---

Most everyone is familiar with the one dimensional political model. In this view, a persons political views fit somewhere along a line, oriented from left to right. If one is positioned to the left of the middle of the line, they are classified “liberal” in the modern parlance of what it means to be liberal . If one is positioned to the right of the middle of the line, they are classified as “conservative”. And if one is roughly near the middle of the line, they may be called “moderate”. In addition, others have proposed two-dimensional models. In particular, David Nolan has proposed what I believe is the most compelling two-dimensional model, with personal freedom plotted on a vertical axis and economic freedom plotted on a horizontal axis. The defining element of his model is the degree to which state control over human action is advocated.  I propose that the one dimensional model is far too simplistic to identify someone’s true political orientation, and that even the two dimensional models which have been proposed have no value in explaining the dynamics of political change. I will propose and outline a three-dimensional political model that I believe is vastly superior to the conventional view of the one dimensional  left-right spectrum, and also superior to any two dimensional model. I believe that this new model can: 1. more accurately identify a persons true political orientation; 2. explain the dynamics involved in political change; and 3. predict the political outcomes of an engaged populace, or a government intervening in the politics of another country. The model that I am proposing is to some extent an elaboration of a synthesis of Nolan’s model and the Cyclical Theory Model proposed by Arthur Schlesinger. Schlesinger intuitively embraced the metaphor of the “political pendulum” to explain the fluctuations seen in politics throughout American history.  Before elaborating on the design of the 3-D model, certain definitions and terminology must be clarified. The model I am proposing is an idealized model, and certain types of political systems must be seen as opposites to one another. The labels I will use to identify a particular form of government may not be exactly synonymous with the existing vernacular, but I must use them for convenience. The model also excludes theocratic and monarchic  systems of government. Also, it is important not to conflate economic systems with political systems. Various combinations of economic and political systems can exist. So, to clarify:

• Democracy – representative government directly elected by the people in which the supreme power resides with the people. In practice, a republican democracy is not a direct democracy, but one in which the people elect those that will represent them.
• Capitalism – economic system characterized by private ownership of goods and services and in which prices, production, and distribution are determined by competition in a free market.
• Liberal – within the constraints of democratic capitalism tend to advocate expansion of personal liberties, coupled with restraints or regulations on private enterprise. These regulations are seen by the liberal as necessary to compel the entrepreneur to be accountable for his actions due to an absence of voluntary accountability.
• Conservative – within the constraints of democratic capitalism tend to advocate expansion of unrestrained, largely unregulated capitalism coupled with restrictions on personal liberty. The restrictions on personal liberties arise from a conviction that the balance of power between entrepreneur and worker should reside with the entrepreneur. 
• Libertarian – within the constraints of democratic capitalism tend to advocate both a maximized expansion of personal liberties and unrestrained capitalism. The libertarian will support “federalism”, or decentralized government, in which greater power resides with more local authorities.
• Statist – within the constraints of democratic capitalism tend to advocate restrictions or regulations on both personal liberties and capitalism. Related to “the State”, which is political organization with centralized government and authority.
• Fascism – a centralized, dictatorial and autocratic  form of government that ultimately serves the few at the expense of the many. In this system, personal freedoms are very limited or non-existent, while capitalism persists.
• Totalitarianism –  advocating a political regime based on the subordination of the individual to the state and strict control of all  aspects of daily life. In this system both personal freedoms and private enterprise are very limited or non-existent
• Anarchy – a social structure without government or law. The complete, or nearly complete absence of government. Law of the Jungle. Vigilante justice. Absolute freedom in all arenas, but no accountability.
• Communism (Anarcho-Communism) –  a social and economic structure advocating common ownership of the means of production and a distribution of the products of industry based on need. An absence of social classes, money, and minimal state. De-centralized government. No for profit free enterprise, but many personal freedoms are retained. Not to be confused with Soviet Bolshevism which in practice is Totalitarian. 
• Socialism – an economic system in which the people own the means of production. Worker cooperatives would be socialist. Socialism as an economic system can exist within democracies or anarcho-communist systems. 

