The image shown above is a physical representation of the Three-Dimensional Political Model that I am proposing. Below, following an exhaustive discussion of various political systems, is a discussion of how the model evolved, and what it means.

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 electorate, 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. Various combinations of economic and political systems can exist. I am going to go into detail explaining the various political and economic systems that exist as well as the various permutations of these systems. Many of these terms will be used as I flesh out the three-dimensional political model that I am proposing. Therefore it is critical that everyone be clear on this terminology and the definitions. This may get tedious for some. If you already have a good grasp of the variety of political and economic systems in existence you can skip this section. So, to clarify:

• Democracy – representative government directly elected by the people in which the supreme power resides with the people. State power is vested in the people and provides an environment that respects human rights and freedoms. Features of a democracy include freedom of assembly, association, personal property, religion, speech, voting rights, and rights to life and liberty. The dominant form of democracy is a representative democracy or republic, where citizens elect government officials to govern on their behalf such as in a parliamentary or presidential democracy. In a direct democracy, or pure democracy, the electorate decides on policy initiatives without elected representatives as proxies. Direct ballot initiatives, where a proposition is placed directly on the ballot to be subjected to a vote, is an example of direct democratic action which may occur within an otherwise representative democracy.
• Capitalism – economic system characterized by private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit. Features of capitalism include capital accumulation, competitive markets, price systems, private property, property rights, voluntary exchange, and wage labor. Decision-making and investments in capitalism are determined by the owners of wealth. There are various forms of capitalism, three of which are relevant to this discussion: laissez-faire capitalism, state capitalism, and mixed economics. Laissez-faire capitalism is a type of economic system in which transactions between private groups of people are free from any form of economic intervention, such as subsidies or regulations. Proponents of laissez-faire argue for a near complete separation of government from the economic sector. This is raw, pure, unrestrained capitalism free of any regulations. State capitalism is an economic system in which the state undertakes business and commercial (for profit) economic activity and where the means of production are nationalized as state-owned enterprises. A state-capitalist country is one where the government controls the economy and essentially acts as a single, huge corporation, extracting surplus value from the workforce in order to invest it in further production. The economy of the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact countries were state-capitalist systems. A mixed economy is an economic system that accepts both private business and nationalized government services, like public utilities, safety, military, welfare, and education. Mixed economies also promote regulations to protect the public, the environment, and the interests of the state. it can also be defined as an economic system blending a market economy with elements of a planned economy, or private enterprise with public enterprise. The Keynesianism practiced in the United States from 1933-1980 was a mixed economic system. Since 1980 America’s economic system has trended toward “third-way” economics and neoliberalism.
• Liberal(Progressive) – in the modern vernacular, liberal or progressive is an economic/political belief system that tends 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. Liberal/progressives favor public policy that they believe will reduce or lesson the harmful effects of economic inequality as well as systemic discrimination such as institutional racism. Progressives advocate for social safety nets and worker’s rights, and oppose corporate influence on the democratic process. Progressives support economic Keynesianism and a large role for the state intervention in the economy.
• Conservative – 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. Conservatism is characterized by respect for American traditions, support for Judeo-Christian values, economic liberalism, anti-communism, and a defense of Western culture. Liberty within the bounds of conformity to conservatism is a core value, with an emphasis on strengthening the free market, limiting the size and scope of government, and opposing high taxes as well as government or labor union encroachment on the entrepreneur.
• Libertarian – 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. Libertarianism is a political philosophy promoting individual liberty. Libertarianism has been described as conservative on economic issues and liberal on personal freedom, and associated with a foreign policy of non-interventionism. Anarchist tendencies are associated with libertarian thought.
• Statist – statism tends to advocate for restrictions or regulations on both personal liberties and capitalism. Related to “the State”, which is political organization with centralized government and authority. Statism is the doctrine that the political authority of the state is legitimate to some degree. An advocate of statism would believe that the state has substantial centralized control over social and economic affairs. This control would especially involve taxation and the means of production. Statism is authoritarian to some extent and as such some variants of statism view a strong, authoritarian state as required to legislate or enforce morality and cultural practices.
