Assignment #1_ Utah's Political Culture

.pdf

School

University of Utah *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

5245

Subject

Political Science

Date

Apr 3, 2024

Type

pdf

Pages

6

Uploaded by Lincolnmendenhall on coursehero.com

Lincoln Mendenhall Assignment #1 Dr. Buhler POLS5245 Utah’s Political Culture Throughout Elazar’s and Leiske’s findings, they both made great breakthroughs in regard to political cultures everywhere in the US. In this paper specifically, I will highlight Utah’s political culture, and use Elazar and Leiskes findings and labelings to analyze whether Utah still fits into these respective categories, as well as noting what has changed in Utah’s political culture and subcultures geographically and demographically up to present day. Throughout Elazar’s discoveries, the three main political subcultures he used to identify states with were; Individualistic–which is a society or area that is most tolerant of political corruption but also provides for the integration of diverse groups into the mainstream, Moralistic–which is the primary source of quest for good society, but also a “tendency toward fanaticism and narrowmindedness…”(P.96) Moralistic is what Elazar deemed Utah to be, but we will get into that going forward… and lastly Traditionalistic–which is the search for continuity but also denies civil rights to blacks and hispanics. After looking at only three political subcultures, It would seem obscure to only be able to characterize an entire state based off of one of these subcultures. Nowadays, more than ever, states are becoming more and more diverse, with many people moving to different states based on extenuating circumstances. Now, at the time that this study was written in 1972, maybe states had less diversity and you could more or less group a whole state into one of these subcultures.
With the definitions that Elazar gives for these three subcultures, there is no way that everyone in a single state could agree because while a state might be searching for the quest of a “good society,” the state could also be traditionalistic in a sense where they follow in the footsteps of the past. However, in Elazar's analysis, he delves deep into what it means to be in one of these three subcultures. Since this is a paper on Utah, I will note that in his analysis of the “moralistic” subculture, Elazar mentions that “To the extent that American society is built on the principles of "commerce" in the broadest sense of the term and that the marketplace provides the model for public relationships in this country, all Americans share some of the attitudes that are of first importance in the individualistic political culture.” This is important to note because he makes connections between multiple subcultures and states and recognizes that there are multiple subcultures that can be associated with a particular state. Elazar also draws a comparison between the moralistic subculture as the “commonwealth conception as the basis for democratic government,” which in turn would emphasize the need for a moralistic subculture in a state. Since the US is a democracy, every state within the democracy would have to possess some sort of moralistic component from within. Back in the 70’s when this analysis by Elazar was done, Utah was a seemingly different place than it is now. Even though the state is still mostly controlled by the LDS church, going from a strictly right-leaning Republican state then and to now, still a state dominated by conservatives but there are more people here now that are starting to shift a directional movement to more of a left-sided society, (in Salt Lake County.) Now the question arises… Does a republican-dominated state that has more or less shown more signs of a liberal shift, change the demographic of the “moralistic” subculture that Elazar has deemed us? We know that our government is looking out for the best
interests/commonwealth of its people, and that is something that any ‘moralistic’ government would do at the state or federal level. In the Joel Leiske reading titled “The Changing Regional Subcultures of the American States and the Utility of a New Cultural Measure,” Leiske does a deeper dive into subcultures and uses 2000 census data, as well as religious survey data to analyze subcultures at a deeper level than the previous study done by Elazar. Leiske’s study infers that the people who settled in the US had distinct culture, ethnic backgrounds, religious beliefs, and differences in social ways of life. Groups were formed in clusters of people, rather than being randomly dispersed throughout the country. There is a kind of pattern that emanates itself throughout the country regarding regional subcultures. Different labels have been put on these groups that settled here, and the same patterns show as more and more people show up. Leiske and his analysis show that Utah is of the ‘Mormon’ subculture. He mentions that the southern states are referred to as the “bible belt” because of how religious they are. The south is mostly composed of those of the Catholic, Protestant, and Baptist faiths, while Mormons reside more in the western states. This is and has been particularly true for a long time. Mormons came from the eastern side of the US looking for a settlement to deem theirs in the Salt Lake Valley. It would be considered ideal by most Utahns to deem Utah as a Mormon subculture. This is true because most of the citizens in the state of Utah are in fact, practicing Mormons of the LDS faith. In terms of state politics, The Mormon aspect plays a big part in the state. Many of the people in the Utah legislature are of the LDS faith, and use faith as a driving factor for pushing their agendas. The differences between Leiske and Elazar’s studies are that in Elazar’s
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
  • Access to all documents
  • Unlimited textbook solutions
  • 24/7 expert homework help