With the above list, certain parings must be considered opposites for convenience and simplicity even if they don’t mesh entirely with conventional wisdom and definitions. They are:

• Liberal and conservative
• Statist and Libertarian
• Fascist and communist
• Anarchist and Totalitarian

One should note that the first two contrasting pairs are still democratic, while the last two contrasting pairs are not democratic. When looking at David Nolan’s two-dimensional model, one could envision that if liberalism is carried too far it transitions into communism. Likewise if conservatism is carried too far it becomes fascism; libertarianism carried too far becomes anarchy, and statism carried too far becomes totalitarianism.  This understanding now leads to the first alteration in the well understood one-dimensional model, with a two-dimensional model with a left-right axis and a top to bottom axis. It is similar to Nolan’s Model rotated 45 degrees and elaborated upon to include non democratic systems.  See figure 1 below. The dashed line in the figure has significance, but we will return to this later.

  The two dimensional model above can adequately identify a person’s true political orientation, but it is still useless in explaining the dynamics of political change, or how systems of government can change over time; change that may be small, or revolutionary in scope. Only a three-dimensional political model can explain political change, and if properly understood, has predictive value. Before introducing the 3-D model, I will discuss the metaphor of the pendulum which is so often used to explain observed change within democratic systems, and even to predict future change. Arthur Schlesinger certainly understood the political pendulum when he proposed his Cyclical Theory. This concept of the “political pendulum” will become an important component in the 3-D model that I will propose.

Most people familiar with the left-right political spectrum, are also familiar with the metaphor of the pendulum. This metaphor is often used to identify where the existing system of government is located, and to predict what may happen next. In recent decades the American democracy has been observed by some, to have shifted to the right. (This excludes certain social issues which have moved leftward) Those who adhere to, or subscribe to the metaphor of the pendulum would say that “the pendulum has swung to the right”, and they would next expect a natural “self-correction” with the pendulum eventually swinging back to the left, as a real pendulum would do. I believe that the metaphor of the pendulum is appropriate.

