What is hyperpluralsim and why is it bad for democracy?
Answers
Answer:
Hyperpluralism in Politics and Society
An American ritual repeats itself this year: the election of a president. As few voters actually meet the candidates in person, the information they get generally comes through two filters: the media and campaign rhetoric and advertising. Confidence in both these sources continues to erode, creating increasing frustration and apathy among the electorate. How can thoughtful people make informed decisions and cast their ballots with integrity?
Part of Westmont’s mission is preparing Christians to grapple with the challenges facing society, seek the truth, and reach carefully considered conclusions. In this article, three professors share their thinking about politics and two issues in the current campaign: illegal immigration and affirmative action. While they focus on teaching and working with students, all three have published significant scholarly research. They also speak from their own experiences as active participants in the subjects they study.
Every election season—and particularly during a presidential campaign— Dave Lawerence’s phone rings more than usual. Churches and civic organizations ask him to present voter seminars. Journalists seek his perspective on issues and candidates. Students want to know how to volunteer for local campaigns. As a political science professor at Westmont, Dave follows presidential politics more closely than most. With his students in “Presidential Election Politics,” a course offered only once every four years, he explores the process of choosing a chief executive.
“Americans vote with their heads, their hearts, and their pocketbooks,” Dave observes. “This year, their heads and their pocketbooks tell them the economy is on an upswing. That makes an incumbent like Clinton very difficult to defeat. It’s just a political fact of life. And it helps to explain why voters are willing to ignore their hearts and overlook criticism of Clinton’s character—especially his reputation as a womanizer.” Bob Dole’s nomination as the Republican candidate didn’t surprise Dave. “The GOP likes to reward service, experience, and seasoned leadership,” he explains. “No one else in the primary race could match Dole’s qualifications.”
Any discussion of the presidential election must address growing voter dissatisfaction. On this subject, Dave speaks from personal experience. After serving on the Carpinteria City Council for 13 years (and as mayor pro tem for six), the voters “fired” him and his fellow council members by electing an entirely new slate of officials in 1990.
His “retirement” from public office prompted Dave to reflect on the current state of politics in California and the country. He shares his conclusions in “California: The Politics of Diversity,” a textbook that “covers the basics of California politics in the context of two broad themes: diversity and ‘hyperpluralism.’” He is also working on a volume that examines national politics similarly.
In the preface, Dave defines hyperpluralism as “a proliferation of groups and pressures which affect politics and policy in the Golden State. This emerging theory contends that so many groups now compete and the political system is so complex, governing of any sort is most difficult.” As he applies this theme to the mechanics of government, Dave also explores its impact on policies such as social programs, education, and illegal immigration.
While immigration is a federal issue, Dave notes that a few states, such as California, suffer the most from illegal immigration. “California’s anti-immigration efforts suggest a hyperpluralistic political culture at war with itself,” Dave writes. Older, white residents claim that illegals create a drain on the state’s economy by using social services. The newcomers counter that they take jobs no one else wants and contribute more in taxes than they cost the state. “Which view is right?” he asks. “Scholarly research is mixed and inconclusive; research findings touted by opposing groups tend to verify their own policy preferences.”