3D Politics

I have a way of evaluating political policies based on four opposing political perspectives. Let's look at what those perspectives are:

1. Stability is most often associated with Conservatives. Life should have some consistency, tradition, and predictability. Social norms and family are critical to the Stability perspective
2. Benevolence is most often associated with Progressives. Problems with the status quo inevitably result in change, and change that is benevolent is change that helps most members of society, such as technology and social safety nets.
3. Freedom is most often associated with Libertarians. With all of this "stability" and "benevolence" in the world, individual free will can easily be trampled on, and Libertarians place a high emphasis on individual rights and low taxes.
4. Pragmatism is most often associated with Independents. All ideology aside, independents just want government to "do it's job and solve problems," and mostly only care about if any given policy will actually be effective.

Before we go on, let's appreciate each of the above perspectives as virtuous and valuable. Of course we want to have stability and tradition. Obviously taking care of everyone is a great aspiration for society to have. Individual freedom is important for human happiness. Stability, benevolence and freedom only matter to government as long as they can be expressed in effective law and policies. Let's avoid demonizing Conservatives, Progressives, Libertarians or Independents, as they all have the best intentions.

The way I evaluate a political policy is by measuring it on a Likert scale of 1 to 5 for each of the above perspectives. Let's take an example of "getting rid of daylight savings time":

1. Stability: this is a big change from the status quo and could have unforeseen consequences. However not having to change clocks twice a year could add some social stability. On a scale of 1 to 5, I will give an end to daylight savings time 3 stars for stability.
2. Progress: this change is generally very popular as no one likes shifting their sleep patterns twice a year, and is likely to result in health benefits for most people. However there is some concern that at certain times of the year it will be very dark outside when children go to school. On a scale of 1 to 5, I will give an end to daylight savings time 4 stars for progress.
3. Freedom: daylight savings time clock changes amount to unnecessary bureaucracy in government and business, and is eschewed in the relatively Libertarian state of Arizona. On a scale of 1 to 5, we'll give ending daylight savings time 5 stars for freedom.
4. Pragmatism: this will cost us very little to implement, and its effectiveness for us to not have to worry about resetting our clocks twice a year is virtually guaranteed. On a scale of 1 to 5, we'll give ending daylight savings time a 5 for Pragmatism.

Now we can add these together for a final score; 3 for stability, 4 for progress, 5 for freedom and 5 for pragmatism is a total of 17/20, or an 85% policy score. Ending daylight savings time is thus probably a very good idea.

It is important in the USA that when it comes to politics we avoid thinking "there's two sides to every story." There are always at least three sides when we consider libertarians, and now independents are becoming a force in their own right. As Americans we need to stop lazy or callous dismissal of views that conflict with our own.