How culture and values, in particular religion, have shaped American contemporary politics

After winning the War of Independence in 1781, it was agreed among the 13 colonies that a central government was needed in order to organise national defence as well as to establish a common external tariff to prevent an influx of cheap British imports.  Having escaped the authority of feudal England, the Founding Fathers held a profound mistrust of strong central governments.  It was from this that the concept of federalism was born.  Most decisions would be held at the local or state level but matters of national interest, e.g. foreign policy, would be determined by a central government.  It has, however, turned out to be ironic that the framers thought that federalism was the key to liberty.  Over the years it has proved to be quite the opposite.  This, in turn, has lead to greater centralisation.  State decisions receiving most criticism have revolved predominantly around racial and penal questions. 

Another aspect of the composition of the American Constitution which dilutes the power of central government is the separation of powers.  The US system is bicameral in that executive (President) and legislative (Congress) branches keep checks and balances on each other.  New federal laws originate either in the House or the Senate and must be passed by both and then confirmed or vetoed by the President.  However, the President’s veto can be overruled if at least a two-thirds majority pass the law in both houses.  In turn, the Supreme Court has the power to strike out new laws altogether.

In 1995, 79% of the population were members of organizations with social, economic or political aims; although the number of active participants was around 14%.  Although the presence of these groups increases the openness of the political system, the sheer number of these groups, often with competing interests and ideas cause a log jam in Washington.  It is very hard for law-makers to make firm decisions without disgruntling some of their electorate.  On top of these interest groups there are the Washington lobbyists.  The executive branch lobbies members of Congress.  State and local governments also do this either individually or via umbrella organizations.  As US foreign policies generally affect the whole world, it is not surprising that many foreign lobby groups are active in Washington.  The most common of these are the Israelis, Cuban-exiles, Arabs, Koreans and the Taiwanese.  One such entity – CAMERA, a Jewish lobbing group, has been accused of bullying and bribing US politicians and the media in order to show the Zionist point of view more favourably and ultimately not stating the Palestinian case fairly if at all.

Christians have become increasingly more active in politics within a lobbying capacity, e.g. for the abolition of abortion and the row over capital punishment.  But Christians became very disillusioned with mainstream political parties after the disaster of the Carter administration at the end of the 1970s and decided to become political runners themselves, e.g. Pat Robertson.  Their tactics were to dominate the caucuses and to get a lot of media coverage from TV evangelists.  Nevertheless, despite huge support from their fellow Christians, they failed to expand their support base to the wider electorate.  Support could not even be counted upon from Christians of other denominations.  Meanwhile, conventional politicians, e.g. Reagan, began giving a greater voice to orthodox Americanism, aligning their agendas with those of the conservative Christians.  God was frequently mentioned during Reagan’s speeches.  Conversely, Barak Obama did not even mention religion during his inauguration speech.

During the 1960s there was a disproportionate number of young adults due to the baby-boom following the end of World War II.  A strong counterculture began to emerge on college campuses whose affiliates had very liberal views on sex, drugs and politics.  There were passionate movements for the implementation of black civil rights, women’s rights and of course calls for the removal of US troops from Vietnam.  These uprisings at the colleges were simply a microcosm of what was happening within the rest of US society at that time.  These increasingly liberal attitudes led to groups of more conservative views combining together to form the neo-conservatives (neocons).  These were a motley crew of right-wing Christian thinkers, Jews, conservatives, etc. 

The neocons have since become very influential in shaping US foreign policy predominantly through organizations such as Project for the New American Century (PNAC).  They are very dominant in Congress where their policies are extremely hostile towards Islamic states (except Saudi Arabia due to Saudi-US oil and banking deals).  They support Israel both politically and by providing huge weapons support in suppressing the Muslim Palestinians. 

America is a land of immigrants and yet the population is held together by this idea of the American dream – the illusion that anyone can get anywhere so long as they work hard enough.  They pride themselves on being ‘the defenders of the free’ and yet they themselves were colonisers from their very beginning when they stole the land from the native Indians.  Despising European colonialism, they extolled the virtues of anti-imperialism.  They promoted free trade, and a foreign policy based on non-interference, free from ‘entangling alliances’.  Following the Second World War the United States achieved world economic hegemony.  With the virtual collapse of Western Europe, aid came from the US in the form of the Marshall Plan loan.  This money was not only given to help their European allies but also to curtail European imperialism.  The Suez Crisis manifestly changed America’s diplomacy with foreign powers.  They have since become the biggest imperial force on the planet.  In parts of South America, Africa and Asia, they support despotic dictators in order to gain corporate contracts and access to cheap commodities.  Foreign leaders who fail to comply with America’s terms are liquidated and replaced with alternatives more willing to tow the line.   

