The Power Matrix: A Graphical Guide to History, Socialism, and the Left-Right Divide

By Peter Hetherington

America seems divided as never before, segregated into political tribes with antithetical beliefs. But are these sides really that different? Does virtue lie at just one political extreme? On what are our political opinions and affiliations based? Is one side correct and the other wrong? Is the divide really a conflict between socialism and capitalism, and if so, what do these ideologies mean and how did they evolve?

The Power Matrix attempts to answer these questions graphically using the simple assumption that everything in the universe is based on energy. This basic understanding allows one to construct graphs chronicling how different forms of complexity emerged. Human society is just another complex system that conforms to the laws of nature. Examining the origins and evolution of society allows us to see the modern world in context and explains why our current circumstances are so unique and fragile. Perhaps this perspective will make it easier for Americans and to discover that our friends, neighbors, and fellow citizens who disagree with us are not immoral or ignorant, and that maybe everyone has a unique perspective and something worthwhile to say.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Pingora Press
• Release date: Dec 13, 2023
• ISBN: 9781662937149

Book preview

The views and opinions expressed in this book are solely those of the author.

The Power Matrix: A Graphical Guide to History, Socialism, and the Left-Right Divide

Published by Pingora Press

Copyright © 2023 by Peter Hetherington

All rights reserved. Neither this book, nor any parts within it may be sold or reproduced in any form or by any electronic or mechanical means, including information storage and retrieval systems, without permission in writing from the author. The only exception is by a reviewer, who may quote short excerpts in a review.

Library of Congress Control Number: 2023935812

ISBN (paperback): 9781662937132

eISBN: 9781662937149

History is a gallery of pictures in which there are few originals and many copies.

—Alexis de Tocqueville 1835

Contents

List of Figures

Notes

Introduction

Part I: The Power Matrix (Figures 1–8)

Chapter 1: The Traditional Political Spectrum

Chapter 2: Triangular Graphs

Chapter 3: The Power Matrix Explained

Part II: Historical Background (Figures 9–20)

Chapter 4: The Complexity Curve Explained

Chapter 5: Homo Sapiens and Complexity

Chapter 6: The Agricultural Revolution

Chapter 7: The Great Enrichment

Part III: Applying the Power Matrix (Figures 21–36)

Chapter 8: Historical Examples on the Power Matrix

Chapter 9: The History of Socialism

Chapter 10: Social Democracy—You Say You Want an Evolution

Chapter 11: National Socialism

Chapter 12: The History of Capitalism

Chapter 13: Socialism and Capitalism on the Power Matrix

Chapter 14: Democracy on the Power Matrix

Chapter 15: Democracies, Republics, and Liberal Democracies

Part IV: The Political Divide (Figures 37–45)

Chapter 16: Socialism vs. Capitalism

Chapter 17: The Political Divide and Moral Foundations

Chapter 18: The Left vs. the Right

Chapter 19: The Political Divide on the Power Matrix

Chapter 20: The Future of Energy

Summary and Conclusion

Bibliography

Index

List of Figures

Figure 1. Modern American Political Spectrum

Figure 2. Conceptual Basis of the Power Matrix

Figure 3. Basic Triangular Graph

Figure 4. Plotting Data on a Triangular Graph

Figure 5. The Power Matrix

Figure 6. Power Matrix—Base Ideologies

Figure 7. Power Matrix Domains

Figure 8. Power Matrix Tutorial

Figure 9. Generalized Complexity Curve

Figure 10. Complexity Curve for Celestial Bodies

Figure 11. The Last 13.8 Billion Years

Figure 12. The Last 3 Million Years

Figure 13. The Last 15,000 Years

Figure 14. The Last 15,000 Years—Detail

Figure 15. The Last 1,000 Years—Life Expectancy

Figure 16. Proposed Causes of the Great Enrichment

Figure 17. US GDP Per Capita, 1775–2018

Figure 18. US Total Energy Consumption, 1635–2000

Figure 19. Global Absolute Poverty Rate, 1800–2017

Figure 20. Income Gains vs. Income Distribution, 1980–2016

Figure 21. Example of Traditional Authoritarian Hierarchy

Figure 22. Simplified Models for Power and Information Distribution

Figure 23. Philosophical Foundations of Liberalism

Figure 24. The Primary Divide: Liberalism vs. Illiberalism

Figure 25. Socialism and Capitalism Part I—So Simple!

Figure 26. Socialism and Capitalism Part II—Defined by Property Ownership Types

Figure 27. Types of Goods and Services

Figure 28. Economic Systems and Property Types

Figure 29. Socialism and Capitalism Part III—Gradation Based on Property Ownership

Figure 30. Socialism and Capitalism Part IV—Good vs. Bad Socialism and Capitalism

Figure 31. Socialism and Capitalism Part V—Socialism and Democracy Vectors

Figure 32. Socialism and Capitalism Part VI—It’s Complex!

Figure 33. Problems with State Socialism and Capitalism

Figure 34. Democracy—Gradations Based on Degree of Group Decisions

Figure 35. Liberal Democracy

Figure 36. The Power Matrix and Society through Time

Figure 37. Relative Importance of Key Moral Foundations

Figure 38. Distribution of Democrats and Republicans Based on Ten-Item Scale of Political Values

Figure 39. Power Matrix of Political Terms

Figure 40. Political Centers of Distribution for Selected Sovereignties

Figure 41. Political Centers of Distribution for Selected Historical

Figure 42. Global Primary Energy Consumption by Source

Figure 43. Annual Global CO2 Emissions

Figure 44. Post-Glacial Sea Level Rise

Figure 45. Punctuated Complexity Curve—A Possible Future

Notes

The Power Matrix is a wide-ranging exploration of society’s origins, components, and divisions. But because it is not intended as an academic book, referencing is less formal. For example, my last book, Unvanquished, which targeted a more academic audience, had nearly two thousand footnotes, but general readers may find this level of detail cumbersome. Instead, The Power Matrix refers in the text to specific books and authors when quotes are used, and for those interested, this information is cross-referenced in the bibliography. General information and some famous quotes are not specifically referenced, but this is because they are well known, not particularly controversial, and/or can be easily found by simple internet searches. For example, I write that the Big Bang created the universe about 13.8 billion years ago. Our planet, an infinitesimal speck in the cosmos, formed about 4.5 billion years ago. Because there is general agreement on these interpretations, I do not use a reference for these estimates or expound on the uncertainties involved. In the age of the internet, the interested reader will have no troubling finding additional information to test these claims, and indeed an entire book could be written debating whether this information is accurate. But regarding basic background information such as this, I saw no need to overreference or overexplain.

