Some observers believe that interest groups in the United States are slowly eroding democracy—that is, that most groups are interested only in personal gain, not the national interest. Countries such as Japan and Germany have very few interest groups and are thus able to make decisions more quickly with a view toward the public interest. What are some arguments in favor of our Pluralist (interest group–driven) type of government? On the other hand, what are some ways that interest groups impede democracy?
1. Which system would you prefer: one with many groups or one with few?
2. James Madison asserted that in a free society the clash among competing interests, each pursuing selfish goals, would result in policies that served the common good. Is free competition among competing interests actually the best way to promote the common good? Is such free competition typical in the United States today?

Pluralism is one of the values that democracies should aspire too, and pluralism means that many different interest groups in society are represented, so the first one is preferable.

Is free competition among competing interests actually the best way to promote the common good? Is such free competition typical in the United States today?

Free competition tends to be an effective way to promote the common good, the market system, which is better at producing wealth than planned economies, can prove this.

However, cooperation is also important and necessary, so the best way to promote the common good is a healthy balance between competition and cooperation.

Such free competition is relatively common in the United States, but some interest groups have more power than others, which limits competition. In these cases, the government must intervene to level the ground.