Elizar’s (1966) stated that there is a theory used to classify American political culture that depicted boundaries of the historical government’s action. He suggested moralistic, individualism and traditionalistic culture as the combination of political sub-cultures that were depicted in various states in the United States (McKethan, 2007).
Each of these subcultures embodied different perspectives on the political process, citizen’s roles in government and the role of the government in general (McKethan, 2007). This paper compares and contrasts the three kinds of political subcultures in reference to the Health policy.
In moralistic subculture, political activities were viewed as a way to improve the society’s lifestyle (McKethan, 2007). If the same view is applied in public health policy, the subculture gives a platform for the policy makers the privilege to make policies that will improve living conditions in the society.
Policymakers in moralistic states champion, invent and embrace broad public programs that help in improvement of the society (Brian & Miller, 2002). They generate ideas and carry researches that are meant to bring change to the society. In this subculture the politicians and public, conceive politics as matters of public with the notation of public good.
During policymaking, the policy makers ensure that the health policies are of great help to the society (McKethan, 2007). In individualistic subculture, the policy makers support innovation in health public but they limit relying on the government on the basic services (Brian & Miller, 2002). Their concern to the public is limited as compared to moralistic subculture.
In addition, individualistic subculture encouraged people to have objectives that are for their own good or a group of people (Brian & Miller, 2002). The subculture thus encourages nepotism. On other hand, traditionalistic subculture notion is that the government should maintain its status quo.
The subculture does not give room for innovations in the public services and thus limits the government to what it already has. However, the subculture allows innovation but limits the powers to just a relatively small and self-perpetuating groups (Brian & Miller, 2002). These groups are “drawn from established elite who govern through family ties or social status” (Brian & Miller, 2002).
Moralistic and individualism states spend more capital in social programs than the traditionalistic states. However, their rates differ in that the moralistic states spend more than the individualistic states (McKethan, 2007). The moralistic policies were more innovative followed by the individualistic policies and finally the traditionalistic.
Traditionalistic policies are more conservative and they incorporate so many ancient policies. Moralistic states have good economic equality among the people throughout the whole state than the other states. In individualistic political culture states, there is economic inequality, which makes the gap between poor and the rich big.
The gap is also reflected in access to health services where the rich enjoy better compared to the poor. On the other hand, states with traditionalistic culture economic growth depend with the family and social hierarchies where families with strong background are wealthier than those with weak background are.
Conclusion
It is evident that states with moralistic political culture have good governance than states with other political cultures. This gives the people from these states an advantage to better health policies and welfare services.
The contrary is to the states that hold and accommodate the traditionalistic subculture. On the other hand, states with individualistic subcultures welfare of the society depend on what they have in government.
References
Brian, F. & Miller, G. (2002). Political culture and voting systems in the United. Westport, USA: Praeger publishers.
McKethan, A. (2007). Moving or mimicking the market? The opportunities and constraints of state public employee health plans. United States: Chapel Hill.