Frymer's Theory of American Politics: Electoral Capture - Essay Example

Electoral Capture Introduction Electoral capture as used by Frymer describes the status of black Americans during the national electoral process. It refers to the mechanisms used by opposition party leaders to win the black leaders and voters even though these leaders fail to make the most obvious political appeals to the blacks. According to Frymer’s electoral capture theory, competition between the two party systems in the U.S requires that at least one of them should engage the least represented minorities by the opponent party. As a result, they mobilize such minorities to participate in electoral politics as well as getting awareness on important policy issues. The leaders educate and appeal with citizens to support the interests of these marginalized groups and put their interests on political schedule and consider them in governmental agenda (Frymer 19).  On the other hand, Larry Bartels’s empirical evidence shows that for the first time after fifty years, voters are exercising their democratic rights in connection with their partisan preference particularly in diverse countless electorate sub-groups. Similar enlargements are realized at the congressional level although not so vital and steady. Even though the two perspectives contrast, it is generally observed that political parties in the U.S seem to draw political representatives from higher social classes. In choosing representatives in a fair and democratic election, research shows that legislative assemblies are always under-represented, particularly for women and minority social classes. Frymer’s theory of American Politics Versus Bartels’s empirical findings Frymer states that the ideas of electoral capture is a phenomenon where a topical and relevant group of citizens confidently votes for a certain leader and supports one of the key political parties, and thus realize the majority opposition party noticing little or no attempts to recruit or get any support from the group. This practice occurs for a long time because of ideological and historical reasons (Frymer 24). With time, the group will support a specific party. Electoral capture is especially applied in instances when a certain group has no other option apart from remaining with the political party it is associated with, since the opposing party has no or little interest in winning the group's support. In this sense therefore, the party with the majority that has been backed takes it for granted that the group voted for it. Thus, the "captured" voters are politically trapped and their issues are done away with, on both sides of the coin. Baatels's arguments become consistent with Frymer's theory at some point. Bartels found that, the poor do better in times when Democrats are in power though neither of the parties represents them as expected. It is logical to argue that, Frymer's findings have changed since in the election of Obama. During Bill Clinton's times, the Blacks felt neglected on several spectrums by the Democrats. However, with Obama's election, there has been a tremendous change in diversity in America. The Latino population has risen for more than 50%, as well as a noticeable expansion in the Pacific/Asian population, which are some of the minority groups. This means that ultimately, the candidates will appeal to such marginalized groups of voters. Eventually, legislators' representation to citizens, there is a big number of the rich, white men in power, but critically thinking, this does not show their constituents' dynamism in wealth, race, or class, and when such an idea is brought into light, the inadequacy of diverse representation is blown off as political correctness ramblings. To suggest that the unequal consideration is true and taking effect and that misrepresentation is evident between the legislatures and the citizens being represented is indeed correct. Maligning such a reality is diminutive, and does not address the issue that maybe legislators fail to understand their constituents, and simply take their votes for granted, a state that Frymer calls electoral capture (Frymer 36-8). The arguments of the two scholars go hand in hand when referring to political parties and inequalities, though they address different factors of inequality. For Frymer, inequality brought about by political party leaders affects citizens in accordance to their races, while Bartels addresses inequality in resource distribution by these leaders. Frymer puts across that not all groups are equally treated, since politicians spend most of their resources and time on white voters at the expense of the Black American communities. As both political parties attempt to attract white by drawing a gap between them and the blacks, African American voters are always ignored and left with no other alternative, thus leading as an example of the electoral captives. Usually overlooked in today's discussions of racial politics, U.S political party systems are a major representation of genuine institutional racism (Frymer 61-4). To Frymer, this is intentional; since the party systems were set up in such a way that they can keep black Americans issues off their political agendas. A good example is during Clinton's time, when he distanced himself from blacks so that he could capture conservative votes and emerge the winning contestant. There was a significant change however, during Obama's campaigns. In contrast, Larry Bartels depicts inequality between the poor and the rich, with the gap having widened greatly during the Republican administration, and narrowed slightly in Democrats rule. He differs with Frymer's argument when he states that the inequality is not merely as an outcome of economic forces, rather because of broad-reaching policy choices in a party system full of partisan ideologies and first priority given to the wealthy. Bartels goes ahead to illustrate that elected party officials respond quickly to the interests of the wealthy constituents while ignoring the views of poor citizens. According to Frymer (70), Republican presidents have consistently realized much less income growth for working-poor and middle-class families as compared to affluent families, greatly widening inequality. In Bartels, empirical findings, he gives revealing case studies of major policy shifts that contributes to inequality, such as the huge Bush tax cuts realized in 2001 and 2003 as well as the erosion of the lowest wage. He challenges conventional arguments for why most voters tend to vote against the economic interests of their own. He states that the Republicans have not lured the working-class voters by "values issues" such as gay marriage and abortion, as it is commonly perceived, yet the Republican leaders have been noticeably successful in timing income increase to consider the interests of "short-sighted" voters. Conclusion Frymer's theory of American politics greatly serves to explain Bartels's empirical results about the poor. He brings about important points by contenting that parties in the U.S have compelling reasons not to equally incorporate and cater for the minorities into the political system, as doing so would interfere with the existing coalition formation. The success of broad-based political parties is founded on the marginalization of black interests and the poor. This is a circumstance, which leads to electoral capture. In this case, the blacks and the poor have no choice but to remain in a certain party. Such leaders are aware of the suspense they cause, but they engage in individual political calculus, that is; electoral incentives to lure and maintain political power that lead them to undermine the interests of blacks and the poor. This is for the reason that articulating these interests might alienate the median white voter. Political leaders therefore maximize votes and resources while minimizing the articulation of the interests of the marginalized groups. Work Cited Frymer, Paul. Uneasy Alliances: Race and Party Competition in America. Prince Town: Prince Town University Press, 1999. Print.       Read More