Historically, Political Culture is formed by Elites, not by Democratic means.

The political culture in United States, as in other places around the world, can be argued to be in some part shaped by the widely held ideologies in a society. However, a more honest viewpoint and understanding of how political culture is formed can be held by accepting the fact the widely held ideologies in society beforehand are shaped by intellectuals, nobility or royalty, science, religious beliefs and religious leaders, round table groups, think tanks, news sources, political regimes, politicians, and by many other sources. Historically, the political culture of a country is shaped by political, social, and the intellectual elite and the elite’s ideas essentially form the basis for the widely held ideologies of the society: the widely held ideologies of society then shape the political culture of a country. In our current age where the ideas of "Democracy" are hailed as the most important ideals to hold in a society, people fail to understand that throughout all of history the masses have always been prepared by different factions of elites to perform their will, and thereby contradicting the very notion the masses fight for in having a Democratic government. Whether they are Catholic elites limiting the flow of information to the common lay person and using their positions to gain political power, or a group of Marxists sparking a Red Revolution in Russia, or a group of Communists taking control of the island of Cuba, the political culture of a country almost always seems to be shaped by a small group of people who see an opportunity to control, and never by the majority.


Another important issue continuously brought up in this debate is the issue of Democracy. It is important to understand that Democracy is not the "best form of government," as many scholars would have you believe. Instead it is the best of the worse forms of government. If indeed you need individuals in government (a group of people who use of force) to provide a service or to have some responsibility for provision within a society (the whole group of people) the "fairest" way to do so would be to allow every individual to have their voices and opinions taken into account. However, if your ultimate goals are freedom, morality, and prosperity, than a system that allows for the majority to violate the rights of the minority could never be the best system. In fact, this is the exact reason that the United States was never intended to be a Democracy, but rather a Constitutional Republic, so that the rights of 1% could not be violated by the 99% (no that wasn't a reference to Occupy Wall Street).

Getting into the specifics of United States history, there have been two threads of thought in politics; Classical Liberalism and what we call Liberalism, Progressivism, or Modern Liberalism; Conservatism is an ideology that builds off of these other two. One of these ideological lines can be linked to Jeffersonian ideology or Madisonian ideological thought and the other can be linked to the ideology of Hamilton and Federalism. Whether we agree with one side or the other what we all must agree with is the fact that both ideologies started as a movement within a group of intellectual elites and not as widely held popular and democratic belief in the society. Of course, this specific aspect does not discredit the validity of a specific viewpoint, but it does remove the notion that certain political movements are "By the people," and others are "By the elite." However, the difference between the two historical ideologies is that one group of intellectual elites would rather have the individual manage their life as free from intervention as possible, and the other group feels that because they are the intellectuals they can manage the individual's life better than the individual. But nonetheless, the idea that one of the these positions, or any other political standpoint started as or even can start as a movement of the masses is an absurd notion.


 In modern times the two dominant parties, the Political elites or Democrats and Republicans, have taken aspects from both Liberalism and Classical Liberalism to form their platforms, and they have formed the widely held ideologies which then form the political culture in the United States today. In other words, the widely held ideologies of our society today are derived from a combination of the historical lines of Classical Liberalism and Modern Liberalism, and these ideologies are greatly influenced by Democratic and Republican elites. It is important to note that the initial ideologies present in the United States at its inception have, in our current times, been homogenized into one conglomerate where the two dominant political ideologies only differentiate on very few issues and many people within the two parties have the same core beliefs. Although the two ideologies of Classical Liberalism and Modern Liberalism have shaped the current understanding of politics held by individuals within the Democratic Party and within the Republican Party, the two ideologies have not remained pure to their historical foundations. Modern Conservatives are not defined in the same way nor do they have the same beliefs as the Classical Liberals, even though they are said to be descendents of the ideology. In the same way, Modern Liberals are not defined in the same way as Federalists, or Liberals in the past. Overall, these two lines of thought are perhaps the greatest contributors to the current political culture.

