-- 2 -- Interest Groups

My focus issue for this segment is attitudes on military spending, and specifically the differences in policy initiatives put forth by opposing liberal and conservative based viewpoints in the matter. Two organizations that espouse such views, respectively, are the ‘Code Pink’ movement, and the Center for Security Policy. While the former represents a series of campaigns focusing on demilitarization and instilling of democratic values through a decrease in military spending worldwide, the conservative-leaning Think Tank prioitizes the support of stringent, pro-defense policies that focus on combating alleged anti-US entities across the globe. Through each perspective, light can be shed on the impacts and effects of action and inaction, and each interest group, through their own viewpoints, bring about calls for action that are widely removed in terms of target groups. Among their many vibrant campaigns and messages, ‘Code Pink’ utilizes graphics and designs to convey the depth and impact of the policies they wish to prevent, and on example of such is seen in this campaign poster, outlining one of the wars perpetuated by what it claims to be the continued US investment in global arms exports. Depicting still images derived from the conflict, this poster is one such example of the tone set in Code Pink’s argument, and the usage of emotional devices to further appeal to its base and press its arguments. The main focus, to limit the US’s involvement in Yemen through reducing arms exports and boycotting the industrial complex, is in line with its overall purpose as an interest group. On the other hand, based on the notion that maintaining dominance in global arms industry will help to secure America’s interests, the Center for Security Policy uses a structured broadcast and media system to press their arguments in politics and society. One such example of their methods includes the following series of queries posed on the ‘Secure Freedom Radio’ operated by the Think Tank. “FRED FLEITZ, President and CEO Center for Security Policy, Former CIA analyst, Former Chief of Staff for Amb. John Bolton in the State Dept., Author of The Coming North Korea Nuclear Nightmare: What Trump Must to Reverse Obama’s Strategic Patience (2018)…”​…Netanyahu reveals Iran’s second secret nuclear weapons facility this year…China offers Iran a $15 billion line of credit…Prospects of North Korean denuclearization…” It is clear that the radio-based messages, directed towards a regular audience based on societal segments looking to such analytical perspectives which, at the same time, press their own perspectives. The aggravated ‘threat’ perceived here clearly adds weight to the argument in favor of supporting defense spending, and in general displays the purpose of this interest group. Overall, the two interest groups seen here, despite using different methods and pandering to different segments of society—one relying on social media and popular movements, and the other cementing strong views through the lens of factual analysis—both opine on the same issue, revealing much about the perspectives prevalent on it. In terms of one’s political groups, the usage of emotion, ethos, or otherwise compulsory methods will allow interest groups to represent inner beliefs people may have, and those people who most closely align to those views will be most heavily targeted. In the ever-diversifying and complex political and societal situation in the US, interest groups serve as yet another force for change.