Where would you place yourself on the Mitchell Chart (read definitions before answering)?
Total Votes: 70
The Mitchell Chart from "8 Ways to Run the Country"
The Nolan Chart
Both charts superimposed!
You're probably familiar with the customary left-right political axis, and you may even be familiar with the Nolan Chart or politicalcompass.org. But a recent book, "Eight Ways to Run the Country" has presented what is, in my opinion, a superior political diagram.
In "Eight Ways", Brian Patrick Mitchell lays out a political archetype system that is slightly askew to previous diagrams and relies more on a person's attitude toward politics, rather than a list of issue stances. His chart has two axes:
Kratos -- (Greek for "force") Measuring the person's perceived need to use force to keep the social system functioning.
Arche -- (Greek for "leader") Measuring the person's attitude toward social hierarchy.
Anyone who tends to oppose the use of force to maintain social cohesion is "akratic," while someone who tends to support it is "kratic." A person who tends to be accepting of existing social hierarchies and traditions is "archic" and someone who tends to dislike those social patterns is "anarchic."
This results in eight positions, which Mitchell associates with common American political labels for convenience:
Theoconservative (Archic with indifference to Kratos) Supports social traditions but their support for government action varies depending on whether a policy supports or opposes the informal structure of society.
Neoconservative (Archic and Kratic) Generally supportive of social heirarchies and believes that strong policy is often necessary to maintain stability and promote growth.
Communitarian (Kratic with indifference to Arche) Supports a strong government to direct activity, but only cares about cultural matters to the extent that they impact the extent to which society can pursue big projects.
Progressive (Kratic and Anarchic) Supports a strong government to direct activity, but is critical of social conventions that may hold people back from their full potential.
Radical (Anarchic with indifference to Kratos) Sharply critical of any social mores that fail to treat people equally, and only cares about government policy to the extent that it reinforces or challenges stale traditions.
Individualist (Anarchic and Akratic) Critical of social mores that fail to treat people equally, and also distrustful of policy that forces people to live a certain way against their will.
Paleolibertarian (Akratic and indifferent to Arche) Deeply distrustful of policy that keeps people from choosing their own way in life, and only cares about morals and traditions to the extent that they become a focus of the legal system.
Paleoconservative (Akratic and Archic) Distrustful of policy that keeps people from choosing their own way in life, but very supportive of the informal rules and traditions that undergird society.
If you're still having trouble figuring out where you stand, consider the following. The Mitchell chart is not a perfect map for the Nolan chart. The arche axis is not the same as "personal liberty on the Nolan Chart. Take the statement:
"For the most part, wealthy people are rich because of their hard work and disproportionate contribution to society."
The Nolan Chart would tend to place agreement with this statement in the "economic liberty" zone. But the Mitchell Chart would see this as acceptance of established social hierarchies and thus the statement is archic. Or how about this:
"A system of mandatory national service would make our society much more unified."
The Nolan Chart would tie this to "personal liberties" (like whether there should be a military draft), and peg this as anti-personal liberty. But on the Mitchell chart, this statement is clearly kratic in sentiment.
For those of you who are used to the Nolan Chart, I have helpfully superimposed on the Mitchell Chart. This isn't a perfect overlay, since the two charts measure different things. However, right now in America, this is basically how the two charts match up. You could probably do a similar overlay with the chart from politicalcompass.org, but you'd have to flip their authority axis upside down.
What's interesting to me about this chart is that the portion of the chart referred to as the "left" or the "right" appears to have shifted in within the last few decades. Prior to the 1960s, one could argue that "left" would be towards the lower left (i.e. towards Progressivism), but these days it seems like "left" refers to towards the actual left side of the chart (i.e. towards Radicalism). Similarly the middle of the "right" wing has shifted from Palecon to Theocon.
I'll probably write a follow-up article to discuss the historical (and future) implications of this chart, but for now, I'm just interested in hearing what people think about the Mitchell Chart. Is it a good model?
