The more articles I read on varying viewpoints, and the more comments I read as a response to these viewpoints, the more I realize that "conventional" representations of looking at world viewpoints need another axis.
By "axis", I mean "fundamental axiom of viewing the world".
We have an X axis, and a Y axis, on the Nolan Chart. What we need is , really, a Z axis.
This will be a very, very long article with the "meat" behind the explainations.
THE Y AXIS: GOVERNMENT
There are basically three positions: Strong Government (high Y) , Weak Government, and Minimal Government (low Y). We are shearing them of the statist / libertarian views right now, because at least statism has several preconcieved philosophical ideas and so does liberalism.
At positive maximum Y, we have a level of government that operates only at a ward or village level and has no power except to organize willing volunteers to perform civic duties.
At negative maximum Y, we have total control by the government over every single aspect of life, no matter how small.
At a zero value of Y, we have a moderately weak central goverment, with moderately strong state and local goverments, with signifigant legal and civil barriers to government expansion or size.
The higher a person's Y axis is, the more value they place on the value of having central government control, rather than government restraint. They value organizational stability in civic life, a strong legal system with emphasis on crime control via police, a controlled economy, and government becoming increasingly more involved.
The lower a person's Y axis is, the more value they place on individualism and on government as organizer rather than controller of activity. They value freedom of invididuals to act without coercive control from any "higher government", a weak legal system with emphasis on crime control via citizen action, a captalistic economy, and government becoming as small as possible.
THE X AXIS: SOCIETY
There are basically three positions: Evolutionist (High X) , Centrist, and Traditionalist (Low X). Evolutionist has nothing to do with the theory of evolution, and does not exactly conform to liberalism, traditionalism does not exactly confirm to conservatism.
At positive maximum X, society is determined entirely by the values of the present day makeup of those who comprise it. Citizenship is a factor of your current physical location, everyone should be mulitlingual, cultural diversity is more important than patriotism or nationalism, and the primary factors of importance to the electorate should be the welfare and opportunity of the poor and the disadvantaged. Everyone must be brought up to a standard of living that is a baseline for the entire population to have equality. The more open and global the cultural society, the less likely you are to have wars and misunderstandings and racism/sexism.
At negative maximum X, society is determined by a framework of cultural history, bound together by a nationalistic pride in what we have achieved, with all cultures striving to join the melting pot. Citizenship is a matter of birthright and must be protected, borders enforced, and our limited resources protected. English and our hertitage of cultural mores and ideals are paramount to defining us as Americans, cultural diversity is acceptible within the bounds of adding to the mix but is much like decoration on a cake -- flavoring, not the core. The most important factors to the electorate should be the preservation of our culture and way of life, our ability to have the American Dream, and the ability for anyone to make it if they work hard enough and have the guts to take risks. Everyone must be brought to a standard where, no matter how disadvantaged they START life, no doors are shut to them, but the goal of society is not equality since equality is an egalitarian dream. Cultural primacy and non-intervention in the world, as well as not meddling with other cultures, will reduce the chance of wars and misunderstandings, and if everyone is seen as the same even if they aren't given handouts, racism/sexism will fade in time.
At a zero value of X, we have a moderate culture where both patriotism and cultural diversity, where aiding the poor and enhancing the ability of anyone to achieve anything, where welfare for those who needed it and a color blind society for those who want it are all important.
The higher a person's X axis is, the more value they place on the idea of "culture" and of change, of blaming things that have gone wrong on those who come before, of blaming everything on "white people" or "jews" or "rich people" or "the Joneses", and the more likely they are to believe in the idea that equality means everyone has to have the same wealth, level of education, etc, in order to be equal. They do not value "country" as much as they value "globalism".
The lower a person's X axis is, the more value they place on the idea of "tradition", of building on what you have, of blaming things on "migrants" or "foreigners" or minorities (for their own percieved failures),and the more likely they are to believe in the idea that equality means everyone has to have the same chances to be what they want, since no one can be "equal" since our intellect and personalities are all different. They do not value "globalism" as mch as they value "country".
THE Z AXIS: RELIGION
There are basically three positions: Athiest (High Z), Religous, and Zealous (Low Z)
At positive maximum Z, churches and religous organizations are banned, and faith in a higher power is seen as a form of insanity. Government should act to imprison religous leaders as frauds or con artists. Religous organizations that wish to meet in private should do so in private and may not discuss their beliefs with anyone in public. Children cannot be raised by religous parents, religous values and history cannot be taught in any school and religous monuments should be torn down.
