First Essay Question: Which Theory Offers A Better Explanati ✓ Solved
First Essay Questionwhich Theory Offers A Better Explanation Of The Po
First essay question: Which theory offers a better explanation of the politics at the 1787 Convention and subsequent ratification debate, pluralism or elitism? Short Essays Students will submit short essay, of no less than 1,250 words each, not counting bibliography or source citations. Each essay is worth 200 course points. I expect each writing assignment to have: (1) A clear introductory statement that addresses directly the question posed by the instructor; (2) A body of factual examples that support your answer; these examples may be drawn from either the assigned and recommended readings or properly cited sources researched independently by the student. You may not cite Wikipedia as a source for your essays. Comments drawn from the work of another must be appropriately cited; plagiarized essays will be penalized; all "Suggested Readings" are available on the Canvas website for the class. (3) A coherent paragraph structure that emphasizes your main points and exhibits college-level English; and, (4) A succinct concluding paragraph.
Sample Paper For Above instruction
The political debates and discussions surrounding the 1787 Constitutional Convention and the subsequent ratification process have historically been analyzed through various theoretical lenses, most notably pluralism and elitism. These theories offer contrasting explanations of who influences political decisions and how power is distributed among societal groups. In understanding which offers a better explanation of the events and outcomes of the 1787 Convention, it is essential to explore the core premises of each theory, examine historical evidence, and evaluate their applicability to the context of America’s founding moment.
Pluralism posits that power is distributed across a wide array of interest groups and factions, each competing to influence policy and government decisions. This theory suggests that politics is a marketplace of ideas, where multiple groups with diverse interests engage in bargaining, compromise, and coalition-building to shape policy outcomes. From a pluralist perspective, the Constitutional Convention was characterized by numerous interest groups attempting to influence the framers to advocate for their specific concerns, whether those related to commerce, agriculture, or regional interests. The debates over representation, the establishment of the Senate, and the Electoral College, for instance, can be interpreted as outcomes of this diverse competition among various interest groups trying to secure their interests.
Elitism, on the other hand, emphasizes that political power is concentrated in the hands of a small, privileged elite, often composed of wealthy, educated, or otherwise influential individuals. According to this perspective, the drafting and ratification of the Constitution were largely controlled by a limited group of political leaders and property owners who shaped the document to serve their interests. Evidence supporting elitism includes the backgrounds of many Convention delegates, most of whom were landowners, lawyers, or merchants, with shared class interests that influenced the framing of the Constitution. The decision-making process, thus, reflects the preferences of the elite minority rather than the preferences of the general populace.
Examining historical records reveals that both theories have merit in explaining the politics of the 1787 Convention. For example, the diverse interests of the delegates and the compromises reached, such as the Great Compromise, align with pluralist ideas about group influence. Conversely, the limited demographic of delegates and their shared elite background support elitist notions that a ruling class determined the Constitution’s structure. Furthermore, the limited role of ordinary citizens in the ratification debates and the prominence of elite-led conventions reinforce the elitist perspective.
However, the question remains: which theory offers a more comprehensive explanation? While pluralism captures the multiplicity of interests and the bargaining processes evident in the Convention, it perhaps underestimates the influence of the elite class that dominated the decision-making environment. Conversely, elitism provides a compelling account of the social and economic homogeneity among the influential delegates, explaining the limited scope of popular influence during the founding period. Nonetheless, the complex interplay of these factors suggests that neither theory alone fully accounts for the political dynamics of 1787.
In conclusion, a nuanced interpretation recognizes that the politics of the 1787 Convention were shaped by both the diverse interests of various groups and the overarching influence of a privileged elite. However, when assessing which theory offers a better explanation, elitism more convincingly accounts for the concentrated power structure among the delegates and the limited role played by ordinary citizens. Therefore, elitism provides a more accurate framework for understanding the political processes and outcomes of the 1787 Convention and the subsequent ratification debates.