Heywood: historical and cultural significance

Politics

Heywood describes a number of views of the state. Which do you prefer and why?

Heywood's descriptions of the state vary widely, but they all make sense in some form or another, and in some governments. However, personally I much prefer the idea of the Pluralist State, first because it matches my own relatively liberal viewpoint, but because it focuses on individuals and individual's rights and freedoms, and I think this should be the core functionality of the state. I also believe that the state should be neutral, and should protect the rights and beliefs of its citizens, remaining neutral in this regard.

However, I believe that most governments and states are more like the Capitalist state, where one class is dominant in the regulating and operation of the state, and I do not agree with that. I also think there is some of the Leviathan state mixed in, and that states have become too powerful and bloated that it literally has turned into a monster that is intent on growing larger and more bureaucratic, instead of shrinking and really serving the people. I think that all people's rights should be equal, and the state should not be dominated by anyone. Unfortunately, I do not think that is the case, even in our own government today. I think it is dominated by the wealthy and powerful, and that the individual's rights are lost in this type of state.

All of these views of the state have merit, and in truth, I do not believe that most states are simply one type or another. Here in the U.S., I think we have a blend, where they mix up some of the characteristics of all these definitions, with mixed results. As noted, I believe the U.S. has Capitalist and Leviathan portions to the state, and some Pluralist, as well, especially when it comes to individual's rights and beliefs. I don't think that a firm, single type of state can really exist, because government and all it entails is far too complicated for any state to simply adhere to one concrete viewpoint or ideal.

As for the feminist concept, I see the state more as a neutral rather than patriarchal. I think the state should be neutral, and there should be opportunities for everyone, but that is not real life. I think that men mostly run government, but to call states patriarchal seems too extreme for me. I believe that there will be more opportunities for women both in government and the private sector, and that this is a wiser and less volatile outlook than the more radical feminist ideas. I do not have a problem with women or minorities in government, and I believe the state should encourage and make way for more of this type of participation.

As far as economic ideals are concerned, I believe a blend of the Minimalist and the Developmental state is the best alternative. I believe that capitalism is a good thing, but that wealth does not need to be distributed evenly, so I am not a fan of the socio-democratic state. I believe that government should be involved in social aspects of society, such as welfare and such, and that no intervention is not the way to manage these problems. I do not believe, however, that a totalitarian state is the key, or a collective state, either. These are too socialist for me, and too constraining for citizens.