At negative maximum Z, the church should run the country and government should be an extention of the Church, in which membership would be near compulsory. Athiesm or being in another religon would be a crime. The law would be interpreted by priests and executed according to whatever the relevent holy texts or customs are. All education would be primary religous in nature, with technical and vocational training starting later in life, and worship would be public.
At a zero value of Z, everyone should have the freedom of religion to practice or not to practice as they see fit. Government should not be a major influence on religion, and religion should in turn have mostly minimal influence on government, but if the majority of people in a country are relgious, then religous expressions of faith are not anything "bad".
The higher a person's Z axis is, obviously, the less they belive in a higher power -- but the less they respect anyone elses ability to be rational if they respect a higher power.
The lower a person's Z axis is, the more they believe in a higher power -- and think that worship of said power should be everyone elses primary motive.
As it stands,right now, when we plot the X Y Z values of the major points on the Nolan Chart for Americans, we get some interesting values. Asssuming the plots run from 10 (highest) to -10 (lowest):
Stock Democrat: X 5, Y 4, Z -2
"Centrist" Democrat: X 6, Y 5, Z 3
"God Hating Liberal Communist": X 9, Y 5, Z -7
Obama: X 6, Y 6, Z 3
Clinton: X 7, Y 8, Z -6
Democrats are very strongly slanted to the high end of the society scale, with a very strong government and a dislike for religion. Obama is most like the so-called centrist Democrats, while Clinton appeals to , well, the Clintards. Clinton is also by FAR the most strong-government and anti-God person running.
Stock Republican: X -2, Y 1, Z 4
"Neo-Con" Republican: X -8, Y 7, Z 3
"Old School" Republican: X -3, Y -5, Z 6
"Evangelical" Republican: X -5, Y 1, Z 7
McCain: X -2, Y 6, Z 3
Huckabee: X -2, Y 4, Z 8
Paul: X -7, Y -7, Z 0
The reason Dr. Paul isn't resonating with the voters very well is because his values are so far out from what the three bases want. The neocons like his "America First" stance, but not hsi small government views. The Old School types like his Small Government talk, but think he's too isolationast and not talking enough about God. And the evangelicals are completely 180 degrees from his ideas of the role of government and religion.
McCain is winning, sadly, because he's not any less "conservative culture" than Huckabee, nor is he TOO religous for the Neocons.
It's a bit hard to pin down the exact values for the numbers, I might write a followup article on the scoring system. If I had to rate myself, it would be
X 5, Y 4, Z 3. The average "statist" would probably be X 2, Y 6, and Z -1.
©2008 Logical Premise, all rights reserved. You must have written permission from the author in order to republish this work.
Published: Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Last modified: Tuesday, February 19, 2008
The views expressed in this article are those of Logical Premise only and do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Logical Premise is solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Report violation by Logical Premise of Nolan Chart LLC's terms of use policy.
| More Articles By Logical Premise |
Reader Comments:
Posted By: Aguila1
Date: 2008-02-19 21:59:17
Proof-reading time. Axis does not mean axiom. Axis comes from Latin and means an axle, so it is about lines coming from a central pivot, etc. Axiom is a self-evident truth. So your title starts out questionable and were your discussion self-evident you wouldn't have to explain it at length.
Y axis: Your positives and negatives are all mixed up. Reread it: Positive should equate with higher, negative with lower. You can edit it, even though my comment will make no sense once you fix this boo-boo.
Opinion: Y axis makes no sense to me: I believe in a strong government held in check by principles of morality - i.e. abolition of statism - forbidding government to steal, etc. So, ideally, I would want a strong, but minimal government, perhaps something beyond the pale of your imagination, since in your bias you equate strong with totalitarian.
Same problem with X. Hitler blamed problems on Jews, etc., (high X), but also nationalistic (low X). High X and low X discriminate, but 0 X supports welfare. Sorry, I don't seem to fit clearly on this axis either. I respect multi-culturalism, being multi-cultural, not racist either, and respect the traditions unique to our culture.
Z: I would have priests, ministers, rabbis, etc. charged with fraud. But then again, would defend anyone's right to worship (or not worship) as they see fit. I'm off the chart, again.
