firms.

As corporate capitalism has matured, concentrated corporate wealth has also given rise to a class of billionaires whose personal fortunes rival the economies of entire states. These individuals, often at the helm of technology, finance, and energy firms, have become increasingly active in U.S. politics. By funding think tanks, political action committees, and even their own media outlets, they shape debates and policy agendas in ways that advance their interests. This often skews public policy toward the priorities of the wealthy, rather than the needs of the broader population. In this sense, billionaires represent not just an outgrowth of corporate capitalism but also a powerful political force, channeling concentrated wealth directly into the democratic process and often at the expense of the masses.

Billionaires as Political Actors

This alignment between corporate and national interests was famously captured in 1955 by General Motors CEO Charles E. Wilson, who told the U.S. Senate, “What’s good for General Motors is good for the United States.” While his remark was controversial even then, it reflected a broader belief that large corporations and wealthy elites could, and should, shape national prosperity and public policy to serve their interests. The growing political engagement of billionaires, through campaign contributions, lobbying, and direct advocacy to steer public opinion and political outcomes, represents a modern extension of this trend, giving them disproportionate influence over legislation, regulation, and the broader political economy. Together, these patterns show how concentrated corporate and billionaire power can tilt policy toward elite interests, making it all the more vital for citizens to actively hold power accountable.

The Changing Structure of the U.S. Economy

The U.S. economy is increasingly characterized as postindustrial, meaning it relies less on traditional manufacturing and more on innovation-driven, knowledge-based service sectors such as finance, technology, communications, and healthcare. This shift began in earnest in the late 20th century, as blue-collar jobs moved overseas in search of lower labor costs and looser regulations. While globalization and technological advancement have lowered consumer costs, they have also contributed to the loss of middle-class jobs, especially for workers without a college degree.

In a postindustrial economy, opportunities are concentrated in high-skill, high-wage professions requiring advanced education. College degrees are now considered essential for upward mobility, with graduate and professional degrees becoming the new standard. Those without such credentials are relegated to low-wage service jobs, fueling a two-tier economy and widening the gap between professional and service workers.

Beyond manufacturing, the outsourcing of white-collar jobs—particularly in technology and technical services—has accelerated. Work once considered immune to globalization, such as software programming, data processing, and customer support, is now performed in countries like India, China, and the Philippines. Meanwhile, artificial intelligence is automating tasks once reserved for highly skilled professionals, including legal research, financial analysis, medical diagnostics, and coding. This dual force of globalization and automation is pressuring wages and job security, even among the highly educated.

Over time, the distribution of income has shifted. In 1970, middle-income households held 62% of national income; by 2022, that share had fallen to 43%. Meanwhile, upper-income households rose from 29% to 48%, and lower-income households slipped from 10% to 8%.

This growing income inequality raises concerns about democratic participation. As wealth concentration increases, middle- and lower-income groups risk feeling disconnected from the political process, threatening the health of democracy.

Ultimately, this trend underscores a central theme in American political economy: economic growth has not been evenly distributed. As wealth becomes more concentrated, so too does political influence—raising critical questions about economic justice, political equality, and the role of government in ensuring fair opportunity for all citizens.

While the middle class has declined, both the lower and upper classes have grown, resulting in widening economic inequality. This inequality poses challenges for American democracy. As socioeconomic classes diverge, members develop distinct experiences, interests, and policy views, making common ground harder to find.

This inequality also fuels economic instability. Individuals may have greater opportunities for wealth, but also face higher risks of poverty. For example, a shift manager lacks the economic security or civic investment of a small business owner—weakening a sense of shared stake in public institutions.

The erosion of the middle class is especially troubling politically. Historically, it has been the foundation of American pluralism—sustaining broad participation and a moderating influence essential to democracy. A vibrant middle class has traditionally upheld the civic institutions that support democratic governance.

“As I’ve often said… this [increasing income inequality] is not the type of thing which a democratic society – a capitalist democratic society – can really accept without addressing.” – Alan Greenspan, June 2005

Carrying Democracy Forward

These challenges to civil society raise important questions not just about the state of our democracy today, but about who will carry it forward tomorrow. As the structures and habits that once held communities together weaken, the responsibility of revitalizing civic life falls increasingly on the next generation of Americans. Fortunately, there are signs that many young people are stepping up to this task in new and innovative ways.

Figure \(\PageIndex{1}\): Younger Americans are shaping a distinct and increasingly influential political culture. (Image Credit: fabola CC BY-SA 2.0)

Growing up amid rapid technological change, globalization, and social and political upheaval, younger Americans are shaping a distinct and increasingly influential political culture. Many of them exhibit a heightened awareness of social, economic, and environmental issues, placing a strong emphasis on inclusivity, diversity, and sustainability in their political values. Their fluency in digital communication equips them with powerful tools for activism and organizing, opening new avenues for civic participation outside traditional institutions.

