Is the Asplund Chart just another variation on the Nolan Chart?
No. The Nolan Chart is a classification tool while the Asplund Chart is a functional model of dynamic political systems.
The figure above is an overlay of the two charts. Some new factional labels and additional fringe groups were inserted to supplement the labels on the basic Asplund Chart. The correspondence between the two charts is to be expected since both are attempting to represent the same political system.
A major difference between the two charts is the axes. An economic freedom vs. personal freedom distinction forms the basis for the classification system used in the Nolan Chart. In my opinion, the two types of freedom are inseparable and attempts to regulate one will necessarily create unintended consequences for the other. With that said, many attempts have been made to supplement the official axes in the Nolan Chart with a vertical and horizontal axis similar to those used in the Asplund Chart.
The most common vertical axis added to the Nolan Chart is a generalized freedom axis. The Institutional Structure axis in the Asplund Chart provides a similar range of freedoms, but explicitly ties freedom to the type of institution that has decision-making authority. Power comes with both freedoms and responsibilities, and exercising power through one institutional structure necessarily limits the freedom of other institutional levels. Individual preferences regarding acceptable trade-offs between institutional structures is part of the process of determining one's political affiliations. The ability to classify individuals based on preferred institutional means instead of aspirational views about freedom is a clear improvement over the Nolan Chart and its major variants.
The most common horizontal axis added to the Nolan Chart is the Left-Moderate-Right axis. Again this is similar to the Purpose of Institutions axis, but the left-right distinction has no explicit ideological component. By placing a spectrum of ideological ends on the horizontal axis and combining it with the institutional means identified on the vertical axis, the entire chart functions as model of the political system instead of serving only as a classification tool.
The major political fault lines result from differences in individual preferences regarding the relative importance of ideological autonomy, party institutional effectiveness, and party ideological effectiveness.
The diagonal lines in the Asplund Chart track trade-offs that are the basis for political decision-making. Lines A and B represent Democratic Party and Republican Party membership, respectively. Participating in party politics requires one to sacrifice a non-trivial amount of ideological autonomy to the party decision-making process. The reward for relinquishing this autonomy is an increased opportunity to advance some other part of one's ideological agenda through collective action. People with ideological preferences below lines A and B would likely make the type of sacrifice that political party membership requires. As an individual's preferred institutional structure shifts from distributed to centralized, the person will be increasingly comfortable with the fairly centralized decision-making process of both major political parties.
Lines C and D represent a different sort of ideological trade-off that is responsible for most intra-party conflict. The lines separate those party members who are accused of being too willing to compromise from those who are accused of being too ideologically pure. This division is especially visible during primaries, but is also important during general elections and the normal process of governing. The trade-off is between doing something that modestly improves the institutional power of both parties without furthering any important ideological goals or accepting a political stale-mate in the hope that an opportunity to pursue a more ambitious will arise. People with ideological preferences above lines C and D would likely choose to take no action if they feel that no substantive advancement of their agenda is possible. As an individual's preferred institutional structure shifts from centralized to distributed, the person will be increasingly unwilling to trade ideological ends for increases in party institutional effectiveness.
The combinations of ideological goals, party affiliations, and preferred institutional structures represented on the Asplund Chart track the observed political landscape more closely and with much more context than is available using the Nolan Chart. The only major labeling mismatch between the two charts is that the authoritarian/statist quadrant of the Nolan Chart is called the moderate consensus in the Asplund Chart. The moderate label was used to make the chart accessible to the averagely informed voter.
In addition to providing a framework for classifying participants in the political system, three processes can be modeled using the Asplund Chart: the formation of a consensus, the process of political compromise, and coalition building. These capabilities make the Asplund Chart a useful tool for understanding, predicting, and improving dynamic political systems.
0 comments:
Post a Comment