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. Which system is preferable: one with many groups or one with few? Give specific reasons for your opinion

It's better to have a system in which there afer a few interests groups that are anyway influential in the branches of political power, but that are influential because of legitimate ways, not because of bribing and corruption.

It is also important that if there are few interests groups, these groups become representative of as many interests as possible, becoming akin to an umbrella interests group or an umbrella political party.

the crusades are one of the most significant events in the history of europe and the middle east.   they were a series of religious wars carried out by christian crusaders from europe during the timeframe of the middle ages.   beginning in 1095 ce, the crusades saw european knights and noblemen travel to the middle east in an attempt to capture the holy land away from muslim people that had controlled the region for the previous centuries.   the term crusade means ‘cross’.   therefore, the europeans that became crusaders viewed themselves as ‘taking up the cross’.   in fact, many of the crusaders wore crosses on their clothing and armor as they made their pilgrimage to the holy land.

explanation:

where is the cartoon dude