I guess I am Paleolibertarian, but the thing is that I do care about society's morals and traditions. It is just that I don't overall lean Individualistic nor Paleoconservative. In some cases I lean towards tradition and rigid social structure, in other cases I lean against the structure and towards individuality.
It's not quite accurate to say that Paleolibertarians are "indifferent" to morals and traditions. Many Paleolibertarians are very traditional and morally conservative, but their intense opposition to government means that they will only go so far in accepting and respecting rank, which all governments depend upon. Paleolibs are therefore naturally more rebellious than Paleocons, who accept government as necessary in a fallen world and actually see it as reflecting the necessarily archical order of society.
I'd peg myself as hovering firmly around Progressive, perhaps slightly more towards Communitarian then Radical.
I like this chart. After recently finishing God of War 2, I especially like being able to claim that I "tend towards Kratos".
Perhaps a third dimension of how much of the average citizen's participation the system should compel? Apathetic to anapathetic, maybe? That would be cool.
Hmmm. Good point. I did phrase it rather poorly.
I was thinking something that would capture a spectrum from enjoying strong leadership and contenting one's self with little input, and desiring intensive participation at all levels of the process.
So I can picture both extreme Kratic Apathetic "dictatorial" (is that a word?) and Kratic Anapathetic "mob rule" state.
Individualist, heading towards paleoliberal.
It's a good chart, but the labels need a little work. Radical, for example, is generally a term that defines a person's extremity (as in, both totalitarians and anarchists are "radicals" because they exist at the fringe of the political spectrum).
Of course, there isn't anything stopping someone from adding the "economics" spectrum as a third dimension and making it a sphere. One can arguably be either pro-market or anti-market while still being moralistically authoritarian, for example.
Radical, for example, is generally a term that defines a person's extremity (as in, both totalitarians and anarchists are "radicals" because they exist at the fringe of the political spectrum).
Actually that is not true. Technically, there are no "radical" conservatives. The term for an extreme conservative is "reactionary". It's just that "radical" sounds better in rhetoric so it's meaning has changed slightly from its origins to now be used for the extremes of either wing.
Language is fun like that.
3.favoring drastic political, economic, or social reforms
Actually, language isn't technical. It's messy and words have multiple meanings, including both yours and mine. Which is my point: radical is often used to represent either end of the spectrum (or unusual points that lie orthogonal to the conventional spectrum), provided the individual in question wishes to overhaul the existing system.
Language is fun like that.
I thought long and hard about all the labels I used, and few are entirely satisfactory. I settled on Radical because the people on the left who tend toward the "Radical" perspective readily accept the label and use it to distinguish their own idealistic leftism from the more pragmatic, power-minded perspective of the lower left. And yes, one can be more or less radical, and the less radical are more moderate.
Paleolibertarian but slightly leaning towards individualist.
Damn, now I have another book to go buy.
Ask your paleolibrarian about it.
Zing, Dennis. You get +1 vote for that one.
Entelechy, could you elaborate on the difference between paleolibertarian and individualist? I don't quite understand Anarchic, Arche, or being indifferent to either.
now I have another book to go buy.
A $40 book at that!
I think I'm an individualist leaning towards paleo-libertarian. I'll have to read this book. Why is there a term such as paleo-libertarian when there are no neo-libertarians?
That's a good point and something that I view as a flaw in the compass he has devised. Neo-libertarians do exist (though the philosophy is inconsistent). They are basically a war-mongering nationalist bunch who do not like business regulation, personal regulation and taxes.
I would like to see how they plan on funding their empire-building without taxation...
Wow I just read about them on wikipedia. I've never even heard the term before. How the hell can you favor a government that intervenes militarily overseas and expect that government to leave the domestic situation alone? Oh well, it seems like a typical response to 9/11 - stupid and counterproductive.
Neo-libertarianism is a foolish and misguided ideology. I have far more respect for paleoconservatives. My understanding is that paleoconservatism and good ole fashion libertarianism are pretty similar, but that paleoconservatism sees more legitimacy in government and isn't as opposed to regulating some personal behavior.
