Maxims

Kim 2 “Bishin’s Theory explaining Bartel’s findings” Many citizens wonder how the political system in this democratic nation we call America, actually works. One theory, in Bishin’s Tyranny of the Minority, states that politicians are only responsive to an intense few (Bishin 2009). Where as, Bartel’s key empirical findings in Unequal democracy, explains that republicans are not responsive to the poor (Bartel 2008). My argument is that Bishin’s theory of representation explains Bartel’s empirical findings because Bartel‘s key empirical findings are that republicans are not responsive to the poor which explains Bishin‘s theory that politicans are only concerned with intense groups which are passionate about certain issues, for example the rich and the decrease in their taxes. In Baretel’s Unequal Democracy, Bartel uses various findings and surveys to find the truth about the various issues in both economics and politics within the different classes in America. The subject of Bartel’s Unequal Democracy is that politicians are only responsive to the wealthy because of the fact that the tax cuts are favored for the rich (Bartel 2008). For example, under the Bush Tax cuts, the rich were given generous tax cuts while the poor were getting little to none, which led to Bartel’s key empirical findings. Bartel’s key empirical findings state that republicans are in fact not responsive to the poor (Bartel 2008). Bartel extensively uses the minimum wage amount, the estate tax, and the Bush tax cuts as means to explain his theory of representation (Bartel 2008). For example, he uses minimum wage as a representation for the poor in the government and Kim 3 the minimum wage in the United States takes years if not decades to change. Which shows the lack of interest that politicians in the government show for the lower class citizen. Lastly, Bartel’s goal of writing such findings is to simply tell the reader that politics does in fact matter (Bartel 2008). Through the gap between the rich and the poor, knowledge about certain issues regarding wealth is indeed needed in order to make a better educated decision. In Bishin’s Tyranny of the Minority, Bishin utilizes past issues along with social psychology to create his theory of representation. Bishin’s theory of representation theorizes that politicians are only responsive to an intense group which are passionate about certain issues (Bishin 2009). For example, Bishin uses the Cuban embargo and the Armenian genocide as evidence that during these times a selected few citizens pressed these issues on politicians (Bishin 2009). This in turn, created their decision to vote based on an over seas issue rather then one dealing with America‘s economic or political policies . Although there is no clear evidence with Bishin’s theory of representation, it is clear that in the past, the politcians who represented the United States of America, have in fact advocated for the sub constituencies or the minority (Bishin 2009). Lastly, Bishin’s Tyranny of the Minority explains how the will power and the motivation of some citizens to change or partake of an issue creates knowledge about certain politics, making those citizens more engaged in a Politician’s platforms (Bishin 2009). By feeling strongly for a certain issue, it is well warranted that a citizen is expected to educate themselves about Kim 4 that certain issue and create a position, and support it. My analysis of the works of Bartel’s Unequal Democracy and Bishin’s Tyranny of the Minority is that they are both in fact correct. Bishin’s theory of representation serves to explain Bartel’s key empirical findings because of the fact that politicians do in fact listen to the small aggressive group stated by Bishin’s theory of representation but that the small aggressive group can be the wealthy stated by Bartel’s key empirical findings. Although Bartel’s key empirical findings does in fact explain Bishin’s theory of representation, the results are not consistent. The results are not consistent because of the fact that Bartel’s key empirical findings relates to the difference of represenation between the poor and the rich where as Bishin’s theory of representation can not only define the rich or even the poor, but the many different minority groups in the United States Of America. Another finding that deals with Bartel’s key empirical findings is Frymer’s “captured voters”. Frymer’s theory states that African American voters are “captured voters”, mostly for the Democratic party (Frymer 2010). With Frymer’s theory about African American voters and Bartel’s key empirical findings about the lack of representation for the poor, Frymer finds another way to explain Bartel’s key empirical findings, other then Bishin’s. Although Frymer’s explanation about the “captured” African American voters is related to Bartel’s key empirical findings, Bishin’s theory of representation explains Bartel’s key empirical findings better because of the fact that it covers a wider subject known as poor voters. Kim 5 Bishin’s theory of representation is that the intense minority groups are better represented then the majority. Bartel’s key empirical findings are that the rich are in fact better represented in the government, then the poor. Through Bartel’s key empirical findings, Bishin’s theory of representation is explained in a more broader way. Although Frymer’s theory is true for Bartel’s key empirical findings, Bishin’s theory of representation better states the relationship between the different classes of voters. Bishin’s theory of representation is shown through Bartel’s empirical findings that the wealthy are in fact represented more in politics then the poor.