Who Makes Public Decisions? Who Sets
Policy?
by B. L. Flinchbaugh
Extension State Leader, Agricultural Economics,
Kansas State University
Introduction
Kingmakers
Kings
Actives
Interested Citizens
Apathetic Citizens
Power Clusters/Influence Triangle
When our first-grade teacher or our kindergarten teacher taught us that all men are created equal, she was wrong. We have the phrase modernized today - all men and women are created equal. This is just not true. The Constitution guarantees equal opportunity, and we have made some progress in that direction. I am from Kansas. I have more representation in the U.S. Senate than the folks from Montana. And it is about time, because they "ran the show" for too long, with "ole" Mike Mansfield. We replaced him with Bob Dole. Since the Majority Leader determines the Senate's agenda, that is power, as well as unequal representation. We just switched from Montana to Kansas. I happen to think that is in the right direction, but the folks from Montana would argue with me on that. So, this one-person, one-vote principle is only a theory. It is a lofty principle that will never be perfected. We pay "lip service" to it. But, all men - and women, in the establishment of public policy, are not created equal.
Let us look at the local level. Who makes public decisions? In Figure 1, influence is illustrated as a triangle: a local decisionmaking hierarchy. Think about who makes public decisions at the local level in your community, as we discuss the model.
At the very top of the triangle in Figure 1 are a few people whom we will call Kingmakers. Next in line, another group we will call Kings. The next level is the Actives. The next level is the Interested Citizens. Then, at the bottom of the triangle, is the largest group-the "don't give a damn bunch." There is a proper term for that group. The term is Apathetic Citizens. Every local community is informally organized in this manner.
At the top of the hierarchy are two or three, or up to two dozen very influential persons, depending on the size of the community. And all public decisions that affect the local community finally are made by those very few Kingmakers. They "call the shots." This group basically has two characteristics - they possess financial and intellectual resources. Some of us have trouble accepting that it takes both characteristics to be a Kingmaker. But we all can identify some 40 year-old individual in our community whose father was a Kingmaker and was worth a lot of money. Yet, his son is nothing but the town playboy who contributes little to the community except spending the family fortune. So it takes more than money. In establishing public policy, being "dumb" is a handicap. Success in this endeavor requires more than financial resources. It takes intellectual resources. Extremely intelligent individuals will have some influence, but their influence will be less than the influence of those who are smart and have financial resources to implement their influence.
In every community there is a handful of people who are at the very top of this decisionmaking triangle, because they possess both financial resources and intellectual resources. These people operate behind the scenes; they arc difficult to identify. Unless County Extension agents have been around their communities for a while, and have made a concerted effort to find out, they do not know who the local Kingmakers are. The Kingmakers rarely ever attend a Cooperative Extension meeting. But, if anything of substance happens at that meeting, within one-half hour after the meeting is over, they will know what was said and who said it. They are "tuned in" to the community.
It is a myth that Kingmakers represent the status quo. They have their "ear to the ground," and they will attempt to guide public opinion. They will attempt to steer the winds of change in the direction they want them to blow. But they also highly value their status as Kingmakers. And, if that wind reaches gale force, even though they do not like the direction it takes, they will go along with it, because the last thing they want to be is an ex-Kingmaker. They will use all their power to get that wind to blow in the right direction, but if they cannot change the direction of the wind, they eventually will jump on and ride it out. Kingmakers do not represent the status quo. Frequently, they have the community's interest in mind. They like to attain the point where their own self-interest and the community's interest are identical. If they can attain that stance, they have arrived. On most public issues, Kingmakers come out on the same side, as far as the body politic in the community is concerned. They make sure of that. They know that, over the course of their lifetime, they had better pay attention to community interests. And those interests do change.
The procedure is just like the legislature, for example. Our civics teacher taught us that legislators have committee meetings; then, the committees recommend to the entire legislature. Anybody can get on the list and testify. This is democracy in action. Go to Washington, for example, and sit in the U.S. Senate gallery and watch one senator on the floor talking to himself, for the record. To witness this can be awfully disillusioning. No public decisions are made on the floor of the legislature, or even in committee meetings of any legislature in the nation, or the U.S. Congress. More public decisions are made in hotel rooms, in capital cities, than are under the Capitol dome. The Kingmakers show up at the hotels.