This paleo label is starting to irk me. Nobody wants to be labelled a caveman.
Thank you Entelechy, I understand better now. I guess I am definitely a paleolibertarian than.
Archy is not about judging another person's "worth," but about looking to another person as one's leader, ruler, or guide. Archists accept that someone has to be in charge. If the person in charge fails to live up to his archic office, the solution is to replace him with another person, not to try to arrange things so that no one is in charge. If you have a bad king, you get a new one; you don't declare a republic.
@Not-a-Number raises an interesting point about Ayn Rand and religion. Rand did indeed extol heroic individuals who rise above the rabble. She saw herself as such a superman and lorded herself over those around her. But this only proves that she was not an egalitarian, not that she was an archist. She fails as an archist because she was unwilling to accept anyone else over her. This is typical of extreme individualists. Thomas Jefferson railed against the inequality that would have required him to submit to popes or kings, but lorded himself over his 130 slaves. The principle Rand and Jefferson lived by was not archy, but their own individual interest. Recall the young Gore Vidal confessing himself "an absolute monarchist, on the condition of course that I be that monarch." This is individualism, not archism, which always looks up to someone higher, ultimately to God.
Archists are of course more accepting of hierarchies, viewing them as a fact of nature if nothing else, but they need not believe in God to believe in hierarchy. Neocons, for instance, recognize the utility of religion in support of the socio-political hierarchy, but their own belief in God is often suspect. Many tend toward a naturalistic conservatism, as opposed to a theistic traditionalism.
On the other hand, theism is, by definition, a recognition of rank (arche), a belief that man is subject to a supreme being. It should not surprise us then that the more religious one is, the more likely one will be found on the right. This is empirically verifiable. Surveys show that self-identified conservatives go to church more often than self-identified liberals. This is not to say that no one on the Left believes in God, but that belief in God is more consistent with an archical outlook, which is the basis of what we call conservative or right wing.
On Rand, submitting to one's own reason hardly qualifies as a recognition of rank. Rand simply changed her mind, based on new information. Ultimately, her only guide was her own self and its reason. This is inconsistent with the archistic outlook, which is based on a recognition of rank between actual persons, requiring humility and selflessness.
On the Iraq war, the alignment for and against the war would have be a lot different if a Democratic president had ordered it. Granted the parties differ on their approach to foreign policy, and there are ideological reasons why Clinton would prefer to bomb Serbs and Bush would prefer to invade Iraq, but each side tends to support the wars its own presidents order.
On Jefferson, the point is that he was inconistent in being an egalitarian slaveowner, and that individualism explains such inconsistency. Archism doesn't.
Individualist with a little paleolibertarian as well
I think where you fall on the chart is perhaps less important than your proximity to the edge. I would surmise that most of the population is fairly close to the middle, and the most strident advocates of a position are out on the edges. Thus might arise the case of weak radical voters who are actually closer in viewpoint to weak paleocons than people who are nominally of their own persuasion.
And that perhaps explains the oddness of political coalitions and how they utterly frustrate the minorities in the extremes. The extremists of any position are in the minority and scare their fellow travelers almost as much as their diametrically opposed opponents.
Good points. One reason my categories might not seem to make sense is that readers forget the variation from the center within each perspective and mistakenly compare someone near the center with someone much farther out. This is especially true of comparisons between Radicals and Individualists, because Radicals tend toward the extreme on account of their idealism, whereas Individualists tend toward the center on account of their self-interest.
I can't really figure out where I stand. Let's see what you guys think:
According to the Washington Post Facebook Application, I am a "Moderate"
You are just really inconsistent, therefore, you are a moderate.
You are just really inconsistent, therefore, you are a moderate.
Inconsistent or brilliant? ;-) I wonder if Einstein was ever called inconsistent.
I don't follow.
