State Political Culture and the Attitudes of State Senators Toward Social, Economic Welfare, And Corruption Issues<xref ref-type="fn" rid="fn1"><sup>*</sup></xref>

Abstract

The thesis of Daniel Elazar that the American political culture is composed of three distinct political subcultures is well known.' Elazar argues that intrinsic to each political culture are different but basic ideas about politics, such as the purpose of government, the reasons for political participation, and how policies and government should be conducted on a day-to-day basis.2 If these three subcultures exist today, one would expect to find evidence of them in a variety of ways. For example, one would expect to find in states characterized by different political subcultures, evidence of different public policies, or perhaps differing mass and elite attitudes toward politics. Policies may be the best indicators of subcultural variations among states because current policy patterns are so largely a function of past patterns of revenue and expenditure. Thus, even if the distinctiveness of the political subcultures in the United States is fading, current policies should still show the effects of historical cultural patterns. In fact, several studies have documented this relationship. Ira Sharkansky demonstrated that associations do exist between state political cultures and a number of state characteristics, including tax effort and expenditures.3 Robert Savage and Richard Gallagher found