The Power Matrix was written over a four-year period while I was working full-time as a geologist. During that time, much changed. As discussed in the book, Covid altered society in many ways, and partisan politics, somehow, became worse. My book also changed as, by engaging in discussions with those of opposing political views, I was forced to reexamine many of my assumptions. No doubt, some of my bias remains, but I have tried to be objective, or at least tell, as accurately as possible, both sides of the story.

I would like to give special thanks to Janet Adams, who provided objective criticism and helped me rethink my positions, and to Jay Scheevel, who gave insightful and constructive assistance. But any errors, which undoubtedly exist in a book of this size and scope, are my own.

Introduction

It has been said that baseball is America’s favorite pastime. I would argue it is politics. Americans are obsessed with politics, no matter the season. We are constantly cheering our teams and disparaging our opponents. Both sides of the political divide claim that their policies offer compassionate, commonsense, and simple solutions to complex problems. Each solemnly swears allegiance to selfless principles while claiming that their opponents represent un-American values, special interests, or reprehensible, ignorant, and meritless views. America seems divided as never before, segregated into political tribes with antithetical beliefs. But are these sides really that different? Does virtue lie at just one political extreme? On what are our political opinions and affiliations based? Is one side correct and the other wrong? What happened to common ground? How can the other side be so immoral and stupid?

A basic requirement for a rational discussion is a common understanding of terms, yet many Americans are unclear on political concepts or have varying definitions. For example, the Left and the Right define themselves and their opponents very differently. They disagree about America’s founding principles and how they apply to the modern world and differ on the proper role and scope of government. On both sides of the political divide, many people have only a vague definition of liberalism, socialism, fascism, and capitalism. They wonder if democracy is always good and what ideologies and systems of government best benefit individuals and society.

This book is an outgrowth of my personal attempt to better understand American politics in general and, more specifically, why I hold certain opinions. This is a daunting task as no matter how objective I try to be, it is difficult to avoid confirmation bias. But the mere fact that I had not seriously contemplated the issues presented above suggests that there was a problem with my thought process. Despite an extensive background in science and business (having been an exploration geologist and geophysicist for over forty years) and in history by having read hundreds of history books and written a few, I could not always explain why I choose some positions; I only knew that I firmly believed them. Upon reflection, I discovered that many of my positions were selected not based on their merits but because I was choosing sides. Like most people, I had a natural tendency to take positions favored by my peers. In too many cases, I reacted emotionally to policies or people, then constructed post hoc rationalizations to justify what I already wanted to believe. Just as in my professional life as a geologist, I discovered that increased information does not necessarily mean increased knowledge. Often, more data only illuminates the depth of our ignorance, and education does not necessarily equate with wisdom. Sometimes academic training is only used as a tool to select data that confirms biases. Like the Simon & Garfunkel song The Boxer, we tend to hear what we want to hear and disregard the rest.

I began my research by looking for simple, uncontroversial definitions of political terms, but this proved surprisingly frustrating. Webster, Wikipedia, textbooks, and pronouncements by political pundits are often ambiguous, outdated, or highly subjective. For example, socialism is often defined based on the means of production or the labor theory of value, or some other vestige of Karl Marx. Many people simply make up their own definitions, if they bother to define it at all. Is the classical definition of socialism applicable today, or is another description more appropriate? Are there different types of socialism? If so, what are they, and what is the common thread? Is socialism un-American? Does it always lead to gulags? Or is socialism the key to a Nordic-style utopia if only we embrace its true nature?

The problem begins with how to define politics. Traditionally, politics is defined as the study or activities of government and the state, or the process by which social choice is implemented. While these definitions capture aspects of politics, they miss the essence. At its most basic, politics is about power. In practice, politics is the process by which power is distributed. Therefore, just as economics concerns the production, consumption, and distribution of goods and services, politics concerns the production, consumption, and distribution of power. In 2020, political consultant James Carville expressed this sentiment when, speaking of infighting in the Democratic Party, he said:

Do we want to be an ideological cult? Or do we want to have a majoritarian instinct to be a majority party? What we need is power, you understand? That’s what this is about. Without power, you have nothing. You just have talking points.

Carville understood—politics is the struggle for social power. This insight is the basis for The Power Matrix.

The problem is that social power is hard to unambiguously define. In my case, I found that the best way to understand key political concepts is the same way I interpret other types of data: graphically. But what to graph? My basic premise is that social power is simply the ability to make uncoerced choices. This can only be made three ways: I can decide, we can decide, or you can decide. I began to experiment with a graph of these three variables and, somewhat to my surprise, discovered that this presentation helped explain social concepts in a manner that was not only easy to understand but also revealed relationships I had not suspected beforehand. Perhaps I was on to something.

This book is an attempt to explain social concepts by using graphs. Ideally, this method will capture the essence of politics and other social ideas at a glance. The Power Matrix is intended for the general reader—whatever their political affiliation—who wishes to better understand history, ideology, economics, their own political positions, and those of their opponents. It is not an academic study. Most people may not be interested in scholarly debates; they want to know how politics affects their lives. Rather than inundate the reader with technical terms, this book will present and discuss a few dozen displays. These displays will be shown in the context of selected history that reinforces key points. While my interpretations are, of course, subjective, I invite the reader to use the Power Matrix to plot and analyze their own ideas and understandings to see if this technique holds up to scrutiny. I hope that my method is neither insultingly simple nor mired in detail. It has been said that things should be as simple as possible, but no simpler. That is my goal. Finally, I make no pretense that every viewpoint expressed in the book is correct and admit that, while I tried to be balanced, not every alternative or counterpoint was explored. The purpose of the book is not to end argument but to present ideas that provoke thought.