Ask youself: What is the principle that relates each of these preferences? I would expect that you would be hard pressed to identify one. This would put you somewhere in the middle, where it is often not possible to pin people down more precisely. A moderate or populist Theocon might be the best description.
I'd describe myself as a Progressive from the description above, but I'm wonder if a series of questions might push me toward the Radical and Individualist. I think government programs can be good (CAN!!), but there really are too many laws for my taste.
Angel, yea, I agree. I wavered back and forth between Progressive and Individualist. In the end I decided on Progressive because I do believe smart organization can provide a good framework that benefits everyone.
Just as Newsvine provides a framework for discussion and information that actually encourages individuality and creative thought. That's how I see the role of government - overall be a like a good bulletin board website -- easy to navigate framework, informative, interactive with the public, quick to respond to glitches, and provide specific services equally accessible to everyone. What the approx. $420 Billion spent on the Iraq war could have done for America!! Basic preventative health care? Education? Funding for scientists to develop ways to decrease oil dependence or improve our eco footprint? Why does money magically appear to fund a war but not for the things I list here?
But, I digress... sorry!
What the approx. $420 Billion spent on the Iraq war could have done for America!!
Like what exactly? There are 300 million Americans. That amount of money is $1400/person, spread over several years. Actual spending on the war over several years is still not up to what we spend on interest payments on our debt in one year, which in turn is not as much as what we spent on Medicare/Medicaid. Universal health care would probably cost $250 billion/year. I don't mind that cost, but it's no good pretending that Iraq spending could have covered it.
Imagine if it wasn't stolen from people in the first place :)
Universal health care would probably cost $250 billion/year.
Brian, check your numbers. Medicare/Medicaid already cost near triple that figure. Universal would be a good trillion and that would be for very very basic coverage only.
The actual debt of the federal government is 59.1 trillion.
Are you aware that the number sequence after trillion is zillion? These numbers are so great it boggles the mind.
Hi Brian and Adam - Just to clarify - I did not mention "universal health care". I do mention basic preventative care and several other possible uses for the funds, copied below, to make the point that my Progressive mind feels that before tearing down or rebuilding the infrastructure of other countries perhaps we should focus on strengthening our own.
The original topic is very interesting and I do apologize for straying off topic. If we want to talk healthcare perhaps we start another discussion? ~ MV
--Basic preventative health care? Education? Funding for scientists to develop ways to decrease oil dependence or improve our eco footprint? Why does money magically appear to fund a war but not for the things I list here?--
What is "basic preventative care"? How much care does $350/person/year buy you? If you're paying out of pocket that's maybe two doctor visits, assuming they don't prescribe you anything.
As to why money magically appears, it's because Congress can order more printed whenever they feel like it. They recently had to raise the federal debt limit to $9 trillion to pay for government spending - which includes spending on all the things you list there. We spend big money on Medicare and Medicaid. We spend money on education. We spend money on research. The spending on the war is really not that big a portion of the spending pie. Are you arguing that because we spent X on program Y, then we should obviously be able to spend X on program Z as well? That's not a sound view. Although to be fair it is one that Congressmen make all the time.
Check out http://www.federalbudget.com/ to see how much money we're spending where. Spending on the Department of Health and Human Services in particular has gone up about $150 billion in the last 3 years.
@Not a Number - where did you get the 59.1 trillion figure from? That's $50 trillion higher than I've heard about.
Hey Brian, I know what you mean.
The government does not calculate future spending promises.
Here is one site, though his final total is a little different than mine.
Crap, I forgot I can't post links. sorry, just google it.
Thanks. So my share is $500,000. Nice.
However, the White House and the Congressional Budget Office claim Medicare and Social Security aren't true liabilities because government can cancel or cut them at any time.
Ah, of course. That will be fun won't it?
Oh, okay. We'll just "order up more printed money"... sure!! Someone call up China and Japan to buy more American bonds for Iraq. America's approx total liability is $59.1 Trillion (including SS & Medicare) so why worry about the $420 Billion (and growing) Iraq war spending?