Keep working on it, though. At least you're thinking.
Posted By: DX10
Date: 2008-02-19 22:06:12
Actually, Dr. Paul resonates very well with the voters to the point of thrills and tears, something which none of the other candidates enjoy. It is just that it is some of the voters. Put him on the Cartesian coordinate system where ever you like. But, given the disposition of the electorate we unfortunately won't be able to verify your choice.
Posted By: Logical Premise
Date: 2008-02-20 01:04:56
Aguila1: I can only presume that the four compass points of the Nolan Chart are axioms. The only think I was trying to illustrate is that we are arbitrarily tying certain viewpoints to other viewpoints that may or may not be related by using the Nolan Chart. For example, neocons don't have most conservative values. A "super conservative" would supposedly be in the "middle" when it comes to the balance between small and large government but in reality would be far closer to the libertarian side. I think looking at things in three dimensions is more flexible than two-dimensional thinking but it is harder to pin down as to label someone quickly. And since discourse in this country has been replaced with "label someone and either blindly support or ignore them" , well, you get what you pay for.
But one statement you gave bothered me: "strong government held in check by principles of morality"
Whose morality? Yours? In some parts of the world bribes are seen as moral and not "corrupt". In some parts of the world reverence for government is seen as moral. And in some parts of America, ANY government is basically immoral. I think that's a weasel argument. I would suggest that, whenever anyone decides to try to evaluate people on a scale like this, that people will fall outside the pale. Your religous viewpoint, for example, would be about -6. Your "strong government" would be by definition one that had limits of some kind so would be higher than 0 for sure.
It's not a good system (and certainly has holes) but I find it annoying that somehow the chart really pigeonholes strong statists and libertarians as to being "centrists" when it comes to the left-right debate.
DX10: Dr. Paul doesn't resonate very well with most of the voters, period. You can make up whatever fantasies you want to as to why this is, but the simplest reason is that most people don't want what he's offering.
Posted By: DX10
Date: 2008-02-20 01:11:22
Well, Premise, if you are correct then most voters do not subscribe to liberty or the founders principles. Rather than a fantasy I just believe they are comfortable with their servitude. You can take the simple way out if you like.
Posted By: Kishi
Date: 2008-02-20 02:22:48
@ DX10: It's far worse than that. Most voters believe that what we have today is liberty, and that it has a basis in the founding principles. They're convinced that their servitude is the freedom they wanted all along.
@ Legal Premise: Good work. I think that approaching the nature of political leaning in 3D is a better way to grasp the intricacies. I'm pleased to see that you mentioned religion, since, for better or worse, it influences our politics and is a valid role.
If you want to polish it up, I would suggest tweaking the definitions. You were able to spar with Aguila over the nature of 'strong' government, and that's not really what's at issue on the Y-axis of the chart. The issue is the degree of government intervention in citizen's affairs. This would be better-defined as positive Y being 'minimum' and negative Y being 'maximum.' That's the only real flaw I noticed.
It's an intriguing idea, and I hope you keep working on it.
Posted By: Aguila1
Date: 2008-02-20 11:06:46
"Whose morality? Yours? In some parts of the world bribes are seen as moral and not "corrupt". In some parts of the world reverence for government is seen as moral. And in some parts of America, ANY government is basically immoral."
Never heard of a weasel argument - is that a logical term?
As volitional beings, human individuals must make choices for survival, for living while relating with others. These choices may range from good to bad, objectively determined by the consequences on the lives of all the individuals affected by such human action. The study of a proper code of conduct - positive and better outcomes vs. negative and worse outcomes - is called morality.
Bribery is considered a manifestation of corruption everywhere. In Mexico, for instance, bribery is common and corruption institutionalized, standard operating procedure in most municipalities. But ask any man on the street what is wrong (immoral) with his country and he will tell you that it is corruption.
Reverence from a deep respect in government which acts morally is justified. Respect for the law and a government which makes harmful laws against the individual is not justified. Our own government has acted both in benevolent and in inhumane malevolent ways - from moral to immoral.
Any government that adopts the ethics of a thief or a killer is immoral, that is, any statist government.
A government that relinquishes criminal action and applies the highest standards of ethical conduct found in individuals to government action, would be a moral government. Sadly, that government has yet to exist.