The Power Matrix is a graphical guide to history and society that demonstrates how components of the complex modern world emerge and interrelate. Although the word matrix can describe a set of numbers arranged in rows or columns, I use the term based on its other definition- as an environment in which something develops or a surrounding medium or structure. The Power Matrix describes the range of conditions by which society can be organized, and where something plots on the graph indicates its social environment, and therefore its most likely characteristics. The graphs are largely self-explanatory and, if examined in sequence, make the key points. While wide-ranging, the text is intended to be—and is in fact limited to—a sampling of the unifying threads of the complex whole, a concept that is sometimes better conveyed on the information-rich medium of graphs.

Part I of the book (figures 1–8) describes the basis of the Power Matrix and provides a brief tutorial on three-dimensional graphs, including the concepts of classification by area, statistical degrees of freedom, and centers of distribution. The Power Matrix is a three-dimensional graph that uses as variables the three different ways choices are made in society. This dynamic is the essence of social power. Once the fundamental parameters are explained, the Power Matrix will be divided into primary ideologies that serve as the building blocks of all social systems. This basic graph can be used to analyze most social concepts.

But a funny thing happened on the way to explaining politics. Exploring the origins of society led me to contemplate how humans evolved and how this fit into the bigger picture. We are not apart from nature; rather, we are a part of nature. Like any natural system, we are a manifestation of the interplay between fundamental forces, energy, and matter. Humans developed in a similar manner to other high-functioning systems in the universe and are subject to the same constraints as other forms of complexity.

A brief summary is that all history in the universe, not just recorded history, is the story of energy transfers, and all energy transfers obey the laws of thermodynamics. Complexity, which can be defined as the state or quality of being intricate and interconnected, is created when energy transfers are sufficient to make the right connections, a process that involves entropy. When these conditions no longer apply, complexity is destroyed. This relationship is true for everything in the universe, from stars to social systems. Therefore, the thermodynamic-based relationship between energy, complexity, and entropy is fundamental to understanding how human society evolved (increased complexity) and how it may devolve (decreased complexity). To grossly oversimplify, when things move, they are moved by energy, and movement causes interesting things to happen. When there is no longer enough energy to move things, at least from my perspective, less interesting things happen.

Part II (figures 9–20) provides a macrohistorical context using graphs to illustrate the relationship described above. By looking at long-term trends, patterns and processes can be revealed that apply not only to cosmology and geology but also to political and social systems. Since the best place to start is the beginning, the book will briefly describe the Big Bang and the forces that have shaped our universe, and why they are relevant today. Except for conditions before the Big Bang, every event and thing (energy and matter) has a story, and this history (energy and matter in time) can be viewed as a complexity curve. The story begins when energy causes things to move. The story ends with the heat death of the universe, when things no longer move. The process of history will be illustrated by a simple complexity curve that I constructed from the laws of thermodynamics, and this curve is applicable to natural systems at all scales, including human society. The complexity curve can be used as a proxy for history, which at its most basic is the record of what happened.

As a short, nontechnical summary, the universe began with all things concentrated in simple, unified order (minimum entropy). The story of the universe unfolds as everything is dispersed (expansion), first into complexity, then into disorder (increasing entropy). The process is driven by energy transfers that make work possible. As usable, potential, or free energy levels decrease, complexity is created, then destroyed. While at different rates, every activity in the universe increases entropy; when entropy reaches a maximum value, no useful energy will remain, and no work will be possible. As far as is known, this will be how the story ends. An understanding of energy and entropy is not just an academic exercise. It has important insights as to how human society developed and where we will go from here. Displays shown later in the book will illustrate these points on graphs, where they can be more easily understood.

The complexity curve relates to the Power Matrix because it describes how energy, and the related concept of power, is the universal agent of change. The Power Matrix illustrates social systems based on how decisions are made in society. But making choices without the ability to implement them is meaningless. Ultimately, the ability to decide is based on power. For example, an individual needs economic or political power to live as they choose. But we do not have infinite choices. Choices are constrained by physical laws, like the laws of thermodynamics that determine the shape of the complexity curve. Because we cannot change the underlying laws of physics, energy levels dictate what choices we can make and cannot make, and what social systems are and are not possible.

The takeaway is that all societies are constrained by energy supply. Modern societies are extraordinarily energetically expensive to run and only function in their current forms because they have access to enormous sources of power. Therefore, energy levels are perhaps more influential to social structures than ideology or intentions. As will be explained in the book, another connection between the complexity curve and the Power Matrix is that the former illustrates the importance of coordinating many different parts to create emergent order while the latter illustrates that advanced societies need to coordinate many different decision-making styles, property types, power sources, and economic and political systems to function at high levels.

After examining history from the perspective of billions of years, key developments in human history will be discussed. Selected examples will be used to illustrate our species’ journey along the complexity curve. While modern society may seem like a logical consequence of the relentless advance of science and technology, this journey has been far from inevitable. For a long time, humans seemed to be just another animal and perhaps an evolutionary dead end. But by trial and error, our species made the odd and perhaps desperate evolutionary choice to enlarge our brains; we not only thrived but began to transform nature.

The most dramatic changes in society have occurred very recently. Only in the last few thousand years did our species’ population grow significantly, and only in the last 250 years has population growth correlated with meaningful increases in material betterment for average people. Modern humans enjoy unparalleled levels of freedom, wealth, safety, entertainment, and health, with billions of people living better than ancient kings. The cause of this phenomenon—known as the Great Enrichment—is hotly debated. Despite numerous studies, there is no clear consensus on how the modern world came to be or even when this transformation started. I propose that this great leap occurred like other forms of emergent orders in the universe—incrementally, a result of increases in energy transfers that allowed greater coordination between independent parts. I also contend that, while acknowledging its negative side effects, the quality of human life is better than ever before, especially for the common person—thanks to cheap, reliable, plentiful, and uniquely powerful hydrocarbon energy and technology. But for various reasons, including the negative environmental effects of burning hydrocarbons, the Fossil Fuel Age will be short-lived, and the transition to alternative energy sources, while inevitable, will take longer and be more difficult than many suppose. In any case, it is undeniable that our present circumstances are unusually complex and prosperous, but because they are dependent on high levels of energy, the sustainability of our social systems—and how they can be adjusted to best benefit humans and the environment—are open questions.