Let’s consider the physics of a pendulum for a moment. As it swings back and forth it has energy. It has both kinetic energy and potential energy. It has maximum kinetic energy when it’s velocity is fastest, which occurs when it passes through the bottom of it’s swing. The pendulum’s potential energy is all gravitational and dependent upon its height above some reference level. Therefore the pendulum has no potential energy at the bottom of it’s arc, but will have it’s maximum potential energy at the top of it’s arc when it’s velocity has fallen to zero. Therefore maximum PE correlates with minimum KE.  A pendulum also has acceleration, and according to Newton’s second law of motion (F=ma), acceleration is directly proportional to force. The pendulum’s acceleration will be greatest at the highest point in it’s arc, when it’s velocity is zero, and will fall to zero at the bottom of it’s arc when it’s velocity reaches it’s maximum. Since acceleration is a vector quantity it has direction. The acceleration vector always points toward the bottom of the arc, but tangent to that point where the tail of the vector touches the curve of the pendulum’s arc. Therefore as the pendulum moves downward through it’s arc, the acceleration vector gradually gets smaller, reaches zero at the bottom, then reverses direction and gets longer as it continues. The length of the vector represents the magnitude of the acceleration, and since acceleration requires an unbalanced force in the same direction, the force vector also points in the same direction as the acceleration vector. Therefore, one can see that in order for a pendulum to swing back and forth a “restoring force” must exist that will cause an acceleration toward the midpoint or bottom of the arc .  See Figure 2 below. In Figure 2 above notice that the potential energy (PE), acceleration, and force have their maximum values at the top of the arc of the pendulum, at Position A. Notice that the acceleration and force vector can be drawn as a single vector tangent to the point swept out by the pendulum. It really represents the two vectors superimposed atop one another. Notice that the slope of the tangent line, representing the acceleration and force vectors at Position A is very steep, with the vector being very long. Notice at Position B that the force and acceleration vectors are shorter because the tangent line to a point swept out by the pendulum is not as steep.  At Position C all the stored PE from Position A has been converted to Kinetic Energy (KE). With the slope of a tangent to a point on the line swept out by the pendulum now being zero, the acceleration and force vectors are also zero. Finally, notice at Point D how the acceleration, and superimposed force vector have reversed direction. One can see that the force vector represents a restoring force since it is always directed toward the midpoint of the swing. Remember from above that people who acknowledge the metaphor of the pendulum to explain political change intuitively recognize a natural “self-correction” when the system veers too far toward one extreme or another. This is analogous to the “restoring force” of the pendulum which always directs the pendulum toward the center. But what is the “restoring force” or “self-correcting force” in democratic political systems? In a moment I will define it. Remember, with the pendulum we saw that energy, force and acceleration are all proportional to one another. Likewise, it is the energy and force of engaged electorates, in association with the “restoring force”, which permits the change one observes in democratic political systems. One could envision a democratic system driven far to the left or right in which a part of the electorate becomes increasingly wary and resistant to further movement in that direction; increasingly fearful of losing their democracy, so they resist with greater force.  Now let us re-draw the pendulum and insert familiar political labels.  See Figure 3 below. The above figure shows the conventional left-right or liberal-conservative dichotomy. High on each side, where “very liberal” and “very conservative” are located, the electorate would need to be very energized to drive the system to such extremes, because the self-correcting restoring force is trying to drive the system back toward the center. One can also ask the question: Does the slope of a tangent line to a point continue to become steeper the further toward the extremes one proceeds, or will it perhaps reach an inflection point?  Also, remember there exists a perpendicular axis which represents the less familiar libertarian-statist dichotomy. Let us now re-draw the pendulum, swinging back and forth perpendicular to it’s original orientation. See Figure 4 below. One can ask again if the slope of a tangent line to a point along this curve will continue to become steeper as one approaches the extreme ends. Also with just a little imagination, we can see that if we combine the two mutually perpendicular political axes, we get a “bowl-shaped” structure. Our model  now has three dimensions, though still nowhere near complete. See Figure 5 below. I’m not an artist, but hopefully you can make out what I’m trying to illustrate.  

From the model above one can see that not only does the political pendulum swing back and forth left to right, but it swings “forward” and “backward” as well.  We also now  recognize that energy represents the third dimension, or height of the bowl-shaped model, analogous to the energy changes experienced by a pendulum as it swings through its arc.  As an example, a highly engaged(energized) constituency could push the pendulum(political system) far up one side of the bowl-shaped structure. But a restoring force would tend to drive the system back to the middle. It is the sum total of all forces that creates the energy contour of the bowl-shaped structure, or one could say, the magnitude of the all the forces(energy) represents the potential energy of the system.  Also, in the absence of the naturally stabilizing restoring force of the 3-D political landscape, democracy is gravely threatened.  So at this point we have a bowl-shaped structure with ever steepening slopes toward the margins, or rim of the bowl. Does the slope at any particular point have any meaning?  From algebra we learn that the slope of a line is the rise over the run, or  Δy/Δx. What is Δy? It is the change in net energy. What is Δx? It is the change in the political system. Therefore Δy/Δx  equals the net energy required per unit of political change. In other words, the amount of energy that needs to be expended by an engaged electorate, in association with the retarding impact of the restoring force, to affect a particular “unit” of change within the existing political system.  As you see, the slope has great explanatory  significance  and predictive value. See Figure 6 below.       Looking at Figure 6 above, we see that when the political system is at Position B, the slope of the line is very gentle, and only a small amount of net energy, ΔY, can have a substantial affect on the change in the political system, Δx. But when the political system is at Position A, the slope of the line is far steeper than at Position B, and far greater energy, ΔY, is needed to affect a far smaller change in the system, Δx. I am now in  a position to make an alteration to the metaphor of the pendulum and replace the pendulum with a “ball” moving within the bowl-shaped structure. We will find that the ball is far more utilitarian as my proposed 3D model becomes more fully developed. We can think of the contact point between the ball and inside surface of the “bowl” as representing the location of a particular political system at any point in time. The contact point can move depending upon the interplay of both internal and external forces. The internal forces are those resulting from the aforementioned “engaged electorate”, or constituencies contesting one another. The external force is the natural, center-seeking, restoring force, so vital in stabilizing democratic systems. But what is the restoring force really? After all, we are dealing with a human generated social system, not a natural system. I believe that the restoring force, intuitively understood to be a component of Arthur Schlesinger’s pendulum hypothesis, is the sum total of all the institutions, norms, and guardrails of democracy. These institutions naturally inhibit the emergence of extremes, and are brought to bare with increasing ferocity as a political system approaches those extremes. Without actually calling it “the restoring force”, the authors Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt, in their book, How Democracies Die, elaborate this force. It includes the party system, universal suffrage, the Electoral College, a free and independent mass media, our system of checks and balances with three co-equal branches of government, effective and respected law enforcement, effective and respected intelligence gathering services. They also include the softer guardrails such as mutual toleration and institutional forbearance.  However, they can all be overwhelmed, as I will later show. As a democratic system is challenged, as occurs when fervent constituencies push the system toward extremes, the institutions and guardrails of democracy push back with greater force(the restoring force), up to a point.  I can now introduce a fundamental postulate in this discussion: All systems, whether natural or man-made seek their lowest, most stable energy configurations. This postulate may seem intuitively obvious, but I suspect that it is rarely introduced in discussions of political dynamics.

