Tears of the Wolf Cry

Described in this prompt as “the big bad wolf of American politics,” there are many questions that come to mind while exploring the goods and/or evils of the lobby. With the word “lobby” remaining unclear for me since learning the textbook definition in eighth grade, I have been skeptical of how big and bad these wolves are or perhaps do these wolves just upset the wrong people. Surely, no one is born a big, bad wolf in my eyes; therefore, if these practices truly are bad, then what made these practices begin and why have they continued to go on for so long? This is America, and where there is a big, bad wolf, there is usually a smaller, good wolf (aka Red Riding Hood) that triumphs in the end… right?

Well, it turns out that it if these wolves are big and bad, there is not just is not just one but a plentiful amount working not only in the Washington D.C. area, but also around the United States at federal, state, and city levels. With so many wolves running around, I am therefore led to believe that there are not so many bad wolves out there as people may think. Wouldn't they have been stopped long ago if they were truly up to no good? Furthermore, by cutting out the wolves, wouldn’t that be cutting out other systems of life as well? That’s the way the ecosystem works, and although the political system can be thought of as different (for some, perhaps more artificial), it is still a system that relies on others nonetheless in playing a key part in making the political system go around each day. With all of these wolves running around, they are able to make things happen for citizens, corporations, political figures, and sometimes maybe for themselves as well.

What do the experts have to say about this breed of politics? Well, according to the four articles provided on Moodle, they all have a lot to say but of course not in an agreeable, or sometimes even understandable, manner. Their definitions are somewhat contradictory and are as follows: Victor’s article refers to lobbying as interest groups in a legislative complex; Hojnacki and Kimball as groups to convey to legislators different types of information while maintaining their organizations; Mersheimer-Walt as a loose group of individuals and organizations that actively work to shape U.S. foreign policy [in terms of U.S.-Israel relations in this case); and Goldstein as actions that attempt to influence inside-the-beltway inhabitants by influencing the attitudes or behaviors of outside-the-beltway inhabitants. With perhaps the only real decided definition is that lobbying involves a “group” effort, I can take this to mean that there are many different types of wolves, both good and bad, that produce different reactions from the wider kingdom of the United States of America.

When something receives a high-level of emotion reaction from someone, it usually means they did something to deserve it, good or bad. In the real world, wolves take the action of hunters and gatherers who seem curious about the world around them and with a howl that lets one know that they mean business. It can be seen as a warning to some or as a vocal attack to others. I wouldn’t say that this is far from the mark of working lobbyists. Rather than hunting and gathering for their families, they sometimes take these risks for those that put the food on their table and the money in their pockets – large corporations or other interest groups. Sometimes, however, lobbyists could be working to benefit themselves and others like them to change policies in their favor – more of a grassroots approach. And don’t lobbyists warn and provide insight to legislators by vocalizing their ideas, or at least making noise even if our legislators refuse to listen? They are informers, listeners, messengers, and sometimes teach people a lesson in the meantime – keep in mind, they do have sharp teeth which they can use if necessary.

So, do lobbyists have a right to be called the big, bad wolves or are people just “crying wolf” to have something to cry about when things don’t go their way? Well, Mearsheimer in his article “…Explaining America’s Special Relationship with Israel” would say that lobbyists are solely wolves sticking up for wolves and not the rest of the population. He looks into the forest and sees the wolves solely looking out for their interests and getting away with it in terms of the U.S.-Israel relationship. They have power because they have the money and support to do so, whereas the average person cannot reach that sort of control by wolfing their way into the political world. It is clear that Mearsheimer believes that lobby’s activities and impacts are at fault for a “harmful” relationship between the U.S. and Israel. When lobbyists step into foreign territory, Mearsheimer would raise the important concern that lobbyists blind legislators from seeing the whole issue.

Although Mearsheimer expresses a genuine concern, wouldn’t his concern also mean that legislators weren’t able to make decisions as well? By expressing that lobbyists are shaping our foreign policy, isn’t he saying that legislators are that vulnerable that they give into this wolf pack? Would that therefore be a criticism on us, the U.S. citizens, electing these legislators to power? It seems that Mearsheimer’s real issue may be that he feels so strongly about ending the support to our current Middle Eastern friend more than he feels strongly about lobbyists in general. Something has to be made the roadblock for Mearsheimer’s opinion, and he has painted the wolves as the sole barrier, although forgetting to acknowledge all of the other forces at work –like two pretty large, powerful countries.

No doubt about it, wolves take bites out of the political system, but to what extent and degree, and are these bites justified? If they didn’t bite, who would? Clearly, I am not ready to write all wolves out as big and bad. All work for different motives as do people in all professions, and of course one rotten apple can somehow make all apples out to be rotten. While some would swear off apples in this situation, it could be thought of as a risk to never at least try another again (unless you are indeed Little Red Riding Hood).

In my case, the organization I’m interning for is neither thought of as a lobbying firm nor partisan entity yet we are often found on the Hill trying to influence policy. This is where the subjective opinion of a lobbyist has to come into play because while some would argue that we are not lobbying, aren’t we indeed influencing and advocating for legislators to agree with us? To make a change that will help our constituents by making it clear that it will help legislators’ constituents as well? It is important for us to have connections, network, have names on file that we can approach, and also be truthful. We need to keep our word, perhaps do a favor for someone that will help us get our foot in a legislator’s door in the future. One could and sometiems does see this behavior as a "big, bad wolf" scenario I suppose. However, being close to the Hill, it is almost necessary to have a wolf-like tendency because is it not more or less our obligation and responsibility as active U.S. citizens to advocate for those across the U.S. who are not in such close proximities to legislation on the Hill?

Although questions remain in the air and speculations remain afloat, it is not too arguable that lobbyists do indeed make change as active U.S. citizens. These changes may not be for the better for all, but it is neither here nor there to label our wolves as bad as it is to label the work of lobbyists as “harmful.” For what is harmful to some is beneficial for others. Besides, as a German proverb goes, “Fear makes the wolf bigger than he is.” Furthermore, don’t fear wolves or cast judgement upon them. Rather, learn about the hunt and then decide and act upon the new knowledge that is instilled.