Part One: The friction model is the idea that there are various sources that work together to keep policies in place so that the status quo prevails for extended periods of time. There are many different players within the friction model that try to help protect the status quo, but other ideas that try to go against the model and change it. The friction model has a head start as it is much easier to protect the status quo than to change it.
A major problem policy changer’s face is lack of attention. It is difficult for these lobbyists to get attention from members of congress, and ven media outlets causing most issues to die in their tracks before even making it to a floor vote. This makes it easier for status quo defenders because the only real time they need to step in and start a conversation is when an issue gets attention, otherwise the status quo will remain in place indefinitely until another challenger rises up.
Overall the friction model is the idea that there are multiple sources that cause friction within policy making allowing for the status quo to prevail in a majority of cases, but when the status quo defenders fail the changes are more likely to be big changes rather than small changes. Part two: Within the friction model Baumgartner et al identify four major sources of friction within policy making: passing the threshold, partisanship and elections, gatekeepers, and special interests.
Starting with opposition and obstacles that status quo challenger’s face comes with the ideas of attention and opposition. As mentioned above lack of attention often kills the movement before it can even muster enough influence to move forward. Baumgartner et al mention in chapter six the idea of saliency on issues. For example one of the lobbying issues we talked about in the first week of school was the sex toy vs oncealed carry issue going on in Texas. College students marched around campus protesting that there was a law that people could conceal carry a weapon, but not openly carry around a sex toy.
They made national news with this protest getting much needed attention to keep their challenge alive. This type of attention forced the status quo defenders to have to act meaning that not only did their issue get many more viewers, but they also got the other side to participate which means the chance of failure lowers significantly. This is a form of passing the threshold, their issue got the attention it needed to o on to the next step of negotiations and conversations in hopes making minor or significant changes to a law.
If they were to succeed in this endeavor they would pass another threshold in the progress and win. The next source of friction is partisanship and elections. Partisanship, especially in politics today, lead to stalemate which helps maintain the status quo. Baumgartner et al mention in chapter five that partisanship does play a role in policymaking it does not definitively produce stalemate because policy change is as likely to occur on nonpartisanship issues as it is partisan.
This means that a number of factors from the policymaking process also come into play. Since the status quo defenders only have to poke a single hole in an issue for it to fail somewhere along the policymaking process, while the challengers have to win every single step along the way it would make sense as to why it is difficult for all types of challenges to fail. The book also talks about how salience comes into play with partisanship.
Much like passing the threshold salience is a tactic of challengers, while the tactic of defenders is to do nothing until there is enough attention on the subject. One of the other ideas that the book talks about is how presidency changes highlight what different partisan topics are highlighted. For example, the book talks about hos George W. Bush focused more on stem cells which was something Clinton had not focused on. The 2016 election will put to the test ideas of partisanship and issues since the GOP control all sections of government with majorities.
If Baumgartner et al is correct in their findings, despite the fact that the government is controlled by the GOP the status quo should prevail. Finally the last two pieces of the friction model are gatekeepers and special nterests. Gatekeepers are the different leaders within congress and other institutions that control the agendas. They cause friction with the fact that they can control agendas, and if they do not agree, or have a different stance on issue they can effectively set up subcommittees to kill the bill or completely put it off from heard at all.
With this power generally it will protect the status quo, unless it is something that the party were to want changed which it could give the bill or policy the upper hand in the battle, but generally it is another way to protect the status quo. Special interests are interests groups on either side of an issue. The way special interests cause friction is by causing hyperpluralism. Hyperpluralism is a negative effect of the pluralist theory where there are so many groups participating in the conversation that no one can come to an agreement causing a stalemate and the status quo prevails.
All four of these issues are sources of friction within the friction model. They all work together to protect the status quo from challengers in hopes that it will prevail. According to Baumgartner et al the status quo prevails on a majority of issues ecause of the various sources of friction and how policymaking works. Part three: Much like the rest of the Baumgartner et al book a single subject can influence a policy outcome, but usually not without the help of multiple other resources.
The authors conclude that having or donating money alone will influence policy outcomes on most issues. In their research they found that companies working together is what helped policies get attention and move forward to challenge the status quo. They do mention that money and resources do hold some sway because they can purchase more lobbyists, ads, etc. to help try nd sway things into their favor, but it is not the end all be all of policymaking, but just another piece of the puzzle.
Part four: I am somewhere down the middle of the argument that money helps sway policies in their favor. Looking back at one of our discussion questions one of the articles I added was about the amount of congressmen that have stock in certain companies and almost all of the top 10 were business related, if not oil and gas related as well. To me there is something more to the argument that money buys policymaking in some situations because there are personal stakes in a lot of these ompanies campaigning for either policy changes or status quo.
I do agree with Baumgartner et al that it does not work alone because otherwise we would have a highly corrupt form of government that crime organizations and other elite wealthy people both with legal and illegal intentions could buy anything they wanted. Overall like much of the stuff we learned about organized interests this semester nothing really seems to be working on its own, but rather with many other parts and that’s why overall I do agree with the majority of what Baumgartner et al conclude about money and politics.
