The understanding of Ginsberg, Lowi, Weir, and Spitze about the composition of American political community reflects the inclusion of people in terms of correlation of ideas, as well as race and values. The American people believe in a government that ensures political freedom as well as offers protection to its populace. However, the actions of government tend to contravene the set laws since they affect peoples’ lives. The authors maintain that societal power is widely shared, fragmented, decentralized and derives from a number of sources. They also say that society consists of many and diverse groups and associations with conflicting interests that are balanced by the state; and as such, the groups have considerable influences on major institutions and government policy. Such definition assumes a natural power balance among different groups coupled with democratic traditions, consensus of values, procedures, and principles. In addition, governmental and economic institutions are separate, thus they are not the overlapping sources of power. As such, the state performs roles which include representing institutionalized authority and power, serving as the supreme guardian of democracy, acting as a mediator or bargaining agent, as well as policing conflict of interest and promoting harmony to attain order and equilibrium (Cheney and Harlin 54).
In addition, the elite group is also a major component. The authors argue that the societal power rests in the hands of a few individuals who have power over key institutions, resources, and at the same time, the elite group is not accountable to the citizens. They derive their power from social organizations meaning that they possess a lot of power and, as such, they do anything to ensure that they retain power. They also mention that there is stratification in societies, the present power is utilized for societal welfare and benefit or for personal gain, there are one or other ruling elites, and that the powerful and the elite are the same. The elites have such resources as cunning and skills, as well as intelligence – this variation sets them apart from the populace, with the masses being characterized by incompetence, apathy, and inability to govern themselves. In addition, the prevailing organizational complexities necessitate a leader. The existing relations are in relation to power and wealth. For instance, power in the United States is vested with the Pentagon, that is, the state, the economy, and the military (Butowsky 63).
Furthermore, the authors maintain that individuals who have control over the resources of production rule society. They further assert that the main determinant of political phenomenon is the political class basis, where individuals realize themselves through work. According to them, political conflict equates to class conflict, since political groups are composed of classes. In addition, economic dominance translates into power flowing from economic relations. The state performs functions such as legitimizing and perpetuation of the existing social class system and an accumulating role.
Nonetheless, the authors state that there is a difference between the politics realm and moral principles realm. They also argue that the state has absolute power, single-minded pursuit of interest, national security and power. Objective laws rooted in human nature rule the society and politics. The political community is limited to the political knowledge with a negligible proportion not sure of whom to elect as their leader. Research points to the variation in ideologies as the main source of different political affiliation of the state. Populations come up with their political groupings based on observation and purpose, and as such, the findings of their observation may vary, though they are eligible for generalization. For instance, a state is made up of sub-systems, such as society, institutions, and people/groups. The relationship between these three sub-systems may vary and be insufficient, and as such, political elite seeks to increase the body of political solidarity through developing new and upgrading existing political community (Jefferson and Fink 76).
The other reason why there is the growth in the number of political parties of the state is the conception that a party that focuses mainly on a certain state is insufficient. Ideally, the states are different, distinct entities; hence, there is no similar relation between different states. As such, most political affiliations assume other aspects, such as obligation, authority and rights, but there is no exclusive analysis on the state. This existing gap in studies triggers the need to analyze and develop political community; that can explain the existing relationship in the state. Other scholars argue that power variations, theoretical frameworks, as well as inter-state pressures are playing a major role in shaping states’ development, yet they are deficient in explaining the global in-depth dimensions of the alterations that are presently taking place.
The unitary aspect of the world, as stipulated by the authors, means the significance of understanding different actions of certain states in relation to the bipolar relationship. The existing concept of unity among states triggers the need to establish the underlying principles that lead to the presence of such relations. This pattern of relationship among states necessitates the development of a political composition which explains in-depth such a relationship. This can only be possible through an all-inclusive political community. The need of a universal political composition is to act as a guideline during state development agenda, such as reforms, which can only be understood in relation to the constraints that arise out of the centre-periphery relationship. The dependency theory plays a vital role in guiding state action (Howe 47).
Moreover, the social relation nature of the state is another aspect that explains the different political communities of the state. The social phenomenon that is present in a state cannot be separated; hence, it forms social relations. As such, social relations, that is, relations between people, are characterized as unstable, fluid, often passionate, and unpredictable. However, they are rigid to forms that appear to get hold of their dynamics, autonomy, forms, which are vital for societal stability, especially the capitalist society. As such, it is difficult to scientifically think about such forms, and doing so sounds like a criticism to the discipline. Therefore, it is vital to develop the political compositions that explain in details such rigidity of the state. In addition, such a political community forms the basis of understanding the togetherness that prevails among states (Ginsberg, Lowi and Weir 57).
The nature of the states is another key factor that results in different political composition of the state. The derivation of the state can be either singular or, as capitalists put it, “nation-state” form. As such, this concept strives to the understanding of the politics or statehood. In addition, to analyze the relationship between society and the state, it is necessary to assume a correlation between society, state, and social class. To alleviate the confusion that may arise between ‘the political’ and the state, a theoretical generalization is necessary. For a better conceptualization of the relationship between the globally mobile and the nationally fixed state, it is necessary to analyze political development in relation to the conflict that results from capital fractions and the state. This linkage between capital and state is shown using personal connections and family links, and as such, the links are politically explored in order to bring out clearly the capitalist nature of the economy.