Let us take as an example a typical rural town of 5,000 to 10,000 people - a county seat town. Who are the Kingmakers? Can you identify them? Frequently, they can be identified by position - bankers, lawyers, businessmen, well-established successful farmers, retired statesmen, medical doctors, funeral directors, judges, or publishers. If someone claims to be a Kingmaker, rest assured he or she is not. Conversely, the more vehement the denial, the more likely the person is a Kingmaker. Influential people do not put their influence on public display.
Ministers and school teachers are two interesting groups to analyze. In 1900, ministers and school teachers in small communities were quite influential. But both of those professions have declined in prestige. We could debate why for hours. It is obvious, at least where I have traveled, that they have lost influence. My explanation for this loss is that ministers and school teachers have publicly intruded into areas where they have no expertise. The teaching profession has become less of a profession and more of a trade union, which decreases its prestige. Ministers have moved from theology to sociology and economics. As ministers became very active in the upheavals of the 1960s, they lost prestige. The church groups became part of the power structure. I do not find many of them any more in that role. Today, ministers and school teachers are in the Actives group. They are very much involved in and very much a part of the community, and have some influence. Eventually, if they can get the wind to blow in one direction, and it gets to gale force, then the Kingmakers will go along. I do not think you will find as many ministers and school teachers in the Kingmaker category today as there were 25 to 30 years ago and, especially, in 1900.
In a small town, in the Midwest at least, in 1900, a very typical Kingmaker was the local funeral director and the furniture maker. And they were the same person. If a craftsman could build caskets out of pine, he also could build furniture - it was a very common combination. And, usually, there was one funeral director and furniture maker per community. They ended up at the top of the hierarchy. Both items were needed - caskets and furniture. Rarely is the funeral director and the furniture maker the same individual anymore. Today, furniture and caskets are made in large factories. Because of changing economics, some funeral directors are still at the top of the influence triangle, but not any furniture makers. So "who" is "where" changes with the times.
The Kings are the group that most people think are in charge in the community. Without an understanding of community leadership, the Kings are the ones we think are the local leadership. They are out front. They often attend Cooperative Extension meetings. When they do, introduce them! Do not give them the platform, necessarily, but introduce them, because the bread of life for a politician is recognition. They almost prefer bad publicity to no publicity. So introduce them; pay them their due. They are the public officeholders, the local leadership. Each one owes his or her position to a Kingmaker. That is why the terms Kings and Kingmakers are used. The Kingmakers make the Kings. Behind every public officeholder is a Kingmaker. Some rural towns are so small that, occasionally, the King and the Kingmaker are the same person, because they just do not have enough people to go around. On occasion, a Kingmaker will hold public office, but that is rare. Kingmakers usually have the Kings out front.
The Kings pay their dues. In Manhattan, Kansas, for example, they move from volunteer community leadership, to the city council, to the school board, to the legislature, into the judiciary, perhaps, or even statewide office. But they have to "earn their spurs," if they are going to hold public office. The Kings owe their position to the Kingmakers. And, if Kings are to be successful, they do not get on "the wrong side" of the Kingmakers. If Kings disobey the Kingmakers, at least on the "big" issues, they become ex-Kings. A few Kings eventually have become Kingmakers. After they retire from office, they become statesmen. And the Kingmakers who made them have gone on to their highest reward - they are dead. So then, the King may eventually move into that position. But the two go hand in hand. They are very much a team. The Kings are out in front - the local leadership. The Kingmakers are behind the scenes, and they "call the shots. "
It is very interesting where women fit into this hierarchy. Twenty-five years ago, few women would have been either in the King or Kingmaker role in the community. In fact, until a few decades ago, the only way a woman could get in the Kingmaker role in a small town was when her successful Kingmaker husband died young.