These generations also tend to be more socially progressive, with many advocating for causes such as LGBTQ+ rights, climate action, and gun reform. At the same time, skepticism toward established institutions has led many younger citizens to seek alternative sources of news and community, fostering a more critical and independent approach to political engagement.

As younger Americans reach voting age and begin to shape public discourse and electoral outcomes, their perspectives are expected to influence the trajectory of U.S. politics for years to come. Politicians and parties alike will need to adapt to address their values, priorities, and expectations.

Whatever the causes of these generational shifts, the hope is that younger Americans will take up the challenge of reinvigorating our democracy. The need is urgent. Levels of trust between citizens and government are at historic lows, while polarization between the political right and left is at historic highs. It is hoped that the material in the chapters that follow will provide you with the tools and understanding needed to meet your democratic responsibilities, and seize the opportunities that come with them.

Glossary

Civil Society: A society in which individuals are active in the community and take the larger community into account when making political decisions.

Classical Liberalism: Individuals are equally rational and reasonable and thus deserve liberties and rights

Collective Action Problem: The problem of acting in concert with one another even though there is a direct cost to the individual

Collective Good: Something that can be enjoyed by all; no one’s use of the collective good limits others’ use of that good. Subsequently, there is no way of limiting access and providing a profit to a private company.

Consumerism: The tendency of people to purchase material goods, not primarily out of practical necessity but because the goods enhance their social-status or fulfill some sense of self-identification

Consumerism: The tendency to emphasize material acquisition as a measure of self-fulfillment

Corporate Capitalism: Capitalism characterized by concentrations of economic power in large corporations

Cynical: Skeptical of the motives and sincerity of politicians.

Demagogues: Political actors who prey on popular prejudices and simplistic claims and promises in order to gain power

Direct Democracy: When citizens make policy directly, without representatives

Elite model of democracy: a small and identifiable group of people possess all real power in society

Factionalism: The danger of a dominant group exercising power at the expense of the minority

Free Riders: Those who get the benefit of collective action without having to pay any of the cost

Irony of Democracy: Under popular rule, a majority may democratically pass a law which undermines the democratic rights of a minority

Limited Government: Rulers are limited in the scope and duration of their power

Majoritarian or Popular model of democracy: Political power rests with the masses and they prevail not only in the counting of votes but also in the determination of public policy

Majority Rule: Decisions about choice of representatives or policy are made by a majority of the electorate

Negative Externality: An economic consequence that is not taken into account by the market price of the product in question

Negative Freedom: Freedom from government intervention

Pluralism: Public policy is determined through negotiation between the groups with government playing the role of moderator

Political culture: The political attitudes and beliefs widely shared by a people or a nation

Political Economy: The ways in which government influences the economy and the degree to which economic actors and markets influence government policy

Politics: The competition to influence public policy or “who gets what, when, and how”

Popular Control: The government does what the people want in the long run

Positive Freedom: Government policies designed to enable all to compete equally

Positive Freedoms: Providing the resources that allow one the freedom to compete equally in the political and economic realms

Postindustrial Economy: An economy characterized by highly innovative, knowledge intensive service industries such as communications, finance, and high-technology rather than by traditional manufacturing industries

Public Policy: Government outputs such as laws, rules and regulations

Puritanical: Particularly concerned with the private morality of political leaders

Representative Democracy: Voters elect representatives who carry out the responsibilities of governing on behalf of the electorate

Retribution: Emphasis on punishment rather than rehabilitation for those who break the norms of society

Social Capital/Civic Engagement: Membership in social groups or organized social interaction between the individual and government levels of society

Social Mobility: The belief that people have equal ability to go “from rags to riches” and move up the class ladder

Two-Tier Economy: An economy characterized by opportunities at the high end for highly educated professional and at the bottom end for low-skill labor but few opportunities in the middle.

Select Internet Sites

http://www.cato.org/. A prominent libertarian think tank examining issues from a Classical Liberal perspective.

http://www.thelockeinstitute.org/. The Locke Institute examines issues relating to Class Liberalism.

http://www.belmont.edu/lockesmith/. The Lockesmith Institute at Belmont University is a site for scholarship on the topic of Classical Liberalism.

https://www.census.gov/. The U.S. Census website gives data on America’s people and economy.

https://www.pewresearch.org/. Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world.

http://www.bowlingalone.com/. The Bowling Alone website which examines issues of declining social capital and civil society.

http://www.pbs.org/kcts/affluenza/diag/diag.html. The Affluenza website examines issues relating to consumerism.

http://www.bowlingforcolumbine.com/l...fear/index.php. This site examines Americans culture of fear and why we fear the wrong things.

http://www.tompaine.com/. TomPaine.com is an online public affairs journal of progressive analysis and commentary.

http://www.publicwork.org/. The Center for Democracy and Citizenship examines issues relating to expanding democracy from an activist citizen perspective

...http://www.iscv.org/. The Institute for the Study of Civic Values seeks to foster a renewed commitment to America’shistoric civic ideals.

http://www.epi.org/. The Economic Policy Institute examines economic issues from the perspective of workers.

