The states with moralistic political cultures lean to have higher levels of the available social services. The moralistic culture believes that aggregate activity through legislative problems is the most astounding calling and that participation in politics problems and the advancement of greater benefit are the goals of government. Political exercises revolve around the community instead of individual improvement and as an outcome; intervention into the private exercises is adequate in the event that it facilitates a public good.
Another source also states that the states with moralistic political cultures tend to have higher levels of available social services. Besides, the states with a moralistic political culture view the government as a method to better society and endorse the universal welfare in Elazar’s framework. Well, let us more detail this issue. We are sure that you need this information so that you are at this page.
EXPLANATION OF THE STATES WITH MORALISTIC POLITICAL CULTURES TEND TO HAVE HIGHER LEVELS OF AVAILABLE SOCIAL SERVICES.
The society hopes the political officers to be truthful in dealing with others. They hope the political officers prioritize the interests of the people they serve, and devote themselves to refining the area that they embody. The process of politics is viewed positively and not as a vehicle contaminated by corruption. Actually, the people in a moralistic culture have little tolerance for corruption and be certain that politicians have to be inspired by the desire to profit society rather than by the need to get financial benefits from services.
Moralistic states tend to maintain an expanded role for the government. They are more likely to be certain that the government should encourage public welfare by assigning funds for the programs that will be able to profit the poor. Additionally, they see it as the duty of public officials to support for the new programs that will profit marginal people or resolve public policy problems, even once there is no public pressure to do so. The States that classify with this culture value people’s involvement and wish citizen contribution in all types of political affairs. In the model of Daniel, people from moralistic states should be more likely to contribute their time and resources to the campaigns of politics and to vote.
The moralistic political culture expanded among the Puritans in upper New England. After several generations, those settlers moved westward, and their values diffused across the top of the United States to the upper Great Lakes. In the middle of the 1800, Scandinavians and Northern Europeans joined the group of settlers and reinforced the Puritans’ values. Those groups pushed together further west through the northern portion of the Midwest and West and then along the West Coast.
States that identify with this culture value the citizen engagement and desire the citizen participation in all forms of political affairs. In Daniel’s model, the citizens from moralistic states have to be more likely to donate their time or resources to political campaigns and to vote. This occurs for 2 main reasons. First, state law is likely to create it easier for residents to sign up and to vote because the mass participation is valued. Second, the citizens who hail from moralistic states should be more likely to vote due to the elections being truly contested. In other words, the candidates are going to be less likely to run unopposed and more likely to face genuine competition from a qualified opponent. According to Daniel, the heightened competition is a function of individuals’ believing which public service is a worthwhile endeavor and an honorable profession.
In Daniel’s view, the citizens in moralistic cultures are more likely to support individuals who get their positions in the government on merit rather than as a reward for party loyalty. In theory, there is less incentive to be corrupt if people obtain positions based on their qualifications. Additionally, moralistic cultures are more open to third party participation. The voters are going to view the political candidates who are motivated by the prospect of supporting the broader community, regardless of their party identification.
Well, the explanation above is an explanation related to the States with moralistic political cultures that lean to have higher levels of available social services. Now, you also need to know some information regarding individualistic political culture.
INDIVIDUALISTIC POLITICAL CULTURE
The States that straighten with individualistic political culture look at the government as a mechanism for solving problems which matter to individual citizens and for following the individual goals. People in this individualistic culture associate with the government in the same manner as they associate with a marketplace. They wish the government provides goods and services they admire as essential, and the public officials and bureaucrats who give them expect to be compensated for their efforts. The focus is on meeting individual needs. The private aims rather than on serving the good interests of everyone in the community. New policies are going to be enacted if the politicians are able to use them to garner support from voters or other interested stakeholders, or if there is great demand for these services on the part of individuals. Daniel Elazar stated that the individualist political culture originated with the settlers from non Puritan England and Germany. The first settlements were in the middle Atlantic region of New York, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey and diffused into the middle portion of the United States in a fairly straight line from Ohio to Wyoming.
Finally, Daniel Elazar disputes that in individualistic states, the electoral competition does not seek to identify the candidate with the best ideas. Instead, against each other political parties which are well organized and compete for votes directly. The voters are loyal to the candidates who hold the same party affiliation they do. As a result, unlike the case in moralistic cultures, the voters do not pay much attention to the personalities of the candidates once deciding how to vote and are less tolerant of third-party candidates.