[4] The Ideal of the Free Individual: In the late 1700s, most Americans expected the new national government created by the Constitution to leave them alone to pursue their individual goals. They believed the central purpose of government was to create the conditions most favorable to the development of the free individual. Before the Civil War of the 1860s, the American ideal of the free individual was the frontier settler and the small farmer. President Thomas Jefferson expressed this ideal when he said, Those who labor in the earth are the chosen people of God, if ever he had a chosen people.... Jefferson glorified farmers for being free individuals who relied on no one but themselves for their daily needs. Being dependent on none but themselves, farmers, he believed, were the most honest of citizens. Throughout his life Jefferson favored a small, weak form of government, which he believed would encourage the development of a nation of free, self-reliant farmer citizens. From the end of the Civil War until the Great Depression of the 1930s, the successful businessperson replaced the farmer and the frontier settler as the ideal expression of the free individual. The prevailing view of Americans was that government should not interfere in business. If it were to do so, it would threaten the development of free individuals whose competitive spirit, self-reliance, and hard work were developing the United States into a land of greater and greater material prosperity.  Government, therefore, remained small and inactive in relation to the great size of the nation and the amount of power held by business corporations. Some government regulations were in place during this period, but these had only a small impact on business practices. From the 1870s until the 1930s, business organizations and ideas dominated American government and politics. During much of this time, the Republican Party was in power, and it strongly supported these policies.

[5] The Development of Big Government: Traditionally, Republicans have favored letting businesses compete with little or no government regulation: Let the free enterprise system regulate itself in the marketplace. On the other hand, Democrats have traditionally favored using government to regulate businesses, protect consumers and workers, and also to solve social problems. Not surprisingly, it was a Democratic president who presided over the creation of "big government." The Great Depression of the 1930s greatly weakened the businessperson's position as the American ideal of the free individual, and big business lost respect. The Depression also created the need for emergency government action to help the needy on a scale never before seen in the United States in peacetime. As a result, the idea that government should be small and inactive was largely abandoned. Moreover, the ideal of the free individual underwent some very important changes. The widespread unemployment and other economic hardships of the Depression gave rise to the new assumption that individuals could not be expected to rely solely on themselves in providing for their economic security.  This new assumption, in turn, led to a large and active role for the national government in helping individuals meet their daily needs. The Democratic Party, led by President Franklin Roosevelt, brought about a number of changes in the 1930s, which he referred to as a "New Deal" for Americans.

Even with the return of prosperity after the Depression and World War II (1941- 1945), the growth of government's role in helping to provide economic security for individuals did not end. It continued in the prosperous postwar years, and it was greatly expanded during the presidency of another Democrat, Lyndon Johnson, in the 1960s. Roosevelt's New Deal grew into what some saw as a permanent "welfare state" that provided payments for retired persons, government checks for the unemployed, support for families with dependent children and no father to provide income, health care for the poor and the elderly, and other government benefits. Johnson called the new welfare programs "The Great Society."

[6] The Role of Special Interest Groups: Over time, practically all social and economic classes of Americans have seen the need to take advantage of, or to protect themselves from, the actions of government, especially the national government. To accomplish this, Americans with similar interests have formed special interest groups to more effectively influence the actions of government. These special interest groups are often called "lobbying groups" or "pressure groups." Although lobbying groups have existed throughout the nation's history, they have grown significantly in both numbers and power since the late 1900s. The National Rifle Association is an example of a powerful and effective lobby. Its members are mostly people who own guns for hunting, target practice, and personal protection. The NRA, however, receives a great deal of money from business corporations that manufacture guns. Because of the attitudes and interests of its members, the NRA strongly opposes almost all government restrictions on the sale of all handguns, rifles, shotguns, and even semi-automatic and assault weapons. Even though most of the general public favors some gun control measures, the NRA has always been able to block the passage of most gun-control legislation. Those who are concerned about the right to own guns are more likely to be politically active. The public sees both parties as being supportive of their views on gun control/gun rights - conservative Republicans are more concerned about their right to own guns, and liberal Democrats are more likely to favor stricter gun control laws.

Although few interest groups have been as successful as the NRA, most well-organized interest groups have achieved a large measure of success. By organizing into groups which put pressure on government officials, people can gain more rewards and avoid more government restrictions than if they tried to do it as individuals. With this principle in mind, business interest groups have multiplied in recent decades so that most major trades, businesses, and even professions have their lobbyists in Washington. There are influential lobbies representing labor unions, farm groups, teachers, doctors, lawyers, and specific industries such as oil and natural gas, pharmaceuticals, and biotechnology. Interest groups representing ethnic groups such as African Americans, Native Americans, Mexican Americans, and Jewish Americans have also expanded. There are also interest groups representing a variety of ideals or causes that want government support. These include groups pressing for a clean environment and those promoting greater protection for consumers. As one congressman exclaimed, "Everybody in America has a lobby!" The political tendency of recent decades is for the size of the government to bring about an increase in the number and size of interest groups, and for the greater demands made on the government by interest groups to increase the size of the government. Groups such as the AARP (American Association of Retired Persons) not only demand new government programs, regulations, and benefits for their members, they also strongly resist any attempts to reduce existing programs that they believe protect their interests, such as Social Security and Medicare. The result of this continuing cycle can be referred to as "interest group government." No single interest dominates government and politics as business groups did before the Great Depression. Instead, government and politics are based on reaching compromises with a large number of groups and pleasing as many as possible.

[7] The New Individualism: Interest-Group Government_ Interest-group government can be seen as expressing a new form of American individualism. Unlike the old frontier or business individualism, individuals do not claim to succeed on their own, but rather by forming groups to influence the government. Still, it is individuals, their rights, their interests, and their ambitions, not those of the nation as a whole, that are the focus of their attention. The interest group is no more than a tool to achieve the goals of the individual by influencing the government.

Although many Americans have benefited in some way from government-sponsored programs, some experts believe that interest-group government is harmful to the United States. The effect on politicians is enormous. First, interest groups often focus on one issue that is more important to their members than all others. For example, some people feel very strongly that abortion should not be legal in the United States. They may choose to vote for candidates primarily because of their stand on the abortion issue. Generally, because their members feel so strongly, lobby groups are able to promise that their members will vote for a candidate if he or she promises to support their issue once elected. The NRA gives members of Congress grades for their voting record on gun control, and it has been particularly effective in re-electing or defeating senators and representatives.  Second, members of special interest groups contribute large sums of money to election campaigns. Because candidates must rely mostly on private, not public, funding, they are often forced to depend on special interest groups for their campaign funds. Candidates at all levels of government — national, state, and local — must spend enormous amounts of their time raising funds for their re-election. For example, because members of the House of Representatives are elected every two years, they engage in continual fundraising. Senators and presidential candidates are also pressured. The situation has become so bad that many people are agreeing with the statement, "We have the best government that money can buy!" There have been efforts to reform the system, but the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision in 2010 ruled that corporations, individuals, and labor unions could make unlimited contributions to political campaigns through Super PACS (Political Action Committees). In the presidential election of 2012, Super PACS spent over $524 million, according to the Federal Election Commission.