This is exciting thinking—a fruitful attempt at serious philosophy—a pivotal original idea—based on my reading at least—in a field (politics) where intellectuals more often beat dead horses into pâté. It’s remarkable how making distribution of power the axis reduces politics to a (pragmatic) analysis that can be more instructively understood (seen through) and engaged. This got me thinking and questioning down many lines and wanting to review current political rhetoric in this framework.

While agreed, political actors should be judged by what they do versus what they say—and the power axis is a great lens for that—I wonder about not giving consideration to their ideas, despite the actor’s froth or hypocrisy, because those ideas might have merit if implemented honestly.

Some psychological things might be interesting viewed through the power axis lens. A study shows when parents tell their kids “because I say so” it teaches authoritarianism to their kids: (1) it’s a valid reason to order people around, and (2) it adds to the parents’ other modeling of auth0ritarianism.

Another distinction is between people who see society as something to constantly re-invent and improve, and those who believed the structure of society should be left untouched (“how dare I question tradition?”). I think the “Christian right” is motivated by that conservatism (as shown in Alito’s position on a 230-year-old document and its “values” re Roe) along with the power grab it manifests.

Part 2 triggered further thoughts, soon to read Part 3, and look forward to Parts 4, 5 and beyond. Thank you for writing this.