There is a little town in western Kansas, a county seat, that has a population of about 2,500 people. It is a matriarchal town run by one woman. She is 79 years old. She is in charge of the bank she owns. Her husband was a very successful banker who died unexpectedly at age 55. She is in charge - no policy is established in that town without her blessing. When she became aware that I was using her as an example in class, she wrote me the sternest letter I have ever read. She vehemently denied the charge. "Me, all I do is mind my own business, and I am in favor of whatever is in the best interest of this town." In my reply to her letter, I told her that one of the things that I tell the class is that the more Kingmakers deny it, the more likely they arc to be Kingmakers. She and I met one evening, and we had a delightful discussion. Finally, I said, "Harriet, am I all wet, or not?" She smiled and said, "You are on the right track." She "calls the shots." So, in those days, the only way for a female to get to the top was through the death of her husband. But that has changed.
Kingmakers now are anointing female Kings. Now, do you think those "good ole boys" wanted to do that? Hell, no! But, the winds of change have blown so fast that they have to do it. And so, now, women are working into the hierarchy.
The next group in the community triangle is the Actives. In this group are the "doers," the people who make the community "tick. " They belong to the service clubs, such as the Lions Club and the Rotary Club; the P.T.A.; or other community groups, such as the Scouts or 4-H clubs. The Actives operate the local charities and direct the local fund drives. Fund after fund after fund, and these people do it. Some of them will move from the Actives group into the Kings and maybe, eventually, even into the Kingmakers group; but few of them will reach the top.
Next in the community triangle is the Interested Citizens group. And notice each group gets larger in size as we move down the hierarchy. Interested Citizens watch the "Today" show and the evening news; they go to cocktail parties; read the daily newspaper; and keep somewhat informed on public issues. They are interested, and they will talk about public issues. But they are too busy to get involved. These Interesteds are typical suburbanites with a good job, a nice house, maybe two cars, very much interested, but they simply think they do not have time to become active in the community.
The next, and last, group in the community
triangle is the Apathetics group. The Apathetics are not interested; they simply
do not care. They are busy all week earning enough money to meet their basic
needs, and they relax on weekends. The Apathetics rarely discuss public issues.
In their minds, they have many more important things to do than worry about
public issues.
There is a way to move this Apathetic group to the Active group. Just build a
new highway through their front yard. Or, with farmers, propose a reclamation
project. Put a new reservoir in the county and propose to flood their farmland.
They immediately move from the Apathetic to the Active group. Once that issue is
settled, whether they win or, lose, they move right back down to being
Apathetics again.
The hierarchy of influence in the establishment of public policy changes issue by issue. The Kingmakers and the Kings - the few - are most stable, and tend to transcend issues. The Kings, the public officeholders, are subject to public vote on issues. So are the Kingmakers. But the rest of the hierarchy, the largest proportion of the local population, tends to change with issues. Some people are more interested in abortion, for example, than they are in economic development. And when they are directly affected, when the status quo is threatened, some of them will move from Apathetics to Actives. Think back to your local community; concentrate on it. Certainly, you can see this occurring.
Power Clusters and the Influence Triangle
We have discussed who makes public policy at the local level. Let us now move up the ladder, or down the ladder, depending on how you view it, to state and national levels. I am going to use what is called Ogden's Power Cluster Theory, developed by Dan Ogden (1971), who has been in and out of government and in and out of higher education, and has a wealth of experience. Dan argues that we make public policy through a series of power clusters. Power clusters tend to occur around occupations, geographic regions, subject areas, issues, and fads. There are, for example, power clusters in education, agriculture, defense, labor, and manufacturing. Power clusters evolve around issues, e.g., environmental and religious issues. Likewise, in geographic area - the East, the frost belt, the sun belt, and the old ' North and South. Power clusters tend to form around an area of interest. The influence triangle of Kings, Kingmakers, Actives, and Apathetics exists within each power cluster.