Part III (figures 21–36) examines social power systems and relationships in more detail, with a special emphasis on the two ideologies that figure prominently in modern political debates: socialism and capitalism. After reviewing the history of various concepts and presenting traditional definitions, it will be demonstrated that socialism and capitalism can be differentiated by their views on property. Socialism is based on public property allocated by needs, while capitalism is based on private property allocated by wants. As will be discussed in some detail, on the Power Matrix, the degree of socialism is defined graphically by the degree to which private property is limited in a society. This metric is not directly related to either equality or statism but depends on the size and homogeneity of the society and the type of network involved. Seen from other perspectives, socialism uses group choices to share abundant property while capitalism uses individual choices to compete for scarce property. The book will explore these concepts in detail—including how assumptions of abundance and scarcity affect economic, political, and social systems—and will discuss the positives and negatives of socialism and capitalism. Once the relationship between socialism and capitalism is understood graphically, the book will use the Power Matrix to explain liberalism and democracy, the building blocks of liberal democracy.

Having established a better understanding of social networks, ideologies, economic systems, and democracy, Part IV (figures 37–45) will examine the nature of the political divide. Is the Left-Right divide based on ideology, policy, morals, or human nature? What is the nature of morals, and how do opposing political tribes define them? Is the modern divide enduring, or is it specific to our times? What do both sides really believe, as explained in their own words, and why do their views seem so antithetical?

This book is different from most history books that follow a timeline about a particular event or person. While in most cases I try to address each topic chronologically, this is not always possible. This underscores the point that a book about complexity is by necessity complex. By complex, I do not mean unnecessarily complicated. In the context of this book, complexity is the minimal level of necessary complication to accomplish a task. Complex things, like stars, ideas, machines, and social systems only work when they make the right connections. This book attempts to show the connections between things such as physics, geology, biology, history, politics, sociology, and economics. While impractical or impossible to discuss all of them in detail, I hope to give a sampling sufficient to illustrate how all these seemingly unrelated things are connected. All these disciplines, and everything they entail, were necessary components assembled incrementally over time to create the incredible, complex, high-functioning emergent order that is modern society. This book will discuss a wide range of topics that I consider interesting or important developments along the journey, but it can only scratch the surface of the immense complexity that this involves.

When I began this process, I had no clear idea how to describe my political philosophy. I discovered that depending on the circumstances, I am a libertarian, socialist, capitalist, democrat, republican, anarchist, authoritarian, progressive, liberal, and conservative. In other words, I am complex, and this is not necessarily a bad thing. As will be explained later, I am complex because I coordinate many diverse ideas with the emphasis contingent on the circumstance. I prefer to have no single political label, just as I would not want to be known socially as only one thing, forced to choose among my roles as husband, father, brother, geologist, writer, neighbor, or friend. Similarly, people do not live according to a textbook of sharply defined ideologies; we live in a complex world that defies arbitrary, abstract boundaries. Embracing several ideologies does not mean one lacks core principles but rather that one recognizes that dynamic situations cannot be addressed by simple, always-applicable rules. For example, lying may be against one’s principles, but would lying to a Nazi about hiding Anne Frank in the attic be unprincipled? Ideologies should be a guide, not a straitjacket.

During my research, I discovered that I am not as objective as I would like to believe. Like everyone, when it comes to politics, I am a master of confirmation bias and post hoc rationalizations, so good at my craft that no matter the circumstances, I can selectively mine data to convince myself of the righteousness of my cause. In other matters, I base decisions on reason and an impartial examination of the facts. Why, when it comes to politics, am I biased? Several explanations will be proposed (for example, tribalism, moral systems, ideology, environment, and DNA), but regardless of the cause, perhaps the best we can do is to recognize that our biases exist. Somewhat counterintuitively, this led me to conclude that, even when extensively researched, in most matters we should be less, not more, certain in our opinions. This is in fact the scientific approach that is based on uncertainty, skepticism, and constant questioning.

The current political climate is so toxic that finding common ground seems impossible. We politicize everything yet often are unclear what our political positions mean or why we choose them. The purpose of the Power Matrix is to make social, economic, and political systems easier to understand and less ambiguous. Ideally, people of all political persuasions will find that this book provides tools to facilitate meaningful and productive discussions and debates. If we can understand ourselves and each other better, perhaps we will discover that we are not as dissimilar as supposed and that through dialogue characterized by candor, intelligence, and goodwill, we can regain mutual respect and address problems in more constructive ways. Maybe we will learn that our friends, neighbors, and fellow citizens who disagree with us are not immoral and stupid. Maybe everyone has a unique perspective and something worthwhile to say.

Part I:

The Power Matrix

(Figures 1–8)

Chapter 1:

The Traditional Political Spectrum

The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their proper name.

—Confucius 551–479 BC

When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.

—Humpty Dumpty

(Lewis Carroll’s Through the Looking-Glass, 1872)

When it comes to politics, many prefer the Humpty Dumpty approach where words mean whatever they want them to mean. Rather than using words precisely to convey information accurately, in politics, words are often used loosely to confirm biases or generate outrage. Disciplines such as science and medicine, where data is more quantifiable and objective truth is the goal, are less prone to this problem. In politics, lack of clarity is often an advantage. People want certainty in their political opinions, not doubt. Anything that lessens the certitude of our convictions impedes our ability to fervently believe what we desperately want to believe. If our political language was more precise, it might make our biases less pronounced, and this might, God forbid, make us more open to opposing views.

The Power Matrix attempts to apply the Confucius approach to politics, where things are called by their proper names. Problematically, in the context of politics, calling things by their proper names is surprisingly difficult. For instance, even the seemingly fundamental distinction between the Left and the Right is controversial. The first problem arises by my choice to capitalize these words. Because I consider the Left and the Right political factions, and therefore proper nouns, I use capital letters. Others use the lowercase and are adamant that their grammatical choice is the only proper option. Some reject the idea that these two groups are mere political factions but consider them distinct moral communities. A larger problem is that the Left and Right are defined subjectively, in a positive or negative light, depending on which side someone prefers. Moreover, the labels Left and Right mean different things to different people in different places at different times.