Figure 7 below shows the interplay of forces that can “move” a political system. In this hypothetical scenario, we have an existing political system that is considerably right of center as determined by the contact point between the “ball” and the curved line. Vector A represents the “force” or energy of constituency A in pushing the system rightward. Vector B represents the force or energy of Constituency B pushing the system leftward. Vector C represents the natural Restoring Force based on the slope of the contact point and the PE of the system.  You should see that in this scenario, the political system can be driven rightward only if the magnitude of Vector A is greater than the sum of Vectors B and C. See  Figure 7 below. I will now re-draw figure 7 and provide a more detailed explanation of each force acting on the system. See Figure 8 below.

     

In Figure 8 above, Letter “E” is a line perpendicular to the slope of the contact point, which runs through the center of the circle (ball). Letter “D” represents the potential energy of the system, whose magnitude depends upon the height of the contact point above some reference level. Notice that it’s magnitude increases with the height of the contact point. Letter “C” is the natural restoring force of the system, whose magnitude is entirely dependent upon θ and the magnitude of the potential energy. The magnitude of “C” falls to zero as the slope falls to zero. Theta equals the slope of the contact point. Don’t be confused by where I have drawn “theta” in Figure 8 above. This  “Θ” has the same value as the slope of the contact point.  Also, by examining the geometry of the configuration one should see that the restoring force is equal to the potential energy times the cosine of theta, or RF = PE(cos Θ ).  One might be tempted to ask “why isn’t PE the RF?” The answer is that the RF must be parallel to A & B above. By definition, it is only that component of a force which is in the direction of movement that contributes to “work”, work in the true physics sense, where W=Fd. RF augments B but counters A, and they must be parallel.  Letter “A” is the force of engaged constituencies pushing the system rightward, while letter “B” is the countering force of constituencies pushing the system leftward. And as I said before, the political system can be driven rightward only if the magnitude of Vector A is greater than the sum of Vectors B and C.

An issue not as yet discussed with regard to the model, but which readers may think is important, is the concept of momentum. Momentum equals mass times velocity, or (P = mv). It could be represented in the model by changing the size of the ball; a larger ball representing a larger population of highly engaged constituencies, and therefore a larger momentum. The greater momentum would seem to translate into a greater force pushing the political system in a particular direction, but the greater mass means greater inertia, which is a resistance to change. Therefore, nothing changes. Momentum has no effect. It is a non issue.

