In a speech to the Sierra Club, Al Gore refers to the “special interest attacks” of anti-environmentalists. George W. Bush, of course, has no doubt referred to the Sierra Club itself as a “special interest” lobby. Democrats think that the NRA is a special interest group, and Republicans feel the same about the ACLU. Both parties compartmentalize unions, minorities, gays, the poor, and the religious right as “special interests,” vowing not to let their agendas get sidetracked by the demands of these special interest groups. Can’t we just accept the fact, once and for all, that the term “special interest” is just a rhetorical device used to denigrate any group whose views do not immediately coincide with those of the speaker, of the audience, or of that mythical beast “Middle America?”
What makes the interests of CEOs any less “special” than those of the teachers’ union? Both lobby for policies which benefit themselves over others, to varying degrees of effectiveness. What makes the Christian Coalition a “special” interest in a way that the National Chamber of Commerce is not? Both seek to have their voices heard; both represent significant (yet particularized) portions of America.
One man’s special interest is another man’s self-interest…and vice-versa. Let’s stop being disingenuous here, shall we?
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!! :: wiping eyes :: Yeah, that’s going to happen. Politics without disingenuity is like a day in L.A. without smog – that is, ever to be hoped for, but highly unlikely to occur. But heck, I’ll be in your parade. Just give me a sign and tell me where to stand.
Here’s the sign: When I pat my left forearm twice, lay down a sacrifice bunt. Until then, stand over there by the plastic Indian rubber plant.
Seriously, though, your point’s well taken. I just figured we could start small, y’know? And then work our way up to the blatant hypocrisy and the gross corruption and the betrayal of democracy and stuff.
“special interest” is one more label used to mean you are on the other camp. It therefore is useful in that it saves time for everyone. You do not have to actually listen to what the guy says to know if you agree or disagree with him. Other labels like this: Pro life, pro choice, big tobacco, calling the death penalty “state murder”,
it does seem that politicians (and the people that listen to them) are more divisive. But this is like childs play: later they are surprised when the other side figures two can play this game and comes back swinging.
People whose only message is how bad other people are and how bad it is what they are doing… I find them disgusting. Tell me what you can do to make things better and don’t tell me you are the only only with pure motives around here.
I once read in a greenpeace newsletter an editorial calling some chemical company terrorists and I wrote greenpeace and told them they could say goodbye to my support if that was their line. They need to be less confrontational and I think they have realized it because they lost a big part of their supporters in the 90s.
Well, it’s more than that… it’s used to mean “the other guy with undermining intentions, who’ll destroy you and your ideals the second he gets a chance.”
Why else do you think politicians narrow their eyes, grit their teeth, and tighten all the muscles in their face whenever they say “special interests”?
In fact, if you say “special interests” three times in a row, you’ll summon the Devil.
…A subject on which it seems we can all agree! As an unmitigated liberal (progressive populist variety), it cracks me up that Jodi, sailor, Bill, and SPOOFE, notorious conservatives all (;)), have got my back on this. (I don’t know which way you lean, Myrr21, but I’ve liked you since the tobacco thread.) Isn’t anyone out there going to argue in favor of the demonization of so-called “special” interests? C’mon!
Look at it this way:
See the pool of blood on the floor there?
My heart’s in the middle of it.
Well, if you insist, I can always be hateful and prejudiced for a while:
Man I hate those “special interest” guys. Who really supports the NRA? All those right-wing freaks ever do is sit around and shoot beer cans off’ve their fence. And don’t get me started on the _________ (my mind isn’t working, fill in your own conservative organization). Those guys just suck–trying to influence the government with their money. They think they’re so “special”?
Well why don’t we call those jerks “special interests”, huh? That’ll learn em.
TIME ELAPSED SINCE I QUIT SMOKING:
Three months, two weeks, two days, 2 hours, 50 minutes and 0 seconds.
4284 cigarettes not smoked, saving $535.59.