Perhaps for now we can agree that the Left and Right describe fundamental political choices. These choices are based on underlying values and concerned with the distribution of power and property. Successful societies seek a reasonable balance between these two poles, but unfortunately, in modern America, this is usually achieved by cyclical swings that feature extremes of the respective positions.

American politics is often thought of as a democratic contest between the Left and the Right, but this is a relatively recent phenomenon. The first reference to the political Left and Right was in Thomas Carlyle’s French Revolution, published in 1837. Carlyle explained that when the French National Assembly met in 1789 to consider political reform, supporters of the king (monarchists) sat on the right side of the meeting while supporters of the revolution (republicans) sat on the left. Those on the right side of the room advocated improving but conserving the old order of the aristocracy, monarchy, and Catholic Church, while those on the left argued for a new social contract based on liberty, equality, and fraternity. This rift soon erupted into a revolution.

But these eighteenth-century factions do not describe the current Left-Right divide. The fission during the French Revolution was between an authoritarian hereditary hierarchy and a new order based on liberalism. Today’s divide is within the liberal camp, generally and not entirely accurately seen as pitting those who most value equality (the Left, social liberals) versus those who most value liberty (the Right, classical liberals). Unfortunately, fraternity is becoming less common in modern politics.

While having several definitions, for purposes of this book, the word liberal means advocating liberty of thought, speech, and action, and liberalism refers to the belief that people in society, whether individually or in groups, are sovereign (they make decisions), not the state or a group of elites. Despite mischaracterizations and some notable exceptions, most of those on the Left and Right in modern America are liberals by this definition.

Some mid-nineteenth-century academics used the terms Left and Right in reference to the revolutions of 1848, but these descriptions were not widely used until the early 1900s. In fact, for hundreds of thousands of years, there essentially was no Left or Right. In the past, and in some modern cases, social power was usually obtained and held by physical force. With a few exceptions, political struggles were between unabashed authoritarians, not between champions of human rights. For example, rivals for Roman emperor did not offer materially different views of society, only the choice of which tyrant to obey. For most of civilized history—by which I mean after the Agricultural Revolution that began about 12,000 years ago—people served rulers and held political loyalty to individuals, such as the king or local landowner, rather than to abstractions such as freedom, equality, and justice.

Most societies in recorded history were hardened hierarchies in which individual elites might change, but the power of elitism was never seriously challenged. In other words, prior to modern times, major decisions in large post-tribal societies were made by rulers, not by democratic processes. Authorities claimed the exclusive and often-divine right to social power, and the common person, eking out a short, subsidence-level life in squalor and subservience, had no independent means to challenge this arrangement. Over time, society became liberalized and democratized—meaning that, at least in theory, the people hold political power and, therefore, make decisions about how society is organized. In modern America, these choices are organized along an ideological spectrum composed of the Left and the Right.

Figure 1. Modern American Political Spectrum

Figure 1 is a two-dimensional chart illustrating modern American politics. In this traditional spectrum, there is a simple divide between the Left (mainly composed of Democrats) and the Right (mainly composed of Republicans). Moderates and independents occupy the center position. Movement away from the center of the graph represents increasingly extreme or pure versions of the Left and Right.

In this example that depicts the modern divide, the Left transitions from liberals, to progressives, to socialists, while the Right proceeds from conservatives, to libertarians, to fascists. Traditionally, extremists on the Left have been called radicals because they seek dramatic, radical change, while extremists on the Right have been called reactionaries—meaning they react to or resist change. But the terms radical and reactionary do not neatly define the Left-Right divide. Radical ideas are not limited to the Left, and the term reactionary can describe anyone who defends the status quo. For example, socialist leaders in the Soviet Union who resisted capitalist reforms could be considered reactionaries.

Although not specified in figure 1, the Left is considered liberal and is usually associated with equality, socialism, and revolutionary change, while the Right is considered conservative and is usually associated with liberty, capitalism, and the status quo. There are several problems with this simple arrangement.

The first issue is the word liberalism, whose meaning has changed through time. In the early 1800s, liberalism meant the protection of private property, limited government, market economies, the rule of law, and constitutionally guaranteed individual rights. In modern Europe, a liberal is still someone who adheres to the principles of this original classical liberalism. In the United States, these usually are called libertarians and are often—somewhat problematically because they are not necessarily conservative—associated with the Right. As commonly used in modern America, liberal means Leftist, loosely defined as someone who supports public (owned by the state) or common (owned by the community) property, diversity, high progressive tax rates, positive (social) rights, social and political change, and substantial social spending. Liberals on the Left are social liberals typically portrayed as the champions of equality, diversity, big government, and social justice.

Next on the left side of the chart are progressives. Like other political concepts, the term progressive has a somewhat elastic definition that depends on the context. In general, progressivism is defined as a social or political movement that aims to represent the interests of ordinary people through political change and the support of government actions. In modern America, progressives are more liberal than run-of-the-mill liberals in that they advocate more aggressive adherence to the principles described above. Progressives are particularly supportive of those who have traditionally been denied power. Although tautological, progressives want to progress, but the question is, progress toward what? For example, in the former Soviet Union, progressives favored capitalism, while in modern America, many progressives favor socialism.

In general, progressives want to change existing conditions to improve society, most commonly toward increasing equality and expanding rights. Unlike conservatives, progressives embrace change and believe that government can and should solve social, economic, and political problems. A common complaint is that progressives are not practical and that their overreach can be harmful or counterproductive, but they tend to side with George Bernard Shaw, who wrote that the reasonable man adapts to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man. Progressives are usually equalitarians in that they believe all people are equal in worth and deserve equal rights, opportunities, and to some degree, outcomes. A more nuanced view is that progressives believe that equal treatment in an inherently unequal system is unfair; therefore, certain compensations, unequally applied, are just and necessary. Progressives are often associated with the Democratic Party, social democracy, and democratic socialism.