Since the beginning of political philosophy, thinkers have sought to balance liberty with security.  The Founding Fathers inbuilt a lot of liberty within the Constitution but that liberty has also brought about major security issues during recent years.  The freedoms of speech and congregation have allowed Islamic terrorist organizations with similar goals from various parts of the world to channel their efforts by meeting on American soil.  This was part of the reason for bringing about the Patriot Act of 2001.  However, for many, this act was a fundamental erosion of civil liberties.  Following the 9/11 terror attacks the Bush Administration began their practice of extraordinary renditions, water-boarding to obtain confessions and locking people in Guantanamo Bay without trial.  The CIA was also paying $5,000 bounties to anyone turning in terror suspects in Pakistan.  Not surprisingly, this lead to the widespread disappearance and torture of innocent civilians.  ‘Once a society starts circumventing its own laws, the risks to its future stability are much greater than terrorism.’

The 2008 election of the first black President, Barak Obama, has been seen by many as a triumph of equality over racism in American society.  However, has this really signalled their break with the past, or has it been simply a clever manoeuvre by those pulling the strings behind the scenes trying to regain America’s reputation following the unpopularity of the previous president, George W. Bush?  The 2008 election was clearly a one horse race.  The Republican, John McCain, was never going to win the election, partly due to his predecessor, but also his own deteriorating health and poor running mate.  

One could therefore surmise that the original settlers were rational actors with theological convictions.  Unfortunately, the paradox of Americanism is succinctly put by John Torpey when he states that: ‘the United States can be at once a leading defender of human rights and a leading violator of such rights, as well as a vision of a prosperous future for many that at the same time is marked by striking and increasingly large inequalities of wealth and income.’  The America of today is a far cry from the original vision of a ‘Citty upon a hill’.  Americanism is a myth; they do not practice what they preach but instead are hegemonic, domineering and powerful.  Its foreign policy is morally bankrupt and the federal government doesn’t even provide for its own people in terms of welfare.  America is full of fundamentalist ideals and yet is run by a collaboration of large corporations whose only interest is the latest share price.

---

Bibliography

Bertetti, S. ‘Enlightenment Ideals As Realized by Jefferson and Others’, Center for History and New Media. Available at  [accessed 17/12/2009]

Conyers, J. George W. Bush versus the US Constitution. Academy Chicago Publishers, Chicago, 2006

D’Antonion, M. Fall from Grace: The Failed Crusade of the Christian Right. St Edmundsbury Press, Bury St Edmunds, 1990

Emerson, S. American Jihad: The Terrorists Living Among Us. Free Press Paperbacks, New York, 2003

Fisk, R. The Great War for Civilisation: The Conquest of the Middle East. Harper Perennial, London, 2006

Giardina, M. ‘Toward a Politics of Hope: Performing Political Reality in the Age of Obama’, Cultural Studies Critical Methodologies, 9 (6), 2009, p.741

Grahmann, K. ‘Betting on Prohibition: The Federal Government's Approach to Internet Gambling’, Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property, 7 (2), Spring 2009, pp.161-184

Griffith, M. ‘John Locke’s influence on American government and public administration’, Journal of Management History, 3 (3), 1997, pp.224-237

Hossino, O. (5 April 2008) ‘Realism and the Libertarian Ideal’, LewRockwell.com. Available at  [accessed 14/12/2009]

Jones, A. The Limits of Liberty: American History 1607-1992 (2nd edn.) Oxford University Press, Oxford & New York, 1995

Joseph, P. (2008) ‘Zeitgeist: Addendum’, The Zeitgeist Movement. Available at  [accessed 14/12/2009]

Killer Coke. Killercoke.org. Available at  [accessed 11/12/2009]

McGiffert, M. Puritanism and the American Experience. Addison-Wesley Publishing Co, Massachusetts, 1969

McKay, D. American Politics and Society (6th edn.) Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, 2005

McLendon, M. ‘A New American Exceptionalism’, Public Administration Review, 67 (6), November/December 2007, pp.1086-1088

Oborne, P. Dispatches, Channel 4, 16 November 2009

Rees, L. (May 2003) ‘The other coke in Columbia’, New Internationalist.  Available at  [accessed 11/12/2009]

Schneier, B. ‘Beyond Security Theatre’, New Internationalist, 427, November 2009, p.11

SourceWatch (13 March 2003) ‘Project for the New American Century’, SourceWatch. Available at  [accessed 14/12/2009]

Thomas, M. (December 2008) ‘Belching out the Devil’, New Internationalist. Available at  [accessed 11/12/2009]

Torpey, J. ‘The Problem of ‘American Exceptionalism’ Revisited’, Journal of Classical Sociology, 9 (1), 2009, pp.143-168

---