A few random approaches to understanding that relationship:
- The Political Agenda:
In politics, a political agenda is a list of subjects or problems (issues) to which government officials as well as individuals outside the government are paying serious attention to at any given time.
The political agenda is most often shaped by political and policy elites, but can also be influenced by activist groups, private sector lobbyists, think tanks, courts, world events, and the degree of state centralisation. Media coverage has also been linked to the success of the rise of political parties and their ability to get their ideas on the agenda (see agenda-setting). Although the media does often have an effect on the political agenda, these results are not always immediate, which can produce a lag in the political agenda.
The Overton window is the range of policies politically acceptable to the mainstream population at a given time.
Overton described a spectrum from "more free" to "less free" with regard to government intervention, oriented vertically on an axis, to avoid comparison with the left/right political spectrum. As the spectrum moves or expands, an idea at a given location may become more or less politically acceptable. After Overton's death, his Mackinac Center for Public Policy colleague Joseph Lehman further developed the idea and named it after Overton.
Political commentator Joshua Treviño has postulated that the six degrees of acceptance of public ideas are roughly:
Unthinkable
Radical
Acceptable
Sensible
Popular
Policy
The Overton window is an approach to identifying the ideas that define the spectrum of acceptability of governmental policies. It says politicians can act only within the acceptable range. Shifting the Overton window involves proponents of policies outside the window persuading the public to expand the window. Proponents of current policies, or similar ones within the window, seek to convince people that policies outside it should be deemed unacceptable. According to Lehman, who coined the term, "The most common misconception is that lawmakers themselves are in the business of shifting the Overton window. That is absolutely false. Lawmakers are actually in the business of detecting where the window is, and then moving to be in accordance with it."
Zone of Acquiescence:
- Chapter Two: Public Opinion in America: Moods, Cycles, and Swings. Pages 21-23.
Policy entrepreneur or entrepreneurs are "individuals who exploit opportunities to influence policy outcomes so as to promote their own goals, without having the resources necessary to achieve this alone. They are not satisfied with merely promoting their self-interests within institutions that others have established; rather, they try to create new horizons of opportunity through innovative ideas and strategies.
. . . "advocates who are willing to invest their resources - time, energy, reputation, money - to promote a position in return for anticipated future gain in the form of material, purposive or solidary benefits". Policy entrepreneurs use innovative ideas and non-traditional strategies to influence society, create opportunities, and promote desired policy outcomes. Policy entrepreneurship usually happens over three phases. It starts with a demand in the political landscape for some form of innovation involving a public good. Secondly, an innovative policy instrument is proposed to supply that demand. Lastly, strategies are used such as team building, problem definition, and leadership by example to make certain that the innovation is placed on the agenda. Unlike a public intellect who strives to assert themselves into many different topics and be publicly vocal, a policy entrepreneur will focus on specific topics and possibly work behind the scenes with state and political elite.
American sociologist C. Wright Mills states that members of the elite accept their fellows' position of importance in society. "As a rule, 'they accept one another, understand one another, marry one another, tend to work, and to think, if not together at least alike'."
. . . According to Mills, men receive the education necessary for elitist privilege to obtain their background and contacts, allowing them to enter three branches of the power elite, which are;
The Political Leadership: Mills contended that since the end of World War II, corporate leaders had become more prominent in the political process, with a decline in central decision-making for professional politicians.
The Military Circle: In Mills' time a heightened concern about warfare existed, making top military leaders and such issues as defense funding and personnel recruitment very important. Most prominent corporate leaders and politicians were strong proponents of military spending.
The Corporate Elite: According to Mills, in the 1950s when the military emphasis was pronounced, it was corporate leaders working with prominent military officers who dominated the development of policies. These two groups tended to be mutually supportive.
According to Mills, the governing elite in the United States primarily draws its members from political leaders, including the president, and a handful of key cabinet members, as well as close advisers, major corporate owners and directors, and high-ranking military officers. These groups overlap and elites tend to circulate from one sector to another, consolidating power in the process.