Posted By: MikeFoster
Date: 2008-02-20 13:41:52
FYI...
The Nolan 2-D Chart
X = Economic Freedom
Y = Personal Freedom
"Nolan's insight was that the major difference between various political philosophies, the real defining element in what a person believes politically, is the amount of government control over human action that is advocated."
(source)
The Kelley L. Ross 3-D Chart
X = Economic Liberty
Y = Personal Liberty
Z = Political Liberty
"How much there will be for 'political society' and political power to do will be defined by the degree of personal and economic freedom that is envisioned. With what political power is then to be allowed, the question is then how it is to be exercised. The spectrum will stretch from the exercise of all political power by one person (Monarchy, or any individual dictatorship), to the equal exercise of all political power by all (Anarchy)."
(source)
Alternative Axes
(source)
The Pournelle 2-D Chart
X = Attitude toward the State
Y = Attitude toward planned social progress
(source)
The Vosem 3-D Chart
X = Cultural Issues
Y = Fiscal Issues
Z = Corporate Issues
(source)
Posted By: Logical Premise
Date: 2008-02-20 16:04:52
Mike, that's a LOT of interesting links. I hadn't really researched it (and I'm not suprised my idea isn't original). Cultural, Social, Personal, Fiscal and Governmental is five dimensions. I can't visualize that, but it seems to me you can't try to clump some things together without "bluring the catagories".
DX10: Actually, it's even worse than what Kishi said. Most people today, I feel, don't care about liberty at all. They're too busy with their mortgage issues, their job, and the other concerns of life to even care. The best thing they want from government is for it to magically make new jobs. *sighs* Not very rational, but that's the sad reality.
Aguila, a weasel argument is one that satisfies the technicalities of an answer without actually dealing with the main point.
For example, if I asked you to deicde between two alternatives: to deprive one person of his wealth to ensure that one hundred people didn't starve, or to let one hundred people starve to uphold the principle of not taking people's property, and you gave me an answer that "theft is theft" , you answered the question but didn't answer the implied moral imperitive.
Your answer that your idea of a moral government involves the "abolution of statism" is a weasel argument. It doesn't define what a moral government is for all people, it merely attacks statism as "bad". I sort of think what you are saying is that government has no right to take people's property for any reason, or levy taxes, or deal with property, or maybe you mean immoral politicals.
Either way, the issue is that morality varies from person to person. Some people define their morality from their religion -- and in that case, such as Islam and Confucianism, statism is very nearly holy and utterly moral. In cultures where individualism is seen as bad and undesirable, they would see invididualistic governments and democracies as "corrupt".
A lot of what you are saying has conditional value in America because a lot of Americans equate government = corruption = bad, ergo the bigger the government the bigger the corruption, ergo statism = bigbad. But everything you've said about statism focuses more on the way big government is misused (with the only solution being some kind of magical moral government which has never existed) as opposed to how to prevent such corruption.
To each his own , meh
Posted By: MikeFoster
Date: 2008-02-20 17:45:26
Your use of Government as an axis reminded me of the Kelley L. Ross 3-D chart. Of the alternatives I've looked at I think Ross' chart makes the most sense. I don't think too well of the Vosem chart.
Yes, I agree that the more I think about this the more axes I am tempted to add! LOL!
There are some interesting ways to visualize (or maybe conceptualize is a better word here) structures with more than 3 dimensions. For example one way I learned in my early days as a programmer...
4-D = an array of cubes.
5-D = a table of cubes.
6-D = a cube of cubes.
...
9-D = a cube of cubes of cubes
LOL!
