Monday, December 27, 2004
Action and Reaction in Politics
There is an axiom in politics that says that every interest group has at least one opposing interest group. Many politicians like to speak of these interest groups as “special interests.” A politician eager to augment his base of enthusiastic voters will speak of “opposing the special interests,” much as our present California governor does in opposing the legally required staffing ratios for nurses to patients in hospitals. You can be sure that whenever a politician speaks of opposing the special interests, he is supporting the opposing interest groups.
In the present case in California, the interest group of nurses is demanding an improvement in working conditions. This group wants the staffing requirements for hospitals to follow the law enacted a few years ago in the State. The hospital operators, and the Governor want to set aside these requirements. In effect, they want nurses to care for more patients than the law requires. If the operators have to obey the law, they will have to hire more nurses. The result will be more cost in running the hospitals and less profit for the operators. The result will also be better care for the patients, since each nurse will not have as many patients to care for.
Governor Schwarzenegger favors the Hospital Managers and opposes the Nurses. By framing his support as “opposing a special interest” he implies that he is concerned for the welfare of the public. He may also have other motives. The Hospital Managers are business people, like Mr. Schwarzenegger. He understands their problems. As a business man himself, he recognizes the need to maximize profit. The considerable sums of money that the Managers have donated to his political campaigns may also have some effect on eliciting his sympathy for their cause.
Clearly, an interest group may be opposed by several interest groups. As an example, environmentalists are usually found in opposition to loggers. They also at time oppose the interests of real estate developers and home builders. Many politicians choose sides on various contentious issues based on the number and influence of the interest groups on one side. Often when an environmental interest group opposes clear-cut logging of an area, opposing groups include not only the loggers and the lumber industry but also developers and home builders. Even local elected officials eager for the increased tax revenues expected from the new residents that will replace the trees may oppose the environmental group. In such a case, a President or Governor often takes the side of the majority of interest groups.
This method of making policy decisions is messy. No one likes it. However, it is an example of how American democracy operates. Our policy makers, or politicians, must run for office. No matter how well-intentioned a politician may be, he knows that his first objective is to get elected. His second objective is to get himself reelected. He does what he has to do to achieve the goal of simply staying in office. Only after he feels secure in office can he then afford to try to accomplish his original well-intentioned goals. This line of argument confirms to me the foolishness of imposing short term limits on members of legislative bodies.
I must disclose that I am a member of the Sierra Club and contribute to such organizations as the Wilderness Society, the World Wildlife Fund, and other environmental interest groups. Naturally, I would like to see the environmental group prevail in contests such as the one cited. A balance of interest groups can be arranged by seeking allies. Environmentalists opposed to such logging as clear-cutting may find allies in fishermen and other groups concerned about the pollution of water supplies due to the run-off from clear-cut areas next to streams. The fishermen are concerned about the degradation of habitat for spawning fish, particularly salmon. Residents of cities that derive their drinking water from rivers are concerned about the impurities in the water. This process of seeking temporary allies is also messy, and it is also an example of the operation of American democracy.
In the present case in California, the interest group of nurses is demanding an improvement in working conditions. This group wants the staffing requirements for hospitals to follow the law enacted a few years ago in the State. The hospital operators, and the Governor want to set aside these requirements. In effect, they want nurses to care for more patients than the law requires. If the operators have to obey the law, they will have to hire more nurses. The result will be more cost in running the hospitals and less profit for the operators. The result will also be better care for the patients, since each nurse will not have as many patients to care for.
Governor Schwarzenegger favors the Hospital Managers and opposes the Nurses. By framing his support as “opposing a special interest” he implies that he is concerned for the welfare of the public. He may also have other motives. The Hospital Managers are business people, like Mr. Schwarzenegger. He understands their problems. As a business man himself, he recognizes the need to maximize profit. The considerable sums of money that the Managers have donated to his political campaigns may also have some effect on eliciting his sympathy for their cause.
Clearly, an interest group may be opposed by several interest groups. As an example, environmentalists are usually found in opposition to loggers. They also at time oppose the interests of real estate developers and home builders. Many politicians choose sides on various contentious issues based on the number and influence of the interest groups on one side. Often when an environmental interest group opposes clear-cut logging of an area, opposing groups include not only the loggers and the lumber industry but also developers and home builders. Even local elected officials eager for the increased tax revenues expected from the new residents that will replace the trees may oppose the environmental group. In such a case, a President or Governor often takes the side of the majority of interest groups.
This method of making policy decisions is messy. No one likes it. However, it is an example of how American democracy operates. Our policy makers, or politicians, must run for office. No matter how well-intentioned a politician may be, he knows that his first objective is to get elected. His second objective is to get himself reelected. He does what he has to do to achieve the goal of simply staying in office. Only after he feels secure in office can he then afford to try to accomplish his original well-intentioned goals. This line of argument confirms to me the foolishness of imposing short term limits on members of legislative bodies.
I must disclose that I am a member of the Sierra Club and contribute to such organizations as the Wilderness Society, the World Wildlife Fund, and other environmental interest groups. Naturally, I would like to see the environmental group prevail in contests such as the one cited. A balance of interest groups can be arranged by seeking allies. Environmentalists opposed to such logging as clear-cutting may find allies in fishermen and other groups concerned about the pollution of water supplies due to the run-off from clear-cut areas next to streams. The fishermen are concerned about the degradation of habitat for spawning fish, particularly salmon. Residents of cities that derive their drinking water from rivers are concerned about the impurities in the water. This process of seeking temporary allies is also messy, and it is also an example of the operation of American democracy.