• 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. Fascism is a far-right, authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology and movement, characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation or race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy. Strategies of fascist politics include: alluding to a heroic mythic past, propaganda, anti-intellectualism, conspiracy theories, hierarchy and patriarchy, victimhood, appeals to law and order, sexual anxiety, appeals to the heartland, and dismantling of public welfare and unity.
• 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. This system of government is centralized and dictatorial and requires complete subservience to the state. This form of government attempts to assert total control over the lives of its citizens. It is characterized by strong central rule that attempts to control and direct all aspects of individual life through coercion and repression. Totalitarianism does not permit individual freedom. Totalitarianism prohibits all opposition parties, outlaws individual and group opposition to the state and exercises complete control and regulation over public and private life. Totalitarianism is contrasted with authoritarianism. An authoritarian state is only concerned with political power, and as long as it is not contested it gives society a certain degree of liberty, especially in the economic realm. Fascism is typically authoritarian, but not totalitarian.
• 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. Anarchy is a form of society without rulers. It’s advocates propose replacing the state with a stateless society based on voluntary free association. Anarchy specifically represents a society without government. Anarchy is also defined as a society without authority or hierarchy. Anarchists consider the state as a tool of domination and believe it to be illegitimate regardless of its political tendencies. The concept of anarchy is the idea that the world lacks any supreme authority or sovereignty. In an anarchic state, there is no hierarchically superior, coercive power that can resolve disputes and enforce the law.
• Communism (Anarcho-Communism) –  Communism is a far-left sociopolitical, philosophical, and economic ideology within the socialist movement, whose goal is a communist society, a socioeconomic order centered around common ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange that allocates products to everyone in the society based on need. A communist society would entail the absence of private property (but not personal property) and social classes, and ultimately money and the state. Communists often seek a voluntary state of self-governance, but disagree on the means to this end. Some want an approach of revolutionary spontaneity and workers self-management. Others see a communist party driven approach through the development of a socialist state, followed by the “withering away of the state”. “Withering away of the state” is a Marxist concept coined by Friedrich Engels referring to the idea that, with the realization of socialism, the state will eventually become obsolete and cease to exist as society will be able to govern itself without the state and its coercive enforcement of the law. Such a society will occur after a temporary period of the “dictatorship of the proletariat”. The concept of the “withering away of the state” differentiates traditional Marxism from state socialism, (which accepts the retention of the institution of the state) and anti-statist anarchism (which demands the immediate abolition of the state with no perceived need for any “temporary” post-revolutionary institution of the state). Lenin supported the idea of a “withering away of the state”, but Stalin didn’t believe the world was yet in the advanced stage of development where the state could wither away. The Stalin-era Soviet Union marginalized the notion of the withering away of the state, as the state became more powerful and entrenched. The Soviet Union and its satellite nations of the Warsaw Pack never embraced the anarcho-communist ideals of the Bolsheviks, and instead descended into the absolute state control of totalitarianism.
• Socialism – Socialism is a political philosophy characterized by social ownership of the means of production, as opposed to private ownership. Social ownership can be public, community, collective, cooperative, or employee. An early distinction between communism and socialism was that the latter aimed to only socialize production while the former aimed to socialize both production and consumption. Democratic socialism is what most socialists understand by the concept of socialism. It is defined as having a socialist economy in which the means of production are socially and collectively owned or controlled, alongside a liberal democratic political system of government. In democratic socialism, the active participation of the population and workers in the self-management of the economy characterizes socialism, while centralized economic planning coordinated by the state does not represent socialism. Social democracy depicts a chiefly capitalist economy with state economic regulation in the general interest, state provision of the welfare services and state redistribution of income and wealth. Social democracy is frequently considered a practical middle course between capitalism and socialism. Social democracy aims to use democratic collective action for promoting freedom and equality in the economy and opposes what is seen as inequality that laissez-faire capitalism causes. As a policy regime, social democracy entails support for a mixed economy and ameliorative measures to benefit the working class within the framework of democratic capitalism. A social democratic policy regime is now generally defined as an increase in welfare policies or an increase in public services and may be used synonymously with the Nordic Model.