Posted By: that one guy
Date: 2008-02-20 21:12:33
As a student of mathematics it would be wrong of me not to weigh in when axes, cartesian planes and multidimensional conceptualizations are on the table. First off, an intriquing idea to bring in spiritual dispositions as the 3 space axis, however looking at it as a number lined spectrum i think over simplifies spiritual notions. The entire subject of spirituality could and possibly should be approached with is own cartesian plane, if not its own 3-space. However for pratical reasons assigning it a single axis seems logical. Now when it comes down to it politics and more specifically a persons individual disposition exists in a multidimensional space much greater than 3 and where one lies with respect to any one varible complicates the positioning scheme infinitely, however again for practical reasons we need to adhere to more simplistic schemes. Metioned earlier was the idea of axioms, stating the nolan chart was based on this idea itself. so my sugestion is to instead of making defining axes, to consider the 8 quadrants different positions and construct a diamond in the middle as a region of moderate viewpoints, i know this is a 3d rip off of the nolan chart, but what can i say i think its a logical construct. Again this will ultimately be an oversimplification but i think its a better way of thinking about it than just the axes. If you don't find this sufficient theres always a hypercube to work from, but rendering a graphic that we could all put our approximate dispositions on could be alittle difficult. But i think the real issue to consider is how serious should an imperfect system of alignment be taken. Its a nice guide line to let people know a ball park approximation of where you stand but the only really way get an understanding of a persons positions is to dicuss and listen, to interact and learn. But if multidimensional orientations are necessary let me know, i can atleast do calculus in them, that should be really helpful!
but seriously people, listen and learn instead of bicker and fight.
you know.... that one guy
Posted By: Aguila1
Date: 2008-02-20 23:02:59
"For example, if I asked you to decide between two alternatives: to deprive one person of his wealth to ensure that one hundred people didn't starve, or to let one hundred people starve to uphold the principle of not taking people's property, and you gave me an answer that "theft is theft" , you answered the question but didn't answer the implied moral imperitive."
Your two choices are no choices at all because both involve choosing an immoral action that causes a negative consequence: Steal or starve. To the moral individual, the immoral choice is simply not an option. He finds ways to solve problems that result in a winning proposition for all. Perhaps, the rich man could share some of his food in exchange for labor. A rich man would most likely see the value in this situation, else he would not have gotten rich in the first place, and a wise rich man would know that desperate hungry people often lose their moral compass, and that his safest option is to help his fellow man.
The same, on a larger scale, applies to government or any human relationship for that matter. Despite our many differences, we are moral creatures that have a basic understanding of right from wrong, though all do not act on this understanding.
I would expect you to say, "to each his own", because that is exactly what a moral relativist would say. But I think you will see the contradictions inherent in your thought processes, because as soon as you say something is better or worse you are expressing a moral judgment.
Your circular argument goes like this: You are wrong (moral judgment) to think that government should be moral, because everyone has different ideas about morality (moral relativism). And round and round ad nauseum.
Even you don't believe what you say. Why would slavery be bad and why is freedom a good thing? Do you not deny that you hold these to be truths - truths that you hold dear?
It wasn't weaseling, but a lack of depth of understanding on your part. I hope I helped clear up, if not the concepts to your acceptance, then at least my position.
Posted By: Logical Premise
Date: 2008-02-21 11:04:35
Aguila, I had written up a fairly long response. But I think , really, the main thing is your viewpoint is so limited in what it's looking at, and your belief that anyone who doesn't agree with you is either a hypocrite, unable to comprehend, or otherwise impaired, makes getting my points across to you ... prohibitive. Perhaps that's a failure on my part. I doubt you would admit you have any failings whatsoever.
My article was about plotting out more precisely where each of us stand in terms of belief. You stated you didn't fit any of those, so the fundamental way you look at reality is , well, out of phase with the way I do. And that's fine.
That One Guy: a hypercube is a cube in four dimensions, correct?
You said something I liked immensely: "But i think the real issue to consider is how serious should an imperfect system of alignment be taken. Its a nice guide line to let people know a ball park approximation of where you stand but the only really way get an understanding of a persons positions is to dicuss and listen, to interact and learn."
And that , I think, is the biggest problem. The worst thing to happen to this country is this stupid idea of "right and left". Not everythings falls along those lines. For example, I have no use for fiscal conservatism, but I'm relatively morally conservative and socially conservative, but I'm also big government and pro-choice.
Where do I fit? Pure statist, appearantly, when in reality I am more complex than that.
Any system that tries to piegeon hole beliefs is bad. Discussion is good, if people have an open mind.
Posted By: Ether 8
Date: 2008-03-11 14:24:50
I like what you are trying to accomplish with the 3D idea, but I think the way you work your z axis is entirely inaccurate for a majority of Americans.
You label more religiosity as being more and more in favor of forcing others to be religious. Your middle ground is defined as being less religious. What about those of us who are extremley religious, but do not agree that being extremely religious means that we would support the force of government to bring others to religion?
