Meditations of a Militant Moderate: Cool Views on Hot Topics Book

I decided to make my own little 2-dimensional map of the political landscape. First I listed a few of the political camps I perceive in the American landscape. Then I thought about the dimensions that might distinguish them. On the horizontal access I had progressive on the left vs. conservative on the right. On the vertical access centralization of power (i.e. bureaucratization) at the top and decentralization of power at the bottom. Searching the web to find similar political maps I came across references to _8 Ways to Run the Country_ and acquired a copy to read.

The purpose of this book is to help the reader understand the diversity of political views in the US in a more valid way than the traditional left-right linear spectrum. I find the Mitchell's model far superior in that regard, but not without a number of apparent defects, at least from my perspective.

The premise of Mitchell's model is dimensions of arche, i.e. social order or acceptance of rank, and kratos, i.e. acceptance of power, use of force. Mitchell's political map has anarchy on the left and archy on the right, with akratia at the top and kratia on the bottom. If we think of the map as a circular clock face, Mitchell places 8 political philosophies around the circle -- Paleoconservative at 1 or 2 o'clock, Theoconservatives at 3, Neoconservatives at 4 or 5, "Communitarians" at 6, "Progressives" at 7 and 8, "Radicals" at 9, Individualists at 10 or 11, and Paleolibertarians at 12 -- with a ninth group, populists, in the center of the clock face.

The descriptions he gives of the various conservative camps seem fairly accurate and well-placed except that it seems to me that what distinguishes paleoconservatives from theoconservatives is not that paleocons are low kratos where neocons are moderate kratos, but rather the relative locus of their respective arche dimension. Theocons have an arche centered around a very traditional, OT view of God, compared to which other loci of arche are dwarfed. God also features for Paleocons, but on equal or lesser standing than national identity and traditional cultural values. This is but one example of what I think is a general problem with the model failing to incorporate other dimensions that distinguish groups which become conflated in Mitchell's 2-dimensional model.

The description Mitchell gives as "Communitarian" he also identifies as "Centrist". In my experience communitarians are quite different than centrists. He locates this group at the maximum kratos and moderate arche, between the main part of the left and the neoconservative right. That appears to me an accurate placement of centrists, but not of communitarians. It seems to me that communitarians are rather of mid level kratos and moderate arche, which might put them near the central position of "Populists", but that what is particular about them is the preference for smaller, communal forms of kratos rather than larger, national states.

Mitchell uses "Progressive" and "Liberal" virtually interchangeably, which I think is a mistake. The group he describes with both labels is easily recognizable as Liberal, which is high kratos, i.e. believes in using the power of a strong state. The progressive view is somewhat more egalitarian (i.e. opposed to arche) and not nearly as statist. Properly it should be located in the spot Mitchell describes as "Radical". Since he admits that people in this group self-identify as Progressive, and features representatives of the Green Party as exemplars of this view, it is unclear why he chose to re-label these as radicals.

Strangely, on the horizontal axis of his model these people would be anarchists, and distinct from people at the top of his model, who are akratists. But when we think of people who identify as anarchists they tend, I think, to more closely align with Mitchell's akratists (i.e. anti-statists) than anarchists (i.e. extreme egalitarians).

The low arche, low kratos sector he identifies as "Individualists". This sector includes a number of divergent views. I would place myself somewhere toward the center of the circle but in this direction, leaning toward the Green/Progressive/Radical side of it. Mitchell says these people are ardent free marketers, and overwhelmingly atheist, which may be true generally, but certainly doesn't fit my own individualist politics. This group includes the main part of what is identified as Libertarian, and it is a strength of this model that Libertarian here adjoins Green/Progressive, quite unlike the simple linear model of politics and even better than the horseshoe model. The more right-wing, more original libertarian view Mitchell labels as paleolibertarian, and also akratist.

With some peculiarities and labeling flaws I think its a huge improvement over a linear political map.

Thinking further about his model, I wondered how it would compare to the horseshoe model. There are, I think, 2 versions of the horseshoe. The original version had mainstream politics in the bottom of the U of the horseshoe and the statist extremes of fascism and socialism at the two ends. That was the horseshoe of the 1930s and 1940s. The horseshoe of the 1990s and the 2000s, it seems to me, had mainstream politics in the bottom of the U with Libertarians on one end and Greens on the other. In terms of the dimension of kratos, the horseshoe had inverted: the mainstream, while not as statist as state socialism or fascism, has become considerable statist. We could overlayed the contemporary horseshoe on Mitchell's model with the curve of the horseshoe following the circle and with the open gap of it slightly left of 12 o'clock, in or on one side of the section he calls individualists.

And where would state socialism and fascism be? Wouldn't fascism lie at the extreme edge (or slightly past the edge) of the lower right quadrant, a bit past neoconservative? And state socialism would be at the edge of the lower left quadrant, somewhat past the liberals that Mitchell mislabels as progressives.

Toward the end of the book Mitchell discusses what he sees as the relevance of the model for understanding political coalitions historically. I think this is quite useful, but at the very end he suggests that democracy cannot help to stop the excesses of the neoconservative, plutocratic nationalism which represents the will of the wealthy, corporate elite, and seems ascendant in American politics, in part because the other quadrants are too far apart to coalesce against them and in part because democracy is itself a market, which is unclear. Instead he implies that either a non-democratic form of government, perhaps a monarchy, is needed, or else a strong, highly archic, unified Christian Church. Peculiar to say the least.

I find it curious that at various points in the book Mitchell strongly identifies arche with the church, almost to the exclusion of other loci. It seems to me that church is, at best, one of several loci, with others including family, social networks, neighborhood communities, business and voluntary organizations, etc. It also strikes me as strange that he uncritically identifies Christianity with high arche when Jesus' own message is so strongly anti-archic. The church does not exist solely on the right edge of the political map, monopolized by the various conservative groups, but is distributed rather broadly. Some churches have very traditional structures and values and other churches are quite opposite that form.

Mitchell's model is, no doubt, a step in the right direction, particularly relative to linear models, but I wonder if it might not be more useful to map the political landscape in a way that distinguishes the particular loci of arche and kratos as distinct dimensions.