Another related question: In the event that widespread apathy among all contesting constituencies overspreads the entire population, what happens to the position of the contact point of the ‘ball’, meaning the change that is to take place within the political system?  Answer: the ball should move to the lowest point in it’s arc, driven downward by the only force now in operation, the restoring force. So a moderate, low energy democratic system emerges, one in which the institutions and guardrails of democracy are not being challenged. Furthermore, since those institutions and guardrails are not being challenged, the restoring force will also largely vanish, and the forces of all constituencies will have vanished due to their apathy, and as such the 3-D model collapses into a 2-D plane. This is also consistent with the fundamental postulate of all systems, both natural and man-made, that they seek their lowest most stable energy configuration.

I am now in a position to return to a question I posed much earlier: Does the slope of the line within the bowl-shaped political model perpetually increase, or is an inflection point eventually reached? Answer: an inflection point is reached. Not only that, eventually the slope becomes negative in every direction. Why is this? Remember earlier when I outlined what is perceived to happen when different political systems go too far in any one direction? They become non-democratic systems: communism, fascism, totalitarianism, or anarchy. How does this happen? As the democratic political system is driven further and further to an extreme position due to the spectacular, passionate ardor of very engaged and activated constituencies, a revolutionary crest is reached, what I call “the revolutionary rim“, after which the institutions of democracy can no longer be maintained. The institutions and guardrails of democracy have been challenged and stressed to their breaking point.  The system then cascades inexorably and remorselessly  toward non-democratic forms. If for example, in contemporary America, the forces of the political right can successfully drive the system further and further rightward with their spirit of revolutionary ardor (think MAGA maniacs), then the risk of reaching the Revolutionary Rim and collapsing remorselessly toward a fascist state become realistic. See figure 9 below. The drawing is not great; the rim is too sharp. But I think it makes it’s point.

Notice that it has the shape of a volcano.  We can now elaborate on the “bowl-shaped” model with a “volcano-shaped” model. The dashed line represents the inside surface of the volcano’s crater, what I now call “The Well of Democracy“. Notice how the potential energy of the systems falls to zero in all directions outside The Well of Democracy at the boundary of the square, before getting to the non-democratic systems. But didn’t I say earlier that the PE at the bottom of the “bowl” was zero? It is clearly higher than the energies of the non-democratic forms. Remember PE is always measured “relative” to some reference level. I simply took the bottom of the bowl as my reference point. As long as the pendulum of political change is swinging back and forth within the well of democracy, the bottom of the swing  IS the zero reference point.   So we can see from Figure 9 that at the bottom of the Well of Democracy there is still potential energy as measured relative to non-democratic forms of government. Again, democracy requires participation of the electorate. Should the people become utterly apathetic and uninvolved, a “true” zero energy could form at the bottom of the Well of Democracy. But then again, the 3-D model would collapse to a 2-D plane anyway. This is because in addition to universal apathy, none of the institutions and guardrails of democracy would ever be challenged, so the Restoring Force would evaporate as well.  So, what I’m suggesting:  Is it possible that the institutions, norms, and guardrails of democracy MUST be challenged periodically in order to maintain their vigor?  If so, then abject public apathy could result in progressive atrophy of the critical institutions of democracy. As such, the three dimensional political model I have proposed would collapse to a two dimensional plane. This may then be one method by which democracies end with a whimper instead of a bang.

So far I have discussed energy only in terms of “the people” or “engaged constituencies”. Is there a “negative energy”, or an “energy of the state” that must be considered? And does this imply a further refinement in the model I have proposed? Answer: Yes and yes. Consider the energetic state of anarchy. Anarchy is the absence of government, and as such there is no effective energy of the people or the state. There are no institutions and guardrails for democracy, and as yet no institutions of dictatorial rule. The relative “energy state” of anarchy is a true zero. The people may be fighting in the streets for daily survival, but it is just chaos, maximum entropy. No NET energy is expended in any one direction, either toward democracy or a non-democratic government.  We know that nature abhors a vacuum, and anarchy represents a vacuum of power. Anarchy is inherently unstable, a two-dimensional flat political landscape, and ultimately someone grabs the reins of power and sends the country spiraling toward either communism or fascism, either of which can quickly become totalitarianism. Why? Remember the postulate I stated earlier: all systems whether natural or man-made seek their lowest stable energy configuration?   Anarchy so often quickly turns into communism, fascism, or totalitarianism because these are even lower energy states than anarchy. Anarchy may be zero energy, but  these others are negative energy states in terms of democratic institutions, or positive energy states in terms of state or dictatorial institutions. We can now re-define and refine the vertical or third dimension of the model; it is not so much an “absolute” potential energy, as it is a ratio of the potential energy of democratic institutions and the people, to the potential energy of dictators and dictatorial or state institutions. See Figure 10 below.