I, for one, view myself as extremely religious, and I am a pretty solid libertarian, so your mid z axis description just doesn't describe me. Actually, I think your z axis is not accurate for Christians in general.
One of the reasons America has been able to become such a religiously diverse nation is the fact that it was created by Christians. Christians generally allow others freedom of conscience because it is built into Christ's doctrine. Read James Madison's "Memorial and Resonstrance Against Religious Assesments" to get a better sense of what I mean in that regard.
Due to that fact--that being more religious does not necessarily mean that you want to create a sectarian state--I don't think the current conceptualization of your z axis works adequately to describe most of the millions of Christians who participate in American politics.
Posted By: Richard
Date: 2008-06-18 14:18:14
It seems like all these alternative charts want to dilute the primary positions and refocus attention on the subcategories where socialists and statists feel they have better arguments for the use of government power.
Or maybe so that they can say, "I'm a libertarian, but..."
...I believe in government taxation and coercion some of the time, against some people, but I just can't find a way of putting it into words that won't defeat my own argument.
...I like welfare
...I like war
...I like war, even against our own citizens, in our own streets
...I've never really known true freedom, and suspect it won't work without government to (mis)manage the details.
...etc.
Posted By: Honest Guy
Date: 2008-07-07 00:36:06
Ether:
Re: "One of the reasons America has been able to become such a religiously diverse nation is the fact that it was created by Christians. Christians generally allow others freedom of conscience because it is built into Christ's doctrine.":
Christianity has also been responsible for abominations like crusades and inquisitions ... let's not get carried away by our own "right" interpretation of a doctrine and underestimate the ability of misguided human beings to interpret any doctrine for ends that they may not have been remotely intended for.
Posted By: Jester
Date: 2008-07-31 10:45:01
Who wants to hear from our resident fascist why Ron Paul lost? Anybody? I guess nobody does...
Several problems to point out: you incorrectly use axis when you mean to say axiom, your "axis of axis" (axis of axiom) schemes are completely nonsensical and make no relation to reality whatsoever, and you pull several figures out of your ass..
On what basis do you include that Hillay Clinton is the most "anti-God" candidate (whatever the fuck that means). Obama is, so it seems, somewhat more secular than Clinton. However, seeing as you did not interview any of them, I come to the conclusion that Mr. "Logical Premise" is completely full of shit! (Not to mention that you defined a high Z value as being "extremely godless" above, with a low Z value being "extremely religious" only to reverse your God-O-Meter scale below. This adds more evidence that you are suffering from a brain disorder.)
Not to mention that your scales make absolutely no sense. Your Y axis has no utility because there IS NO UTILITY in a one dimensional assessment of "statism." I would argue that today's Republicans are more statist than the Democrats. How would you classify the Green Party? Extremely statist because of their economic policy bordering on socialistic? Or extremely anti-state because of their opposition to government authority in personal matters? Likewise how do you describe the free-market theocrats of today's GOP? Your Z axis allows you to evade this, however, anyone who would use government power to push their religious values IS a statist.
Which brings up the next point. Your Z axis is completely nonsensical and bears no relation to ANYTHING. Just as even the most strict atheists generally support freedom of religion, there are plenty of profoundly religious people who defend separation of church and state.
Reading your articles indicates that you arebordering on illiteracy, have no idea what words mea or how to use a dictionary, and live in some sort of fantasy world.
[Note- I do consider the policy that "Logical Premise" is not in fact a statist with an extremely low IQ, but instead, pretends to be a statist of extremely low IQ for purposes of parody. I find it hard to believe that anyone who is stupid enough to believe what "Logical Premise" purportedly does would be capable of leven rudimentary literacy or using a computer. As a satirist, "Logical Premise" proves the inherent idiocy of hardcore statism. However, his satire is not clever or funny. That said, I think him a troll.]
Posted By: Rob
Date: 2008-08-26 23:09:48
A system that moves from 1 to 10 for each in a series of categories and adapted from a strategic similation game engine developed by Strategy First:
tolerant... narrow minded
plutocracy ... aristocracy
centralization ... decentralization
free trade ... mercantalist / protectionist
naval power (air power) ... land power
democracy ... authoritarianism
guns ... butter
military quality ... military quantity
catholic (organized theocratic religion) ... protestant (unorganized, nontraditional, atheist)