Different Political Cultures
One of the nice things about being a full-time student is being able to link concepts across classes. When I was juggling work full-time and school part-time, I have to admit that school was a bit of a blur. With the extra time I have now to digest the class materials, I can see concepts play out from different perspectives.
It is easy to make these linkages in two of my classes, since they’re taught by the same professor and there are a handful of us students who are in both classes; in fact, sometimes I lose track of which class I learned what thing in. The other day, though, I was able to make a link from one of these two classes to the third class I’m taking.
In the first class, Politics, we learned about the concept of political cultures, as articulated by Daniel Elazar. One culture, which he calls moralistic, views politics as a commonwealth, meant to be participated in by all the people and wishing to advocate for the common good. Another, which he calls individualistic, views politics as a business, meant to be left to professionals who make things happen transactionally. (He also speaks of a third type, traditionalistic, which is about preserving the status quo and letting the elites run the show.)
Moralistic cultures can be found in places like Oregon and Minnesota, while Philly individualistic as it gets, in terms of political cultures. And so as I contemplate concepts I’m learning in my third class, Privatization and Reinventing Government, I am making the connection that receptivity to government innovations like contracting out, e-government, and performance measurement depends on the political culture. In a moralistic culture, officials might be more juiced to get better for the sake of the constituencies they serve. I saw a lot of this in my leadership trip to Phoenix last June; wherever I turned, politicians were plotting and scheming to make government work better for the citizens.
Contrast this with Philly, where the individualistic culture rules, and politics may have little to do with getting better for the people and everything to do with getting and keeping power. Hopefully, as evidenced by recent indictments and referenda, corruption has bottomed out and we are trending toward cleaner governance. But the prevailing political culture remains, leaving me to wonder how much stomach local politicians have to make tough decisions and to innovate for the sake of making government better.
I don’t want to be too pessimistic or jaded about Philly’s future in this regard, but neither do I want to be naïve and starry-eyed. At the very least, I’m thankful not just for these two classes I’ve taken but for this linkage I’ve seen between the two.
One of the nice things about being a full-time student is being able to link concepts across classes. When I was juggling work full-time and school part-time, I have to admit that school was a bit of a blur. With the extra time I have now to digest the class materials, I can see concepts play out from different perspectives.
It is easy to make these linkages in two of my classes, since they’re taught by the same professor and there are a handful of us students who are in both classes; in fact, sometimes I lose track of which class I learned what thing in. The other day, though, I was able to make a link from one of these two classes to the third class I’m taking.
In the first class, Politics, we learned about the concept of political cultures, as articulated by Daniel Elazar. One culture, which he calls moralistic, views politics as a commonwealth, meant to be participated in by all the people and wishing to advocate for the common good. Another, which he calls individualistic, views politics as a business, meant to be left to professionals who make things happen transactionally. (He also speaks of a third type, traditionalistic, which is about preserving the status quo and letting the elites run the show.)
Moralistic cultures can be found in places like Oregon and Minnesota, while Philly individualistic as it gets, in terms of political cultures. And so as I contemplate concepts I’m learning in my third class, Privatization and Reinventing Government, I am making the connection that receptivity to government innovations like contracting out, e-government, and performance measurement depends on the political culture. In a moralistic culture, officials might be more juiced to get better for the sake of the constituencies they serve. I saw a lot of this in my leadership trip to Phoenix last June; wherever I turned, politicians were plotting and scheming to make government work better for the citizens.
Contrast this with Philly, where the individualistic culture rules, and politics may have little to do with getting better for the people and everything to do with getting and keeping power. Hopefully, as evidenced by recent indictments and referenda, corruption has bottomed out and we are trending toward cleaner governance. But the prevailing political culture remains, leaving me to wonder how much stomach local politicians have to make tough decisions and to innovate for the sake of making government better.
I don’t want to be too pessimistic or jaded about Philly’s future in this regard, but neither do I want to be naïve and starry-eyed. At the very least, I’m thankful not just for these two classes I’ve taken but for this linkage I’ve seen between the two.
Comments