Life saved: 2 weeks, 21 hours, 0 minutes.
Some of you may have heard of the conservative government in Ontario … if I remember correctly, they’ve used the term ‘special interest groups’ to describe people like the poor, and women. (This strikes me as a little more harsh than referring to the NRA and tobacco companies as such.) At what point do the interests of ‘special interest groups’ start coinciding with the interests of society as a whole?
I was thinking about this one awhile back, and changed my personal definition of ‘special interests’ to suit, so I can still demonize them. (Tho I won’t convince Lib to do the same, I know.)
I don’t think of the NRA or the Christian Coalition as ‘special interests’ anymore. I may disagree with them, but they are, fundamentally, popular movements - their strength depends on the number and passion of their followers. Their influence is democracy in action, even if that influence leads to outcomes I’m unhappy with.
Ditto gays, handicapped people, environmentalists, and so forth on the left, the only difference being that I’m generally with them rather than against them.
But then there are interests that represent almost no human beings, but command a great deal of money. Take, for instance, the people who brought you this year’s bankruptcy ‘reform’ bill. What groundswell of popular support got this bill on the radar screen of Congress? None whatsoever. If one in a thousand American citizens, at the beginning of this year, thought it was important to tighten the bankruptcy laws, it would surprise the hell out of me. But the credit card companies and other creditors had the bucks to make it important to Congress, even though it was practically invisible to their constituents.
That, my friends, is a special interest. And I’ll cheerfully demonize interests of this sort.
OOH OOH OOH.
I’ll disagree with you. Although the NRA has public support and could be called a general interest of many people. The christian coalition is not. They have faked much of their membership roles to make it seem that they are a mass movement. In reality it was all a deception. They never really had that much support, they had far fewer staff than they claimed, and eventually it all fell apart. they are tryign to rebuild now, but it was all a sham.
I agree with RTFirefly, the term should be defined and linited to those orgs which aren’t benefitting the average joe, but corporate greed and the like. i don’t think pro-life/choice, civil rights (racial, sexual whatever) should be considered special interest.
I blame the media for the elastic nature of the term. Course I blame the media for everything else too…
And isn’t it ironic, Rufus, that these are the very interests which are not considered “special?” Recent estate tax legislation stood to benefit only the wealthiest one percent of the population–pretty rarefied air. 'Course, it never hurts that most congressmen are wealthy themselves, as are their donors, their friends, and most of the lobbyists with whom they interact. Your environment shapes your perceptions.
I remember a great Tom Toles cartoon from the eighties making this delineation. On one side it had a line of people including a black man, a construction worker, and a poor woman, with the caption, ‘Special Interests.’ On the other side, it had a collection of stereotypical plutocrats, and, under them, the caption, ‘Legitimate Interests.’ Sums up the looking-glass quality of politics pretty well.
If I may be permitted a dissenting opinion, I think the term special inteest has a legitimate meaning.
One of the characteristics of a democracy is that often a determined minority can thwart a larger but more passive majority that disagrees with them. One recent example was brought to light when, in the wake of the Elian Gonzalez controversy, it dawned on many Americans that while they had been completely ignoring the issue, American policy towards Cuba had been dominated by the views of some fanatical Cuban exiles in Florida for decades.
This principle applies to many other issues. Politicians are in the business of getting elected, and will be swayed more by the views of the few people who will change their votes based on the issue than by those of the many who will not.
Thus the term special interest. This properly refers to a group whose views and interests are out of line with most Americans, but by virtue of being strongly committed to this issue can have a disproportunate impact on the political process. This applies to corporations interested in government contracts or tax breaks, as well as well organized issue advocacy groups.
Of course, just who is a special interest group, and who trully speaks for the majority is frequently a matter of some legitimate debate, hence the claims by politicians on both sides of the aisle to oppose special interests. But on many issus the advocacy groups on both sides are committed to more extreme positions than are held by the vast majority of Americans, and are all special interests.