    We are looking at a cross-section of the right side of the model and hypothesizing what would happen in the event of a scenario in which highly energized constituencies drive the government rightward beyond the Revolutionary Rim. The vectors are not drawn to scale, but are useful in illustrating my point. Newly introduced in this figure is the “Zero Line“, where the ratio of the PE of the people and their democratic institutions equals the PE of the dictatorial state. As we examine this scenario the dangers of moving beyond the Revolutionary Rim will become obvious.  Examining this scenario will illustrate the primary means by which a democratic system of government is lost. And again, Levitsky and Ziblatt discuss this clearly, in narrative form in How Democracies Die, but fail to reduce their abstract ideas to a concrete, physical 3D model, as I present here. Also, this scenario imagines democracy being lost as a result of an excessive push to the right, but it would work in precisely the same way in any other direction.

Starting at Position 1 we can visualize highly engaged constituencies driving the system rightward. Their success is dependent upon the magnitude of the force of their engagement (Vector A), being greater than the sum of the forces of countering constituencies (Vector B) and the inherent restoring force (Vector C). Remember that Vectors A&B always represent the energy or forces of “the people”, regardless of where they are seen on the diagram.  As long Vector A has a greater magnitude than the sum of Vectors B&C, the political system keeps being driven rightward. The restoring force begins to shrink once the system passes the inflection point of the curve, due to it’s decreasing slope. If the norms, institutions, and guardrails of democracy are being progressively eroded once one gets beyond the inflection point of the curve, a question must be asked: what is causing this? It is due to the incipient efforts  of a would-be autocrat  who has acquired the reins of power, but has yet to achieve such power as to implement dictatorial institutions, just the erosion of democratic institutions. The would-be dictators successful implementation of dictatorial institutions will only begin to occur should the system be driven beyond the Revolutionary Rim.

At Position 2 we reach the Revolutionary Rim. Reaching this crest puts a democratic government in a very precarious position. At this point, the slope of the contact point has fallen to zero, meaning that the restoring force has likewise fallen to zero. If the restoring force has fallen to zero, then the norms, institutions, and guardrails of democracy have been so eviscerated as to no longer constitute a bulwark against dictatorial onslaught. The PE has reached a maximum as contesting constituencies battle hard. The only way now to prevent a virtually unstoppable decent toward fascism is for the countering constituencies (Vector B), pushing leftward, to have as much or more force as those forces driving the system inexorably rightward (Vector A). And again, this is because Vector B constituencies no longer have the added benefit of the Restoring Force to assist them in preventing a descent beyond the Revolutionary Rim.

At Position 3 the government is now cascading remorselessly toward fascism. The slope of the contact point is now negative, meaning that rather than having a restoring force with inherent stabilizing attributes, we now have an “amplifying force“, (Vector C), that acts in conjunction with the forces driving the system rightward (Vector A).  This then accelerates the collapse toward fascism. The amplifying force really means that an emerging dictator is cementing the institutions that will solidify his rule.  Only the most monumental effort by those original “countering constituencies” I referred to can prevent a non-democratic result. Vector A constituencies may even join Vector B constituencies in order to help prevent the cascade toward Fascism, but emerging dictators often actively destroy all opposition.  As you see, the engagement of “the people” can still temporarily be significant, though diminishing, as the system heads toward fascism. So how else can we define the amplifying force? It is essentially the opposite of the restoring force. It is the abandonment of the institutions and guardrails of democracy. It is a growing affiliation between a would be dictator, other autocrats, certain corporate interests, a cabal of sycophants, and the military.  Also, during this time the ratio of the energy of the people to the state may still briefly be greater than one to one, as they try to fight against dictatorial onslaught, but it is decreasing rapidly and about to go negative, where the PE of the emerging dictatorial state will now be greater than the PE of the people.

