that develops beyond these three criteria,nas most contemporary democratic regimesnhave, is not likely to fulfill the conditionsnof the minimum state acceptably.nHe devotes a large portion of his book toncase studies of contemporary governmentsnthat either have failed to providenthese conditions (most of the Westernndemocracies) or have provided them untemperednby any other considerationsn(the totalitarian or, as Crozier calls them,ntotalist states). Few conservatives or libertariansnon either side of the Atlanticnwould argue with Crozier’s criteria forngood government or his critique of badngovernment. What is missing from hisnbook is an intellectually rigorous defensenof the “minimum state” and an equallynexacting critique of totalitarianism.nThe problem that underlies much ofnCrozier’s projection of his ideal is thatnthe totalist states, as he acknowledges, donprovide the three criteria of internalnorder, external defense, and financialnstability. Why, then, should we notnprefer totalitarianism to the incipientnanarchy, military weakness, and reelingneconomies of the Western democracies?nAlas, Mr. Crozier does not provide a clearnanswer, and it is my contention that he,nand others who are satisfied with thenideal of the minimum state done, cannotndo so. Of course, he has no sympathynfor totalitarianism, because the “realncriterion ” for which he argues is that “it isnvirtually impossible … for the ordinaryncitizen to escape from the political process.n” Yet he does not elaborate on thisnassertion, and the universal politicizationnof nonpolitical and private institutionsnare not necessarily what Crozier (andnothers in the West) find most objertionablenin totalitarianism. More often citednare its mass homicidal brutality and itsndestruction not only of political andneconomic freedom but also of all humannqualities in its subjects. Politicization, ofncourse, is essential to the totalitarian experimentnin human engineering, butnthat alone is not sufficient to characterizentotalitarian regimes and to distinguishnthem from more moderate authoritariannand constitutionalist polities. I see nonreason why a high degree of politicizationnis incompatible with a minimumnstate. Indeed, it would appear to me thatnthe preservation of a minimum statenwould require the most serious and continuousnattention to and involvement innpolitics on the part of most of its citizens.nEternal vigilance is the price of liberty.nWhat distinguishes totalitariannregimes from others is the presence in thenformer of two things absent from the latter:n(1) totalitarian regimes are animatednby ideologies or political formulas thatnview human beings as malleable andnsubject to perfectibility by politically enforcednmeans; and (2) the means bynwhich men are to be perfected is then”Party”—a monolithic organizationnthat destroys, subsumes, or controls allnother institutions and processes. Thenuniversal politicization of totalitariannregimes on which Crozier dwells followsnfrom these two features: if men are to benmade new by political means, then allnaspects of human life must be subject tonand involved in political processes. Thenbrutality of totalitarianism is also implicitnin these two features: since menncannot be reinvented or molded withoutnlimit, the attempt to do so inevitably en­nnncounters failure, resistance, collectivendisaster, and the Party is forced to evenngreater levels of brutality. Since thenmachinery of the Party monopolizes theninstmments of force and suasion, therenis no meaningful balance of power ornpublic dissent in totalitarian regimes.nConversely, in the constitutionalistnand authoritarian states of the West,nthere is no monolithic mling Party, nor isnthere a public orthodoxy of humannengineering. Such ideologies exist, ofncourse, and exert far too much influencenon the elites of the democratic regimes—nwhich to a large extent accounts for thenhypertrophy of nonessential functions asnwell as for the decay of necessary dutiesnthat Crozier rightly deplores. Yetnprecisely because they are constitutionalistnand exhibit pluralistic dispersionsnof power, ideas, and social forces,nthey have been far more resistant to thenideologies of human engineering thatnconform to the totalitarian model. Indeed,nthey very often exhibit too muchndispersion of independent power centersnand too little orthodoxy, so that thosenwho hold power must do so by forcenalone rather than through generally acceptedninstitutions and values. It is ironicnthat one of Crozier’s defenses of authoritariannstates is that they do not generallynlast long—e.g., they are vulnerable tonthe internal instabilities that they try unsuccessfullynto overcome.nThis formulation, of course, is notnunique, and probably few informed conservativesnwill seriously disagree with it.nCrozier also probably agrees with it, butnunfortunately he does not develop it innThe Minimum State. He is unable tondevelop from his ideal a critique of totalitarianismnor an adequate defense of thenideal of the minimum state. For thisnideal is defensible principally on a viewnof human nature as fixed, not subjectnto reinvention, and in need of both socialnand political disciplines. It is a view ofnman that, to be sure, is not always veryncheerful but one which results in farnmore palatable conditions than does thenalternative, Utopian, ultimately totalitariannview.n17nJanuary 198Sn