A criticism of interest group pluralism by E.E. Schattschneider is
(A) that it gives too much influence to religious organizations and therefore threatens the separation of church and state.
(B) that its ideals are too closely associated with Marxist-Leninist ideology and are therefore unacceptable to the majority of Americans.
(C) its inherent propensity for compromise, the character of which tends to be antidemocratic.
(D) its class bias in favor of those with greater financial resources.
The correct answer and explanation is :
Correct Answer: (D) its class bias in favor of those with greater financial resources.
Explanation (300 words):
E.E. Schattschneider, a prominent political scientist, offered a major critique of interest group pluralism in his influential 1960 book The Semi-Sovereign People. While pluralism celebrates the idea that a diversity of interest groups compete in the political marketplace to influence policy, Schattschneider argued that this competition is far from equal or fair. His most significant criticism was that the pluralist system has a class bias, favoring those with greater financial resources—hence, the correct answer is (D).
Schattschneider believed that the pluralist ideal of democratic representation through interest groups fails in practice because not all groups have the same capacity to organize or be heard. Wealthy individuals, corporations, and well-funded organizations can more easily influence public policy, while the poor and marginalized often lack the resources to organize effectively. This leads to a political landscape where the “pressure system”—as he called it—is skewed toward the upper classes.
He famously stated: “The flaw in the pluralist heaven is that the heavenly chorus sings with a strong upper-class accent.” This quote illustrates his concern that political influence is not evenly distributed and that the voices of ordinary citizens are often drowned out by those with money and power.
In this view, the system is not truly democratic because it does not reflect the interests of the entire population—only those who can afford to participate meaningfully. Schattschneider’s critique continues to resonate today, especially in debates about campaign finance, lobbying, and the role of money in politics.
In contrast, the other options do not reflect his core arguments. He did not focus on religious influence (A), Marxist ideology (B), or compromise as inherently antidemocratic (C). His primary concern was the unequal power of interests, especially along economic lines.