At Position 4 we essentially have a fascist state in the process of stabilizing. The PE of the state is now far greater than the PE of the people. The amplifying force (Vector C), still drives the system rightward but with a smaller magnitude as stabilization occurs.

I can now introduce the completed Three-Dimensional Political Model. To gain the most comprehensive understanding of the model we will examine the model from four perspectives: 1. from above, 2. left-right cross-section, 3. front -back cross-section, and 4. a three dimensional perspective view. I have included some figures that I have drawn freehand, as well as similar figures done with computer graphics. Also included far below is a link to an interactive computer graphic representation of the completed 3D model in a 3D perspective view which can be manipulated.

Figure 11 below, shows the finished three-dimensional model from directly above. Think of it as an aerial view of the landscape of political dynamics. Further down the page is a better view utilizing computer graphic design. The terrain or landscape is complex. At the top center is Anarchy, or the Anarchic Plain. To the left is the Anarchic-Communist Escarpment, across which one falls from the zero energy state of anarchy to the negative energy state of communism. The Anarchic-Fascist Escarpment can be found to the right of the Anarchic Plain, where one falls to the negative energy state of fascism. On the lower part of the diagram can be found both the Communist-Totalitarian Watershed and the Totalitarian-Fascist Watershed. These regions have slightly elevated relative energies, indicating that at least some energy must be expended to transition from either communism or fascism in order for a system to become truly totalitarian. One can also see the Revolutionary Rim which encloses the Well of Democracy. Figure 12 below, represents a cross-sectional left to right view. One can easily see where liberal and conservative reside within the Well of Democracy. Remember, the vertical dimension is the ratio of energy of the people to energy of the state, with the Zero Line being that level where the ratio of the two falls to one-to-one. Highly engaged constituencies get the energy ratio very high at the Revolutionary Rim. Communism can be seen to the left and fascism to the right. Another insight is that minimum entropy(maximum law and order) occur at the Inflection points within the Well of Democracy, where the guardrails of democracy are strongest, and again at the extremes of the model,  while maximum entropy(minimum law and order) occurs where the system crosses the zero line. Figures 12 and 13 are not drawn quite correctly. Outside the Well of Democracy, the slope should steepen until it crosses the zero line. So an inflection point occurs here as well. Therefore, maximum entropy occurs at this inflection point, the zero line. Another correction that needs to be made to Figure 12 is that the energy line for communism would not dip nearly as far below the zero line as that for fascism. Communism is sometimes called anarcho-communism. So communism remains a system of fairly high entropy, which explains its lack of stability, and chronic tendency to descend to outright totalitarianism.

  Figure 13 is similar to figure 12 except that it is a cross-sectional view from front to back. One can see statism and libertarianism within the Well of democracy. As before, the vertical dimension is an energy ratio. This time, totalitarianism can be seen to the left, really front, and anarchy can be seen to the right, actually back. Totalitarian systems become firmly entrenched and the energy line dips far below the zero line.  Entrenched totalitarian systems have extremely low entropy, with powerful, rigid law and order. On the right side, the energy of anarchy doesn’t slip below the zero line, since anarchy is the absence of a system and therefore exhibits zero energy and high entropy. As stated before, due to its extremely high entropy, anarchy is likewise extremely unstable, and some individual or group will sufficiently organize so as to create an emergent negative energy (lower entropy) state, such as fascism or totalitarianism. The effort to carefully and constructively fabricate and nurture the institutions of democracy are rarely undertaken.