With many of the above definitions of different political systems, it is necessary to understand that specific pairings be considered as opposites to each other. The pairings that I will consider as opposites to each other may not be consistent with existing definitions. This is why I went into such detail to ensure that everyone analyzing my proposed model is on the same page with regard to definitions of political systems. The following are the political systems which I consider as opposites to each other:

• Liberal versus Conservative
• Libertarian versus Statist
• Communist versus Fascist
• Totalitarian versus Anarchic

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 I 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 application of the pendulum as a metaphor to explain political change. 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 political 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 would be 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 or amplifying 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.

Below is figure 8 which provides a more detailed explanation of each force acting on the system.

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 as 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 dictator’s 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, what is the amplifying force? It is essentially the opposite of the restoring force. From the book “Strongmen”, Ruth Ben-Ghiat elucidates how autocrats cement their rule, what I call the amplifying force. 1.) They domesticate the press and the judiciary. 2.) Increase loyalty demands. 3.)Amend the constitution to prolong their stay in office and retain immunity. 4.) Purge experts and entities from the civil service. 5.) Scorn for the Hatch Act, which forbids government employees from engaging in certain forms of political activity. 6.) Great turnover of cabinet officials and other underlings who fail to exhibit sufficient loyalty, or who won’t conspire in his corruption and subversion of the rule of law. 7.) To protect himself he relies on a “divide and rule” strategy that involves frequent upheavals of his cabinet to keep elites in competition with one another and loyal only to him. The constant upheaval creates a political class too weakened by rivalries to conspire against the leader and too cowed to tell him unwelcome truths. 8.) As he stabilizes his rule, he uses propaganda to legitimate his authority.  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. I have included some figures that I have drawn freehand, as well as similar figures done with computer graphics.

Below, is illustrated the finished three-dimensional model from directly above. Think of it as an aerial view of the landscape of political dynamics. 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.

Pictured below is the finished Three-Dimensional Political Model as seen in a perspective view so that it’s three dimensional character can easily be seen.

Lingering Issues

In proposing my three-dimensional political model, it has been important to me that I am able to defend every component of the model. I have one lingering issue with regard to the model’s fundamental structure that I have as yet to resolve. The issue concerns communism. My intuition suggests that communism, or more precisely, anarcho-communism, has a slightly negative energy state. This means that whatever “state” might remain has more energy than the people, or that communism resides slightly below the zero line in my model. In communism, the people own the means of production. Therefore, worker cooperatives should prevail under communism. Unlike in capitalism, where the worker checks his democratic rights at the company door, worker cooperatives extend democracy to the workplace. From the economic standpoint, democratic capitalism is less “democratic” than the worker cooperatives of communism. As such, communism may have a positive balance of energy tensions, rather than negative, as I have demonstrated with my model. It could be that the Marxist-Leninist ideal of a “withering away of the state” is NOT an “absolute” withering away, and that a small, residual “dictatorship of the proletariat” is expected to remain, putting communism in a slightly negative energy state, confirming my intuitions. I hope to resolve this issue so that I can eliminate this paragraph.

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 had temporarily passed the inflection point leading toward the Revolutionary Rim during the Trump administration. Again, this means that the magnitude of the restoring force became smaller, making it easier for committed constituencies to push our system to extremes. The reelection of Donald Trump would 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 especially in light of Project 2025, generated by the Heritage Foundation and other leading conservative think tanks, who insist that the next Republican president implement it. Project 2025 would eviscerate the guardrails of democracy and create an unaccountable imperial presidency, largely indistinguishable from a fascist dictator.

So there you have it; a new model for understanding the dynamics of political change. If you now have a reasonable understanding of my proposed three-dimensional political model, then please check out my blog page titled “Donald Trump-A Threat to American Democracy“. On this blog page I will discuss in the context of my political model how the election of Donald Trump in 2024 could result in the loss of democracy.

I welcome questions or comments. So please leave your impressions of my proposed Three-Dimensional Political Model.