The State, Marriage, and The Church

 With the recent buzz created by the statements of President Obama, many people in the Christian community have responded by supporting moves for the creation of an amendment that defines marriage between a man and a woman. While, in my opinion, there are far more impactful things that the American people should be focusing on rather than arguments about gay marriage, such as continuous wars in the Middle East, the killing of innocent women and children with drone bombings, the passing of the draconian NDAA bill, the limitation of and violations of our freedom in the U.S., and the immoral basis politicians have used to justify their actions, it is important to address the dangers of the ideas behind this push.

It is incredibly important for Christians, and all citizens, to understand the dangers associated with giving a government the power to promote and define the religious beliefs they hold. Christians need to understand that when they fight in favor of a governmental power to enforce what they believe (ie. marriage is between a man and a woman) they are only setting themselves up for a time when those in power will not agree with their views. Although the understanding of marriage between a man and a woman may be rational conviction and a moral principle to hold, it does not mean the authority should be given to the state to use the force of law to impose this conviction upon the whole of society. All throughout history the results of the imposition of these rules and laws have ended in the desecration of the religious institutions and the society around them.

 Sadly, many Christians have adopted the view that it is okay for the government to have a certain power when an administration or politician agrees with their understanding of things. In the current paradigm, Christians tend to believe that Republicans represent many of their Christian beliefs, and therefore when Republicans want to pass a law that has Christian jargon, they support it. However, those very same Christians who previously supported the Republican position react adversely when a Democrat is advocating for a similar position that benefits a different group of people. As a result of these same draconian  actions being taken for the benefit of another group, this group of Christians will likely resort to talk of violations of rights and religious freedoms that may have previously been absent from the discussion.

Instead of advocating for the freedom to express individual religious beliefs, the position many Christians have adopted today is the initiation of force and the violation of individual freedom in order to force individuals in a society to adhere to the practices of their faith. In an irresponsible move, Christians today have adopted the idea that, rather than having to be apologetic and promoting their beliefs in reasonable and rational dialogue, the state can force the rest of populace to follow their practices and beliefs. This stance is nothing more than an apathetic, immature, and completely erroneous perspective on behalf of those who contend for this position.

Not only is the position irresponsible and lazy, but this will inevitably result in limitations in the freedom to express your Christian beliefs in the future. There are really only two ways to change something we believe is bad or to promote something as good in society. The first way is to initiate force and make people adhere to your standards with the threat of force. Conversely, you can promote your beliefs by engaging in dialogue and setting a positive example which may result in the voluntary cooperation of others in adapting your definition for use in their personal lives. Which way is more moral?

The way these issues are currently dealt with is by using the first method and the initiation of force. For example, if we wanted to change the issue of gay marriage in our society today it would go something like this. A group of Christian politicians get into powerful positions in government and pass an amendment to the Constitution that states marriage is between a man and a woman, and couples who do not fill these requirements cannot be married. In this case, there will be many Christians who will no doubt support the Christians who passed this amendment, because they agree with the position. Now, let’s say that these Christians get voted out of office, and a group of secular politicians get voted into these same positions of power previously held by Christians. These secular politicians understand the legal process very well and know exactly how to legally eliminate previously formed amendments, and these politicians get rid of the Christian amendment defining marriage. This group then goes on to create an entirely new amendment which states that marriage is between any two persons who are in love and every religious organization that has the power to give marriage licenses is required by law to marry anyone requesting a ceremony. What will happen to Christians and their right to define their own religious beliefs and practices after the state has forced them to abide by their definitions? In my opinion, there may be no greater danger to Christian values, practices, and beliefs, than politicians and citizens who think they have the power to make your beliefs an aspect of the state.

What we need today is for individuals to deal with their beliefs and have government defend the freedom to express and practice those beliefs as long as they don't interfere with other's abilities to do the same. Personally, I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman, and I believe our creator intended it that way. I also believe that marriage is a Christian doctrine, and people who aren't Christian shouldn't be involved in defining a Christian concept, or trying to force Christians to accept their definitions. But, the government should not be an agent to force others to believe or do as we want, but to defend the freedom to believe and express. For many Christians today the role of government in society is to promote the values they believe are important, and force the whole of society to follow the same practices Christians hold in high regard. But, many Christians fail to understand that the only way the government operates is through force, which eliminates the morality of any results that may be achieved. Christians should instead engage in dialogue and be a living example of their beliefs in order to convince others that their approach is the most moral, reasonable, and efficient approach.