Power clusters are nonpartisan. In terms of making public policy, political parties basically are assumed to be ineffective. They have almost no influence anymore on public policy. Political parties exist primarily to elect candidates. How many people do you know who ever read a political party platform? Does the platform influence how people vote? Most candidates do not know what is in their party platform; they have never read it. Political parties exist today to provide the machinery to elect candidates. They do not set public policy. Power clusters have in them members of the bureaucracy, representatives of administrative and legislative agencies. They also have in them influential citizens, professionals, an attentive public, and a latent public.
Notice the similarity between some of those words and what we were discussing in the influence triangle at the local level - influential citizens (Kingmakers); administrative and legislative agencies, the bureaucracy plus the elected officials (the Kings); professionals (the Actives); the attentive public (the Interested Citizens); and the latent public (the Apathetics). Power clusters tend to be issue, subject, geographic area, and occupational communities. And within each power cluster, there basically exists an influence triangle.
People who are involved usually remain in a power cluster for a lifetime. Around Washington, D.C., is a beltway that is populated with consulting firms. Where are many members of the Carter administration today - for example, the Chief USDA Economist? They are in consulting firms on the beltway. What will happen in 1988, if the Republicans get kicked out and the Democrats are elected? Those power cluster professionals on the beltway who are Democrats and who served Johnson, Kennedy, and Carter will move downtown into government offices. And the Reagan professionals will move out to the beltway. Then, in 1992, if the Democrats get kicked out and the Republicans go back in, a reshuffle will occur.
Reagan's Chief Agricultural Economist and Carter's Chief Agricultural Economist know each other well, and speak together probably weekly. They are influential professional members of the agriculture power cluster. And that cluster is nonpartisan. All the political party does is determine where their office is - either on the beltway or downtown on the mall. They are part of a fraternity, if you please. Presidents come and go; they are tolerated. Secretaries of Agriculture come and go; they are tolerated. But the professionals remain. And that is how their influence is exerted. You can always tell, at Purdue University, which political party is in power. When the Republicans are in power, the Purdue Agricultural Economics staff is raided. Even the Dean was in Washington. When the Democrats come in power, the faculty comes back to Purdue. Don Paarlberg just moved back and forth. Earl Butz just moved back and forth. They are part of a permanent power cluster; they are there for a lifetime. The arrangement is nonpartisan, and organized basically on the Kingmaker and King theory.
When an issue concerns only one power cluster, its solution is arrived at through compromise and debate, within the cluster. If the issue concerns only the members of one power cluster and does not affect other clusters, it is settled within the power cluster. Legislators frequently admonish members of a power cluster, "What do you want? Get your act together. What is the solution to this problem? Don't come to us with six different solutions; get together and solve the problem yourselves. Bring us the solution, and we will introduce it and we will pass it." This procedure works as long as it does not affect another cluster. This is one of the biggest problems we have had in agriculture, because farm organizations cannot even agree on the issues. I have heard congressmen say many times to farm organizations, "Make up your minds. How can we represent you when you do not know what you want? Settle it within first."
When an issue affects more than one power cluster, there has to be compromise between or among the affected power clusters - for example, a profitable agriculture versus an abundant supply of food; or high farm income versus cheap food. Farmers frequently lament our cheap food policy. The agriculture power cluster has been penetrated by nonfarm, special-interest groups. The consumer movement may be a cluster of its own, but when it comes to food policy it is assimilated into the agriculture power cluster. Traditional agriculturists are sharing power with the consumer groups in terms of establishing food policy. At least there has to be compromise between the two clusters, consumer and agriculture, if you want to make the argument that they are separate clusters. Because the consumer power cluster is very much involved in setting food policy, I would argue that the two power clusters are somewhat joined today. If the issue can be settled within the cluster, the decision is made there. If the issue affects another cluster, there has to be compromise between clusters. The transportation power cluster always has a battle going on with energy - between railroads and truckers. The transportation power cluster has been at it long enough, and they understand it well enough, that they normally will settle their battle within. And when they move to the legislative system and into the political arena, they have to deal with other power clusters, and they "have their act together. "
Labor is always at odds with the manufacturing power cluster. And labor is losing today. Why? Because they do not settle the issue within first. When George Meany was in charge of American labor, differences were settled within. Now, there is a case of Kingmaker and King being the same person. George Meany was in charge. And when George said it was black, it was black; when George said it was white, it was white. When he died, look what happened to the labor power cluster. It is still fighting over who will take George's place. I maintain that this "in-fighting" had as much to do with the decline of organized labor's influence as the recession. Organized labor does not have leadership. It does not have a group of Kingmakers or a King within the system who can make it run. So, the labor power cluster has declined in terms of influence.