References

Almond, Gabriel and Sidney Verba. The Civic Culture. Boston: Little, Brown, 1965.

Barlett, Donald L. and James B. Steele “Big Money & Politics: How the Little Guy Gets Crunched” Time Magazine Vol. 155 No. 5. February 7. 2000.

Beard, Charles A. An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1952. Reprinted by The Lawbook Exchange, Ltd, 2001.

Census Bureau. www.census.gov

Chomsky, Noam. Rogue States: The rule of force in world affairs, Pluto books, 2000

Cox, W. Michael and Richard Alm. Myths of Rich and Poor. Basic Books, 2000.

Dahl, Robert A. Who Governs? New Haven: Yale University Press, 1961

Edward N. Wolff, Top Heavy: A Study of the Increasing Inequality of Wealth in the United States. New York: Twentieth Century Fund, 1995.

Ehrenreich, Barbara. Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America. Owl Books, 2002.

Fabrini, Sergio. “Introduction” to Robert Dahl’s Liberty and Virtue. Berkeley, Institute of Government Studies Press, 2001.

Foucault, Michel. Power/Knowledge. Pantheon Books, 1980.

Galbraith, John Kenneth. American Capitalism: The Concept of Countervailing Power. Boston, Houghton Mifflin, 1951.

Glassner, Barry. The Culture of Fear: Why Americans Are Afraid of the Wrong Things. New York: Basic Books, 1999.

Gouldner, Alvin. The Coming Crisis of Western Society. New York: Basic Books, 1970, p. 29

Hobbes, Thomas. The Leviathan.

Kinsolver, Barbara. Small Wonder: Essays “The One-Eyed Monster, and Why I Don’t Let Him In. p. 135. Harper Collins, 2002.

Lasswell, Harold D. Politics: Who Gets What, When, How. New York: McGraw Hill, 1938.

Locke, John. The Two Treatises of Government. Ed. Thomas I. Cook. New York: Hafner, 1947.

Lublin, Joann S. “CEO Pay Surges” in The Week Vol. 3. Issue 127. 10/17/03, p. 42.

Malinowski, Bronsilaw. The Trobrianders of Papua New Guinea (Case Studies in Cultural Anthropology). International Thomson Publishing, 1988.

McConnell and Brue. Economics 15th ed. McGraw-Hill, 2001.

Mills, C. Wright. The Power Elite. Oxford University Press, 2000.

Miroff, Seidelman, and Swanstrom. The Democratic Debate: An Introduction to American Politics. 3rd edition. Houghton Mifflin, 2002.

Parenti, Michael. Democracy for the Few. 7th Edition. Thomson Wadsworth, 2002, p. 32

“Punishment and Prejudice: Racial Disparities in the War on Drugs” Human Rights Watch. Vol. 2. May 2000.

Putnam, Robert D. Bowling Alone: the Collapse and Revival of American Community. Simon and Schuster, 2000.

Putnam, Robert. “Bowling Alone: America’s Declining Social Capital” Journal of Democracy, Vol. 6, No. 1. January 1995.

Rousseau, Jean Jacques. On the Social Contract With Geneva Manuscript and Political Economy. Bedford/St. Martins, 1978.

Smith, Adam. An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, Vol. I. London: Cadell and W. Davies, 1805; John Stuart Mill. On Liberty. 1859, reprinted Viking Press, 1982.

Smith, Adam. An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, vol. I. London: Cadell and W. Davies, 1805.

“Study: Public College Tuition Soars” American City Business Journals Inc. 02/11/2003 and Briggs, Tracey Wong. Economic slide leads to colleges to increase tuition” USA Today. 07/18/2001.

“Tech Jobs Leave for India, Russia” CNN.com. July 14, 2003.

Vieth, Warren. “As Factory Job Losses Rise, So Do Risks to Bush” Los Angeles Times. 10/25/03, p. A1.

Winter, Greg. “Decent education figured in dollars” New York Times. 10/02/2002.

Wolff, Edward and Jared Bernstein. “Inequality and Corporate Power”. Multinational Monitor. May, 2003.