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?
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In