** Is the American Pie (budget) being sliced and managed to benefit the majority of the American citizens and strengthen America for future generations? **
Brian, I understand, maybe $350 isn't much money to you. ** Healthcare makes a big difference to the nearly 45 million uninsured Americans. Every little bit counts to the family with children or elderly or low wage worker who can't pay for routine care. Further the uninsured pay more for the same service than the insured Americans.
Basic Preventative Care, a sampling =
1) annual dentist appt /cleaning
2) flu shots & vaccinations & Tetanus & 1x Hepatitis
3) birth control / pap smears / mammogram for women
4) testicular / prostate exams for men
5) annual physical / bloodtests to assess health and recognize problems before they become bigger (possibly more expensive) treatments
** Can our government improve its money management to ultimately help fund all these budget allocations and/or pay off some debt? One example: July 2004 AP reported on Officials of the former Coalition Provisional Authority - "The authority's inspector general released a report this week saying that the company responsible for the largest logistics contract in Iraq had lost track of more than $18 million worth of equipment including vehicles and electric generators" An audit of KBR, Haliburton's subsidiary working under contract in Iraq showed overcharging for services, billing for work not done, charges for goods with no proof of delivery.
right... What's a couple of million wasted here and there? Forget about the middle class and the working poor Americans - they can sink or swim or just get more credit cards. Forget about disaster response and infrastructure. Nevermind alternative energy research to decrease our dependence on oil. They can ALL make do with the funding they are given.
What was I thinking? We'll just get Congress to have more money printed to rebuild Iraq...
I typed up a long response, but I just deleted it as I realized you don't actually have an identifiable point.
I made my point. I'm done.
Really? Can you point me to your thesis statement? I have no idea what you were trying to convey with your statements. You want to government to fund the half dozen programs you list and not waste any money and to make poor people not be poor anymore? I have no idea what you want. You compare two numbers, one of which is 120 times larger than the other, and act like its a ridiculous idea that the smaller of those numbers is not as important as the larger of those two numbers.
And the ** - what is up with those?
I think this pretty much sums it up:
America's approx total liability is $59.1 Trillion (including SS & Medicare) so why worry about the $420 Billion (and growing) Iraq war spending?
Can our government improve its money management to ultimately help fund all these budget allocations and/or pay off some debt?
I believe MarsViolet is asserting that borrowing against the liability of the country to wage war is not good policy, especially since it's being done in favor of providing healthcare.
There is a false dichotomy here though. It's not like the money was allocated for health care and then taken away from that to fund the war. The money didn't exist before. Also, I thought that first sentence was written sarcastically. I can't really tell though, which is why I asked.
People, things you write may seem crystal clear to you when you write them, but to other people they may not be so clear.
Um, none of that money can be used for good, in anyway, because it is taken from the state's subjects involuntarily. Taking someone's property by the initiation of coercion is theft. Therefore, whether you are brainwashed or not, tax money is stolen from us by the individuals who call themselves the "government." Because logic and reason are based on non contradictory principles, you cannot rationally say that it is moral for a state to exist, since a state can only hold land, make decrees, and fund itself by telling its serfs, "If you disobey us than you will be imprisoned or fined, and if you disobey that than you will eventually have to be wiped out of existence."
I conclude that the State is evil and anyone who sees my argument (and other research on the subject), disregards it, and goes on from their position is not willing to admit they built their lives on a lie. You are further committing yourself to the most evil act, not thinking. I know the feeling of realizing I was wrong all this time. Don't damn yourselves to centuries more of slavery. The only way man can continue to exist is through voluntary interactions, free trade, love of self, and love of life.
Smash the State.
In honor of Bump Day...one of the many great articles that helped me to Get Smarter Hereā¢
Wow...I totally missed this the first time around. Thanks! Individualist, nevertheless.
I completely don't remember this, and apparently didn't comment the first time around, but I DID take the poll.......guess I was in a rush. Anyway, Individualist (huge surprise lol)
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |