I think Mr. Hillman's point is not advocating autocracy, rather acknowledging the role of leadership--in EVERY society, be it democratic not.
It is well established for example that no more than 1/3 of Americans at the time of the War of Independence supported the Patriot cause. It took a George Washington to win the war, and later...to win the peace, in establishing the Constitution.
Do you disagree with his example of the homosexual rights movement? Have anywhere NEAR a majority favored the changes in law which has taken place? No, of course not--not even in California (though perhaps in cities like San Francisco...). Rather a majority, either don't know what to think, or are not utterly certain in their convictions--i.e. willing to fight. When a very small, but determined, minority pushed and pushed and pushed...things changed--either democratically or (in this case, mostly) through judge-made "law..."
Now of course sodomy is against God's law...and is in a different category, since by definition, it involves behavior...but the same thing happened in desegregation.
Did majorities in the South (or anywhere) favor passing laws to recognize the equality of blacks & Jews? NO. But a determined minority--convinced of the righteousness of their cause--led the way, and eventually, the majority went along--and today, I'm sure, a majority does not want segregation to come back. Were the majority of people 60 years ago evil, rapent racists? No...but neither were they convinced that blacks were equal.
The problem is, using that good model above, the anti-God crowd has convinced certain majorities, but mostly governors and judges--that poor, pitiful homosexuals are a class, a different set of people.... just like blacks, when really homosexuals are just people following degenerate behavior patterns... THAT is a huge difference.
But Mr. Hillman's main point is that should Christians get a foothold in culturally significant places--like Hollywood, or the Academy (where they definitely do NOT have significant places now), as well as in government, we can change society by the influence of leadership--and not worry about whether a majority are real Christians.
Change ALWAYS occurs through leadership--not in a Marx-imagined sense of the rising up of the masses.
For clarification, see my post #40. Repeating what I wrote there:
If the majority doesn't like what the leadership is doing, they will find a way to get different leadership. To your point, I don't have a strong opinion re which group starts things off first. What I'm saying is that there needs to be a cultural influence coming from both groups, or else the influence of either will be short-lived. It's my view that focusing growing the "majority" should be today's priority. IMO we can't elect and sustain Godly leadership, without having the support of a statistically influential voting base.