The figures below, are an attempt to provide various views of the entire three-dimensional model. The digital models were produced by Mark Ramirez of FEH Design in Dubuque, Iowa.

e

Copy and paste the following link into a google chrome browser to view the online interactive digital model:

https://a360.co/2R9RbUx

You will probably need Google Chrome as your browser to engage with the interactive digital model. It is possible that Safari or Firefox might work, but Internet Explorer will not work. Rotating the model with this interactive tool will really help you understand the three dimensional character of various components of the model. A touch screen computer should make manipulation very easy. Also, you could just type the above link into your “Notes” app on your smart phone, then highlight it, and you will immediately have access with the interactive model that you can manipulate with the touch of a finger.  Again, many thanks to Mark Ramirez at FEH Design in Dubuque, Iowa for the construction of the interactive model.

Implications

This three-dimensional model of political dynamics I have proposed illustrates the strengths and vulnerabilities of democratic systems. It reveals how precious they are and how critical it is that they be nurtured in order to be maintained. A thorough understanding of the model illustrates that democratic systems have a natural self-correcting mechanism that helps prevent extremism and revolution. These are the institutions, norms, and guardrails of democracy. In my model the institutions and guardrails are represented by The Restoring Force.  As the model shows, they can be overwhelmed. We can clearly see the danger of extremism, because it leads to the Revolutionary Rim, and the loss of the institutions of democracy. An understanding of the model allows one to predict the outcome of certain events.

The model predicted that when the fascist government of Iraq was overthrown, that anarchy would prevail. It makes perfect sense. Destroying a government leads to the absence of government, anarchy, which is a zero energy system (or lack of a system). The institutions of democracy don’t simply materialize. To bring about democracy requires an engaged population, building and nurturing the systems of democracy carefully over time. This means that it requires climbing that energy hill until one passes over the Revolutionary Rim and descends into the Well of Democracy, at which time those institutions will become self-sustaining and self-correcting. Even George Bush himself implicitly understood this tenet belatedly when he said “We will stand down when they stand up”, standing up referring to the secure establishment of institutions of democracy.

When the Soviet Union collapsed a similar situation unfolded; a totalitarian government was replaced by anarchy for a time. The people avoided starvation through a combination of truck farming, urban gardening and animal husbandry. Everything becomes very local in the hard scrabble of anarchy. The hard work of building and nurturing the institutions of democracy never materialized in what became the Russian Republic, and many of the other ex-Soviet republics, so democracy never became established. Instead, it was easier, meaning it required less energy, to drift toward other low energy systems. The Russian Republic is now essentially a Fascist regime. There are Russian billionaires alongside people living in abject poverty. The government serves the few at the expense of the many. Remember, this was my definition of “true” fascism. This is also one of my fears for America.

Modern America, though still within the well of democracy, is entering a dangerous zone. Remember that the magnitude of the restoring force is dependent upon the strength and security of the important institutions, norms, and guardrails of democracy. As these wither, the restoring force vector becomes smaller, allowing committed yet minority constituencies to drive our political system closer and closer to the revolutionary rim. This is happening with a committed push to the right. Widespread partisan gerrymandering, new obstacles to voter participation, the emergence of an imperial chief executive, the emergence of a compliant rubber stamping congress, a ceaseless demonization of the mass media, the loss of respect for law and order and our intelligence gathering organizations, the loss of mutual toleration undermining the legitimacy of one’s political opponents, and the loss of institutional forbearance, are leading examples of our eroding democracy. It is this aforementioned list that leads me to conclude that we have passed the inflection point leading toward the Revolutionary Rim. Again, this means that the magnitude of the restoring force is becoming smaller, making it easier for committed constituencies to push our system to extremes. The election of Donald Trump should be a massive red flag as he shreds our system of checks and balances and puts partisan loyalists in positions historically apolitical and above the fray. At this point there are only two things that can prevent America from descending over the Revolutionary Rim and cascading remorselessly toward fascism. They can occur in isolation or preferably in concert. They are: either we quickly restore the eroded institutions and guardrails of democracy to their earlier standard, or,  increasingly engaged progressive constituencies must push back massively to the left. The stakes are monumental.

So there you have it; a new model for understanding the dynamics of political change.

I welcome comments, questions, or constructive criticism in the comments section. So, feel free to leave a comment.