In the Public Interest: Public Interest Groups and American Democracy.

This dissertation examines the political role played by public interest groups working on foreign and military policy issues in the United States. Previous studies of public interest groups have emphasized that such groups pay particular attention to the political education and participation of their members. The purpose of the dissertation is to examine this emphasis and explain why groups choose to behave in this way even though it can be counter-productive to their success in influencing the policymaking process. The argument presented is that the specific groups under study emphasize education and participation because of the conceptions of the public interest and of democracy that are at the root of their work. The dissertation reviews research done by others on public interest groups. In addition, it analyzes the conceptions of the public interest and democracy that have dominated Western political thought, in order to provide a basis for underst and ing the views of the groups in the study. Traditional liberal conceptions of the public interest are compared with the communitarian ideas of Rousseau, and both of these are contrasted with the developmental notion articulated by John Stuart Mill. Similarly, traditional liberal ideas of representative democracy, such as those of John Locke, are contrasted with contemporary pluralist and participatory theories. Again, the developmental ideas of Mill are presented as an alternative to those dominant conceptions. Mill's ideas are discussed in detail because they closely parallel the conceptions held by the public interest groups. Important differences between public interest groups on the left and right sides of the political spectrum are discussed. Although their philosophical and political differences are important, it is argued here that there are points of agreement between the groups that are of greater importance. Foremost among these is a commitment to increasing the influence of citizens in governmental decisionmaking. Other points of agreement are a shared belief in the importance of forcing political actors to consider claims for public goods as equal to claims for private goods, a commitment to widespread debate in the political process, a belief that such debate can only occur if there are information bases outside of government, and a deep concern that citizens be able to hold elected officials accountable for their actions. The dissertation concludes that the groups under study have succeeded in opening the political process to citizen input. This has been accomplished by providing their members with the information and skills required for effective political action. With this foundation of informed, capable, and active constituents, public interest groups are now viewed as legitimate citizen voices in the foreign and defense policymaking process. While not suggesting that this is a fundamental change in the political system, the study does argue that it can be viewed as a crucial first step toward such a change and the democratic goals these groups seek. The dissertation is based on open-ended, semi-structured interviews conducted with public interest group staff members and constituents in the fall and winter of 1979. In addition, there was careful analysis of educational material prepared by the groups. Three specific campaigns undertaken by public interest groups, the campaign against the B-1 bomber, the campaign for a Transfer Amendment to the House and Senate budget resolutions, and the campaign to block ratification of the Panama Canal Treaties, are examined and used to illustrate the work of the groups.PhDPolitical scienceUniversity of Michiganhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/158347/1/8116335.pd