In a broader sense, progressivism describes the history of politics since the Enlightenment. In the last two hundred years, thanks to progressives, slavery was abolished and inequalities based on ethnicity, race, and sexual preference were lessened. During this time, the United States progressed from a very limited electorate (white men of property) to universal suffrage. It took seventy-five years after the establishment of our country to give black men the vote and another fifty-four to make women eligible. For well over a century, American Indians were often treated as subhuman. Universal, enforceable civil rights were not secured by law until 1964. Gay marriage only became legal in 2015 and was opposed by leaders of both major parties until 2012. Over the last two hundred years, there have been more strides in civil liberty than in hundreds of thousands of years of human history, and much of this was spearheaded by progressives.

While usually described in social terms, American progressivism is confusing in economic terms. Progressives sometimes assume that the economic pie is fixed and that the capitalist system is unfair or rigged. They believe that resource allocation should be based on need, not profits, and that markets should be subordinate to the state. So while progressives tend to be socially liberal, rejecting state regulation of behavior, they are economically illiberal in that they want the state to regulate, own, or otherwise control key elements of the economy.

The next step on the left side of the chart is socialism. Socialism, plotted in the extreme left side of the chart, has been described as the ideology of equality and is often conflated with communism—which, as will be explained later, can be quite different. In practice, neither communist nor socialist societies are particularly equal. Why is that? Are all types of socialism equal? What is the difference between social democracy, democratic socialism, and communism—and where do they fall on the spectrum?

While the book will examine these questions in detail and will point out problems with socialism (and capitalism), The Power Matrix is not an indictment of socialism. Various forms of socialism are not just beneficial but also essential for modern liberal societies, and as will be discussed, socialism, properly defined, has been part of the American Republic since inception. Capitalism is also a vital component of successful modern societies. To function at a high level, socialism and capitalism must act in dynamic tension to create something that is better than either in pure form. But that’s getting ahead of the story.

The right side of the chart begins with conservatives. While progressives emphasize changing what is considered wrong in their collective minds, conservatives emphasize preserving what is considered right in their collective minds. In this regard, conservatism is not so much an ideology as a support system for existing circumstances. Modern American conservatives (also called neoconservatives or sometimes, confusingly, neoliberals) are predominately free market advocates and defenders of the existing social order; thus, their views are a combination of classical liberalism and authoritarianism.

The essence of conservatism is to conserve; it is therefore not surprising that the Right is associated with traditional institutions and the status quo. Conservatives want to preserve and protect institutions not only to advance their interests but because they believe that the longevity of an institution or policy demonstrates its practicality and conformity to behavioral norms confirmed over time.

While willing to tweak or slowly change institutions, conservatives are apprehensive about abrupt change. They believe the problem with radical change is not what is intended, for that usually sounds reasonable or noble, but what is not intended. Conservatives are concerned that new policies have unpredictable, unintended consequences that can do more damage than good and that the best way to access a policy is to introduce it incrementally and observe the effects over time. This approach is not new. In 1890, the British magazine Woman advocated the relatively radical idea of feminism, but its conservative editors reflected the cautious Victorian approach with its motto Forward, but not too fast.

Conservatism is not limited to the Right. Some established institutions or policies are widely approved by the Left, such as Social Security and Medicare, and they naturally seek to conserve them. Adding to the confusion, conservatives tend to be authoritarians on social issues, while modern liberals tend to be authoritarians on economic issues.

Conservatives claim that their philosophy parallels evolution. They cite statements such as those by biologists Heather Heying and Bret Weinstein, who wrote in A Hunter-Gatherer’s Guide to the 21st Century, that any long-lasting cultural trait (such as traditions passed own within a lineage for thousands of years) should be presumed to be adaptive. According to this view, adaptive traits developed over long periods of time are generally beneficial; therefore, changing them rapidly without considering or full knowledge of the consequences can be detrimental. In other words, when things are going reasonably well, traditions can be considered ancient wisdom that should be preserved. Only if they perceive that things are not going well do conservatives favor change. To paraphrase nineteenth-century journalist Ambrose Bierce, conservatives are enamored of existing evils, while liberals are those who wish to replace them with new ones.

Economist and philosopher Edmund Burke (1729–1797) presented a balanced explanation of conservatism. While respectful of tradition, believing that these evolved as social best practices over time, Burke did not reject change, arguing that societies cannot let the past dominate the present or block the future . . . A state without the means of change is without the means of its own conservation. But he rejected rapid, revolutionary change because it was unlikely to have carefully considered all repercussions. While a champion of liberty, calling the freedom to choose among the blessings of mankind, he recognized its limitations. For example, Burke argued that it would be wrong to felicitate a madman, who has escaped from the protecting restraint and wholesome darkness of his cell to provide his restoration to the enjoyment of light and liberty. One of Burke’s most important insights was that there is a difference between a principle and its expression in society. According to Burke:

The lessons of history are not ones of pure principle, but of practical application. Revolutionary principles are always abstract, and self-deceiving . . . the revolutionaries (in France) are so taken up with the rights of man, they have totally forgotten his nature.

In general, conservatives believe in preserving existing social, economic, and political conditions, but the specific meaning depends on the context. For example, in Great Britain in the eighteenth century, conservatism was concerned with preserving the parliamentary monarchy and the British Empire. In modern America, conservatism is a fusion of libertarianism and traditional Christian values.

Next on the right side of the chart are libertarians, sandwiched between conservatives and fascists. Unlike fascists, libertarians are individualists opposed to authoritarianism of any sort, be it government coercion or pressure to conform to societal norms. But libertarians are unlike conservatives in that they often reject tradition and are socially liberal, supporting issues such as gay marriage and decimalization of drugs. In contrast to conservatives, libertarians are relatively indifferent to change, believing that society and individuals should go where they please. But like conservatives, libertarians favor limited government, individual rights, free markets, and personal responsibility.

Libertarianism is based on the belief that the uncoerced individual is the most valuable component of society. As such, people should be allowed to live as they choose, provided they are competent, responsible adults and do not harm or violate the rights of others, a concept known as mutual noninterference. Libertarians recognize that rights cannot be absolute; at most they extend to the point to which they interfere with or harm others. An often-used example is that your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose.

