Competition In Government Essay Example For Students

Competition In Government Essay On Tuesday, November 14, 1995, in what has been perceived as the years biggestnon-event, the federal government shut down all non-essentialservices due to what was, for all intents and purposes, a game of nationalchicken between the House Speaker and the President. And, at anestimated cost of 200 million dollars a day, this dubious battle of dueling egosdid not come cheap (Bradsher, 1995, p.16). Why do politicians find it almostcongenitally impossible to cooperate? What is it about politics and power thatseem to always put them at odds with good government? Indeed, is an effective,well run government even possible given the current adversarial relationshipbetween our two main political parties? It would seem that the exercise of powerfor its own sake, and a competitive situation in which one side must alwaysoppose the other on any issue, is incompatible with the cooperation andcompromise necessary for the government to function. As the United Statesbecomes more extreme in its beliefs in general, group polarization andcompetition, which requires a mutual exclusivity of goal attainment, will leadto more showdown situations in which the goal of good governmentgives way to political posturing and power-mongering. In this paper I willanalyze recent political behavior in terms of two factors: Group behavior withan emphasis on polarization, and competition. However, one should keep in mindthat these two factors are interrelated. Group polarization tends to exacerbateinter-group competition by driving any two groups who initially disagree fartherapart in their respective views. In turn, a competitive situation in which oneside must lose in order for the other to win (and political situations arenearly always competitive), will codify the differences between groups leadingto further extremism by those seeking power within the group and thus, tofurther group polarization. In the above example, the two main combatants, BillClinton and Newt Gingrich, were virtually force d to take uncompromising,disparate views because of the very nature of authority within their respectivepolitical groups. Group polarization refers to the tendency of groups togravitate to the extreme of whatever opinion the group shares (Baron Graziano, 1991, p.498-499). Therefore, if the extreme is seen as a desirablecharacteristic, individuals who exhibit extreme beliefs will gain authoritythrough referent power. In other words, they will have characteristics thatother group members admire and seek to emulate (p. 434). Unfortunately, thiscircle of polarization and authority can lead to a bizarre form of oneupsmanship in which each group member seeks to gain power and approval bybeing more extreme than the others. The end result is extremism in the pursuitof authority without any regard to the practicality orreasonableness of the beliefs in question. Since the direction ofpolarization is currently in opposite directions in our two party system, it isalmost impossible to find a com mon ground between them. In addition, thecompetitive nature of the two party system many times eliminates even thepossibility of compromise since failure usually leads to a devastating loss ofpower. If both victory and extremism are necessary to retain power within thegroup, and if, as Alfie Kohn (1986) stated in his book No Contest: The CaseAgainst Competition, competition is mutually exclusive goalattainment (one side must lose in order for the other to win), thencompromise and cooperation are impossible (p. 136). This is especially so if theopponents are dedicated to retaining power at all costs. That poweris an end in itself is made clear by the recent shutdown of the government. Itserved no logical purpose. Beyond costing a lot of money, it had no discernibleeffect except as a power struggle between two political heavyweights. Accordingto David Kipnis (1976, cited in Baron Graziano, 1991), one of the negativeeffects of power is, in fact, the tendency to regard it as its own en d, and toignore the possibility of disastrous results from the reckless use of power (p. 433). Therefore, it would seem that (at least in this case) government policy iscreated and implemented, not with regard to its effectiveness as governmentpolicy, but only with regard to its value as a tool for accumulating andmaintaining power. Another of Kipniss negative effects of power is the tendencyto use it for selfish purposes (p.433). In politics this can be seen as thepredilection towards making statements for short term political gain that areeither nonsensical or contradictory to past positions held by the candidatesthemselves. While this may not be the use of actual power, it is an attempt togain political office (and therefore power) without regard for the real worth orimplications of a policy for good government. A prime example ofthis behavior can be seen in the widely divergent political stances taken byGovernor Pete Wilson of California. At this point I should qualify my ownpolitical position. While I do tend to lean towards the Democratic side of thepolitical spect rum (this is undoubtedly what brought Pete Wilson to my attentionin the first place), I examine Governor Wilson because he is such a primeexample of both polarization and pandering in the competitive pursuit of power. The Diary of Anne Frank - Book Report EssayBibliographyBaron, B.M., Graziano, W.G. (1991). Social Psychology. Fort Worth, TX. Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Bradsher, K. (1995, November 18). Country may belosing money with government closed. The New YorkTimes, pp.16 Kohn, A. (1986). No Contest: The Case Against Competition. Boston,Houghton Mifflin. No Author. (1995, March 24). What Wilson has said about entering race. San JoseMercury News Online. Address:http://www.sjmercury.com/wilson/wil324s.htm Thurm,S. (1995, August 29). Wilsons announcement moreof an ad:California governor kicks off drivefor GOP presidential nomination. San JoseMercury News Online. Address: http://www.sjmercury.com/wilson/wil829.htm Turgue,B., ; Thomas, E. (1995, November 27). Missing the moment. Newsweek,pp.26-29.