Upheaval occurs when an outsider is thrown into a power cluster. Ronald Reagan's Cabinet is a perfect example. Reagan chose persons outside the power clusters to run the various agencies. The prime example is former Interior Secretary, James Watt, who was totally outside the environmental-interior power cluster. The power cluster decided the day Watts was appointed that they were going to "get him." Many of the difficulties that former Secretary of Agriculture John Block faced were due to the fact that he did not come through the ranks. Block, who was part of the agriculture power cluster, but at a very low level, was plucked out of there and moved all the way to the King category. And, the Kingmakers had not anointed him.
To make the system work, people move up through the hierarchy. People are appointed to the top jobs from the power cluster, and then it will work. Carter was another good example; he brought the "Georgia crowd" to Washington, and they were like fish out of water. They had little Washington experience and they had not worked their way through the power cluster. When persons are chosen from outside the power cluster and move in, they are in trouble before they begin. The power cluster is absolutely convinced that they cannot do the job, or that they are the enemy, because they did not work their way through the ranks of the power cluster.
The United States is a republic, not a democracy. In a republic, people are elected and appointed to lead. We elect people on the basis of their character, integrity, and their positions on issues. They then guide and lead public opinion. In a democracy, we elect people to represent us. In the modem age, I really do not see any need to elect anybody if we are going to a pure democracy. All we need to do is turn the job over to George Gallup; let him gauge public opinion; and then make decisions. The old New England town meeting concept was pure democracy. They did not elect anybody. Everybody went to meetings and voted on every issue. Well, that is not practical, so we started electing representatives.
For 200 years, we have argued, "Are we a republic or a democracy?" I am arguing that we are basically a republic; that we elect people to lead. We elect people to guide public opinion. There are those occasions when what is in the best interest of the power structure also is in the best interest of the community. In my experience, that occurs more often than most people would admit - the two are not always divergent. The public interest and the power cluster interest frequently are synonymous. On those big issues in which they are not, the power cluster frequently has to yield. If public opinion gets so strong, if the winds reach gale force, the power cluster is not going to change public opinion.
The defense issue is a good example of this latter point. When Reagan became President, he obviously intended to build a strong defense to show a strong offense to the Russians. During his term of office, he has roughly doubled the defense budget. Has his mind changed on the necessity of a strong defense? Has his mind changed on the necessity of spending billions and billions on defense? No! But, what happened? Public opinion is changing. The defense power cluster is losing. Reagan's own party is going to abandon him on that issue. So, eventually, the public interest has a way of working its will on big issues. The power clusters then change, as the people within the clusters change their position. The number one goal of most people high up in the hierarchy is to maintain that position; they will. The President will swallow tax increases, eventually, to decrease the deficit. Do you think he has changed his mind on tax increases? No. Public opinion will force it. So the system does work. It is cumbersome and slow. I agree with Winston Churchill's statement to the effect that democracy is a terrible form of government, but the best ever devised by mankind.
Reference: Ogden, Daniel M., Jr. 1971. "How National Policy Is Made." In Increasing Understanding of Public Problems and Policies - 1971. Oak Brook, Ill.: Farm Foundation.
Reproduced with the gracious permission of the author.
Introduction | Table of Contents | Citizen Advocacy | Dealing with Legislators | Communication | Decision Makers | Marketing Tips | Educating Decision Makers | Political Environment | Support Base | Advisory Boards | Perceptions | Ideas | Resource Links | Challenge | Credits
Prepared by the Joint Council of Extension Professionals