Public Opinion and Political Influence

"Or another example of the inversion: Under Nazi rule there was never any doubt about “big business” being subordinated to the political regime. In the United States, however, it has been apparent for decades that corporate power has become so predominant in the political establishment, particularly in the Republican Party, and so dominant in its influence over policy, as to suggest a role inversion the exact opposite of the Nazis’. At the same time, it is corporate power, as the representative of the dynamic of capitalism and of the ever-expanding power made available by the integration of science and technology with the structure of capitalism, that produces the totalizing drive that, under the Nazis, was supplied by ideological notions such as Lebensraum." (Inverted Totalitarianism, By Sheldon Wolin)

Sheldon Wolin is stating in this passage that inverted totalitarianism is essentially the opposite of the Nazi regime. While under the Nazi political regime big businesses were known to be subordinate, whereas in the United States that isn't the case at all. Big businesses and corporations have a great deal of influence in the United States government, this is especially true within the Republican party.

I chose this passage because Wolin provides a greater understanding of what inverted totalitarianism is and what isn't. Inverted totalitarianism isn't like the Nazi regime. Unlike the Nazi regime, inverted totalitarianism is more focused and influenced by big businesses and big corporations. 

Interest Groups

"Even when unorganized groups are discussed, at least in treatments of "pressure groups" and "group theory," the word "group" is used in such a way that it means "a number of individuals with a common interest." It would of course be reasonable to label even a number of people selected at random (and thus without any common interest or unifying characteristic) as a "group" but most discussions of group behavior seem to deal mainly with groups that do have common interests. As Arthur Bentley, the founder of the "group theory" of modern political science, put it, "there is no group without its interest." The social psychologist Raymond Cattell was equally explicit, and stated that "every group has its interest." This is also the way the word "group" will be used here. " (The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups, p. 8, Mancur Olson)

Every interest group and social movement have one thing in common: a common interest. One individual person typically does not have the power to achieve change, but one group of individuals with a shared interest may have enough power to stir up some controversy and achieve change. Olson is stating in this passage that you cannot form a group by simply throwing a random bunch of people together, a group would require a common interest. No common interest, no group.

I chose this passage because it provides a greater understanding of what a group is. A group is much more than a few people; a group is a few people with a shared interest. The shared interest would be the purpose and reason to form a group. 

The Judiciary

"Yes. Despite the equalization of the schools by "objective" factors, intangible issues foster and maintain inequality. Racial segregation in public education has a detrimental effect on minority children because it is interpreted as a sign of inferiority. The long-held doctrine that separate facilities were permissible provided they were equal was rejected. Separate but equal is inherently unequal in the context of public education. The unanimous opinion sounded the death-knell for all forms of state-maintained racial separation." (Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka)

The verdict for the Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka case was reached when it was agreed that teaching in separate facilities was not considered equal. They agreed that segregating minority children in public schools didn't abide by the laws of 14th amendment. Minority children were not receiving the same education as white children considering that they weren't in the same classroom and were being taught by different teachers.

I chose the Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka case because the verdict paved the way for millions of minority children to get the same education that white children got. They were allowed to sit in the same classrooms and be taught by the same teachers that thought the little white kids. They were given an equal opportunity to a brighter future.