Libertarians believe that complex order in society, as in nature, can be achieved spontaneously. Yet libertarians are not anarchists. They believe that the government has an important role in establishing boundaries and preventing powerful institutions or individuals from suppressing freedom. They understand that the government must sometimes step in to provide aid, particularly to those who have experienced misfortune or are unable to help themselves. But for libertarians, freedom is crucial not only because it is a key feature of our humanity but also because only free people acting in their self-interest can, through uncoerced actions involving risk and reward, spontaneously create high-functioning order. In theory, this process needs only limited state oversight because, much like in evolution, beneficial behavior will automatically be reinforced while detrimental behavior will automatically be punished. Because this process parallels free market activity, libertarians are often associated with capitalism.

Another aspect of libertarians that comports with capitalism is that they are willing to take risks, not just in financial transactions, but in all aspects of life, as long as the risk-taker bears responsibility for their actions. This is because risk is an expression of free will. In Brave New World, Aldous Huxley described this phenomenon when he had one of his characters exclaim, But I don’t want comfort. I want God, I want poetry, I want real danger, I want freedom, I want goodness. I want sin.

Despite the characteristics described above, on figure 1, libertarians are plotted next to fascists, who have almost-antithetical views. While few are openly fascist today, past fascists were authoritarian nationalists thought to favor capitalism and traditional institutions, positions usually associated with the Right. Yet in practice, fascists such as the Nazis (National Socialist German Workers’ Party) were socialists who used crony capitalism as a facade of private ownership and opposed the traditional family and religion, save the worship of the state. Even more perplexing is that while the extreme positions of socialism and fascism are portrayed as opposites, in practice, they are twin totalitarian ideologies that are hard to distinguish.

Less-ideological movements or third parties are essentially ignored on the traditional spectrum by being consigned to the mushy middle. Yet most people consider themselves moderates. This is partially because most people equate moderate with reasonable, and almost everyone thinks they are, and may indeed be, reasonable. In any case, why should the most populous group, the demographic that often determines our political fate, be assigned so little importance?

In everyday life, everyone has conservative, liberal, and progressive views. For example, we may want to preserve (conserve) our family but at the same time be open to change regarding other aspects of our lives. As another example, a dissatisfied conservative may become a progressive, preferring change, while a satisfied progressive may become a conservative, preferring that things stay as they are. In practice, no single principle is always best as the degree to which one dominates depends on the situation.

Upon examination, the traditional spectrum seems conceptually confused, contradictory, and seems to ask more questions than it answers. Questions include Are political beliefs a simple binary choice between the Left and the Right, or are other dimensions involved? How can the Left be socially progressive but economically conservative, and the Right socially conservative but economically progressive? If polar opposites, why do socialists and fascists seem so similar? How does the traditional political spectrum relate to ideology, democracy, capitalism, and state authority? Does virtue lie on only one side of the scale?

As The Power Matrix will demonstrate, rather than the traditional two-dimensional spectrum based on a poorly defined Left-Right divide, these questions are better addressed by a three-dimensional graph based on social power.

Whatever one’s definition of the Left and Right, Americans seem to be moving away from the traditional-centrist consensus that, at least between elections, characterized politics for decades. But it is important to understand that while there are many problems today, America has been more unequal, violent, intolerant, racist, and economically depressed in the past. It has survived, like all living systems, by adapting to changes in the environment. How we solve current problems will depend on how we respond to today’s unique circumstances, and this response, like prescribing the correct medicine, depends on an objective diagnosis of the problem.

The Power Matrix will concentrate on the diagnosis and not the prescription. Proposing policy solutions would require a much longer discussion and, as a symptom of the problem, undoubtedly would be labeled partisan whatever remedies were proposed. However, most people on both the Left and the Right support the following generalizations. We need to provide private spheres, where people can live as they choose, and public spheres, where people can share the benefits of society and protect the most vulnerable. We need to reinvigorate the middle class, promote civil society, and decrease inequality and injustice. We need to increase our ability to live with, respect, and empathize with people of different ethnicities, lifestyles, opinions, and circumstances. We need equal application of rights, opportunities, and the law. We need to create conditions where people can excel, innovate, and prosper. Success should be rewarded, but those who have been successful should help those who have fallen behind. We need to provide people with a standard of living consistent with dignity, reasonable comfort, and good health. Although partisans are convinced that most of their political opponents do not, almost everyone agrees with these platitudes. The problem is that there is little consensus on how to achieve them or even how to measure success if we do. Worse, solutions that differ from our own are considered clear evidence of ignorance or evil intent. While this book will not eliminate this problem, the vitriol may be less toxic if both sides better understand their positions and those of their opponent. That is the goal of this book.

Chapter 2: Triangular Graphs

A picture is worth a thousand words.

—English adage

The purpose of communication is to convey information, and this can be done in numerous ways. In most cases, we do so with words. Words are incredibly important; after all, the rise of our species has much to do with our ability to use language. But words are not always the best way to communicate. Like all forms of communication, words are abstractions; they are not the same as, or fully descriptive of, reality. For example, something can be described by the word cat or even the words large gray cat, but words can never satisfactorily describe the complexity of a cat. While our ability to communicate becomes more sophisticated and nuanced as our vocabulary expands, verbal descriptions are never as complex as reality.

Even a large vocabulary is not helpful if words are misused. Mark Twain observed that "the difference between the almost right word and the right word is really a large matter. ’Tis the difference between the lightning bug and the lightning. The comedian Norm Crosby made a living on malaprops such as that skinny dog looks emancipated." To have meaning, words need context, proper usage, and clear and common definitions.

Another problem is that the meaning of words is subject to change. For example, the word gay used to mean happy, awful meant impressive or worthy of awe, and meat meant any food that was not liquid. The word liberalism in modern America means almost the opposite of what liberalism meant in Tocqueville’s America. This is because definitions are dynamic. Whatever the original definition, once a word enters the public domain, its meaning becomes subject to the whims of society over time. In most cases, people learn words by hearing how others use them rather than consulting dictionaries. In this manner, we often assign a personal, vague, local, or contradictory meaning to words that makes communication difficult.

