понедельник, 17 марта 2014 г.

Political Participation and Interest Groups. Simulation Task


Environmental Group Activism Simulation

You are the head of a large, national environmental group with a long history of activism in favor of environmental causes. Now, you are eager to prove that your group can be influential and capable of producing policy. Your membership is spread across the country. Currently, there is a Republican in the White House, and the Democrats have a slim majority in both the House and Senate. The next presidential election is two years away. Your organization is in favor of environmental policy that would impose tighter pollution restrictions against polluting the nation’s rivers, lakes, and oceans. There is a general agreement for this policy within Congress, yet the president has announced his opposition to the policy. You must develop a strategy for your group in hopes of getting something passed into law. Do you choose to:

1.      Advocate a sweeping environmental bill that would impose stiff penalties on polluters and that finds support among most of your group's members.

2.      Push for a more modest bill that allows for some pollution to continue while further cleaning up the nation’s water. This bill might be attractive to the president

5 комментариев:

  1. I would choose to advocate a sweeping environmental bill that would impose stiff penalties on polluters and that finds support among most of your group's members.The reason for that is that i have a right to do so. Limiting interest groups also means limiting the right of the people to petition their government—a fundamental freedom guaranteed under the Constitution. So, I dont have to please the president's opinion

    ОтветитьУдалить
  2. I would choose the first option - to advocate a sweeping environmental bill that would impose stiff penalties on polluters and that finds support among most of my group's members.I have the interest group, which has the freedom of committing to this kind of actions, it has the right to fight for their position, regardless of the views of the president. We don't need the compromise and half-measures, because we can lobby for our environmental policy to the full extent. We can increase the number of supporters of our policy among the public, officials and politicians, consolidate our position in Congress through lobbying. It is likely that we will be able to circumvent the negative decision of the president on this issue. In the book "The Challenge of Democracy" we have the lines, which is appropriate to this situation: "limiting interest groups means limiting the right of the people to petition their government - a fundamental freedom guaranteed under the Constitution". So my interest group can't be limited in its rights to promote its environmental policy, despite opposition from the authority.

    ОтветитьУдалить
  3. I would choose to advocate a sweeping environmental bill that would impose stiff penalties on polluters and that finds support among most of my group's members. as now the American president does not have a support in the both House and Senate, so it will be difficult to promote my bill through the President. Having a popular support in the society, my lobbying group will hold agitation campaign against the policy, leading to the collapse of the system of protected natural areas, and against the opposition in the government, which refuses to increase control over the environment protectection. Our strategy is to attract the wide range of scientists, international organizations of the environment protection, to gain support of the mass media, to wage mass demonstrations, and to make a report about the condition and using of water resources and the consequences of further pollution of rivers and lakes. Having a variety of methods of the lobbying strategy, we are confident that we will be able to achieve positive results in terms of our 'green bill'.

    ОтветитьУдалить
  4. As my fellow colleagues did, I also choose the first option - advocate a sweeping environmental bill that would impose stiff penalties on polluters and that finds support among most of your group's members.
    I don't need president's agreement to protect the environment, not that many people actually do that. Advocating the bill will not only help me to achieve acknowledgment, but also attract new concerned members. Half-measures will make an interest group's reputation doubtful. If you are fighting for something you should continue the struggle until the end, there is no point to do the other way. Lobbying was always a good idea, especially when you are not pursuing your own interests, but the interests of the country and citizens. Being a pretty big interest group, I'd also try to encourage all the members of our community not to give up on the idea which became emergency long time ago

    ОтветитьУдалить
  5. I would prefer to advocate a sweeping environmental bill that would impose stiff penalties on polluters and that finds support among most of my group's members. My group and I have the right to commit this kind of actions and to fight for our point of view, regardless the President´s position. Moreover, as we can see, the President has not got the majority in the both House and Senate; so, in spite of the political opposition in the government it´s enough difficult to promote our environment policy . The main purpose in our policy is to lobby to the government to change the environment policy. To achieve our goal is necessary to arrange agitation campaign and mass demonstrations, to draw attention of scientists, different national and international non-governmental organizations who will help to protect the environment. So, if we unify together and are active, our bill will be passed.

    ОтветитьУдалить