In politics, this problem is particularly acute because there is a political advantage to emotive ambiguity. This phenomenon is not new. Speaking of radicals in the French Revolution, the poet Samuel Taylor Coleridge (1772–1834) noted that the controversial term Jacobin has either no meaning, or a vague one; for definite terms are unmanageable things, and the passions of men do not readily gather round them. Party rage and fanatical aversion have their birthplace and natural abode in floating and obscure generalities. Just as the term Jacobin in the 1790s came to be used as a generic insult, when someone today shouts, fascist, racist, communist, nationalist, homophobe, transphobe, xenophobe, misogynist, capitalist, Nazi, or supremacist, they often only have a vague understanding what these terms mean—much less have evidence that it specifically applies to the subject of their insult. They only know, as Coleridge observed, that it applies to someone in another group whom I shall never cease to hate.

A related problem is essentially contested concepts. These are words or phrases that defy common definitions. The phrase essentially contested concepts was introduced in 1956 by political theorist Walter Bryce Gallie (1912–1998) to describe controversial or ambiguous abstract terms, like those used to describe art. Gallie argued that certain types of concepts are prone to endless debates about their definitions, disputes that cannot be settled by appeal to empirical evidence, linguistic usage, or the canons of logic alone. Today contested terms where no single definition is universally accepted include liberalism, fascism, socialism, capitalism, wokeism, hate speech, social justice, privilege, equity, and gender. George Orwell (1903–1950) described this problem in Politics and the English Language:

The words democracy, socialism, freedom, patriotic, realistic, justice, have each of them several different meanings which cannot be reconciled with one another. In the case of a word like democracy, not only is there no agreed definition, but the attempt to make one is resisted from all sides. It is almost universally felt that when we call a country democratic, we are praising it: consequently, the defenders of every kind of régime claim that it is a democracy, and fear that they might have to stop using the word if it were tied down to any one meaning. Words of this kind are often used in a consciously dishonest way.

Social justice has proven particularly difficult to define. Both the Nazis and Soviets routinely used the term social justice to promote their regimes, but their definitions were far apart. The Nazis used their brand of social justice, which involved the glorification of the German race, to destroy individual rights. Soviet leaders used the term sometimes to reflect a concern for fairness and, at other times, to justify whatever abuses they thought necessary to retain power. In fact, the official newspaper of the Communist party in the Soviet Union was called Pravda, a word that means both truth and social justice.

Often, social justice means group justice. The Left advances social justice to correct wrongs done to oppressed groups out of power, but the Right complains that social justice as administered by their political opponents is neither social nor just, arguing that justice for groups is counter to liberalism that is intrinsically individualistic. In practice, the term social justice has always meant almost anything those who define it choose it to mean. Economist Friedrich Hayek noted this phenomenon nearly a century ago when he claimed that for both sides of the political divide, social justice was considered anything that empowered the state to do good things. Unfortunately, many things considered good by one group are regarded as evil by another.

Another problem with words is that they often fail to convey gradations. This is because humans tend to categorize abstractions as either-or. We tend to see things as bimodal, such as good or bad, black or white, up or down, left or right. But nature is a continuum in which things are relative. As an example, something may be described as hot or cold, but in comparison to what? I may think the room is cold, but you may think it’s hot. Even if a more precise term is used, such as seventy-five degrees Fahrenheit, there may still be disagreement as this is hot for a winter’s day but cool for one during the summer. Moreover, many of these opposites are purely social concepts. For example, whether a tree or rock is good or evil makes no sense. We only use the terms good and bad when we compare ourselves to other humans or to justify our actions to other humans. Therefore, the bimodal nature of words often erects boundaries that do not exist, and all too often, the limit of one’s language ability is the limit of their world.

Scientists prefer to communicate in the language of math and numbers, but this approach is not always possible, particularly in politics. Unlike hard sciences, political science is more qualitative than quantitative. Physicists can measure wavelengths of light to the angstrom, but political scientists are much less precise when distinguishing between classical liberalism and anarcho-capitalism. Most social concepts are difficult to measure, and even when they are, values are often distorted to confirm biases. Moreover, certain things cannot be described by numbers alone, no matter how accurately measured. For example, pi, the ratio of a circle’s circumference to its diameter, is often stated as 3.14159, but this is not technically correct. In fact, it is not possible to state pi as a finite number because it has an infinite number of digits. Therefore, while numbers sometimes seem to describe reality, they are just another abstraction conjured up by the human imagination and, as such, are subject to limitations.

Words are a powerful means to communicate, but because of the inherent disadvantages discussed above, they are not always the best way to convey information. In some cases, graphs are better tools than words. Graphs can show graduations and relationships between concepts. Graphs can illustrate and simplify a large amount of information at a glance and do not necessarily require complex math or contested terminology. But this simplicity does not limit the power of graphs as sometimes a simple depiction is better able to detect patterns than more realistic but complex ones. Einstein claimed that his most insightful moments came when he was thinking in pictures, not words. This is because graphs, while not perfect, accommodates an orderly way to think. Images in Einstein’s head, later confirmed by mathematics and experimentation, allowed him to see connections that eluded the limitations of words. More succinctly, a picture is worth a thousand words.

The Power Matrix

The Power Matrix is based on the assumptions that societies are organized by social power, and by plotting the components of social power, social concepts can be analyzed graphically. While this task appears complicated, the graph can serve as a powerful tool if the fundamental building blocks can be correctly identified. Let’s start with the basics. Technically, energy is the ability to do work and power is the rate at which work gets done. In common usage, society is concerned about power because social power is the ability to make and enact decisions. Sometimes this involves changing the beliefs, attitudes, or behaviors of other groups or persons, but this is not a requirement. The key is that someone with social power decides and someone who has less power complies, or at least recognizes the right or coercive ability of the other to make the decision. Therefore, social power underpins all types of social systems.

The basic premise of the Power Matrix is that power relationships determine social organization. In the past, power was primarily exerted by brute force. Authoritarians