The Rubric
What the Numbers Mean
Every article is scored on five independent axes, each from -4 to +4. The scores describe what the article assumes, argues, or takes for granted — measured against real governance records.
What does a score of 0 mean?
Zero is not neutral, not correct, and not "the norm." It is the true midpoint of the rubric — fixed by the two extremes that anchor each axis, not by today's mainstream. On ownership, 0 is a protected universal non-market option for the things you cannot opt out of needing. On democratic accountability, 0 is representatives who answer to the voters rather than the donors.
That is why the prevailing arrangement usually does not sit at 0. If coverage assumes the market as the default for essential services, or treats donor-driven policy as simply how the system works, that assumption is already a position — and it scores to the right of center, not at it.
| AXIS | -4 | -3 | -2 | -1 | 0 | +1 | +2 | +3 | +4 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OwnershipWho owns the things that make the economy work? | Workers collectively own the enterprises they work in. No outside owners.Theoretical — cannot be legislated | Public or worker ownership of major industries and essential services.UK NHS 1946 · France nationalizations 1982 | Essential services public and non-market; unions hold structural power.Wagner Act · Social Security · German codetermination | The non-market floor is being expanded — more of health, education, housing decommodified.Medicare & Medicaid 1965 · Sanders Medicare for All | A universal non-market option exists for each essential service and is kept whole; private alternatives run alongside but do not displace or defund it.Measured against structure — strong-public-floor democracies | The market is the default vehicle; public money flows into private provision; the public option is residual.ACA · Medicare Advantage · most American media | Active privatization and defunding of the public option.School vouchers · Reagan & Trump tax cuts · Airline Deregulation | Private provision as a near-absolute right; a public floor treated as illegitimate.Janus v. AFSCME · Grafton NH Free Town Project | Pure private ownership, including governance itself.Honduras ZEDE / Prospera |
| Power ConcentrationDoes power flow toward individuals or concentrate in institutions? | Power fully distributed. Self-governance without institutional coercion.Theoretical — communal self-governance | Power strongly distributed. Institutions constrained, individual agency protected.Articles of Confederation · Estonia e-governance | Protective frameworks distribute power. Regulation constrains institutional overreach.Clean Air Act · OSHA · EPA regulation · GDPR | Institutional authority exists but checked by strong accountability.First Step Act · DADT Repeal · Brady Act | Power balanced between institutions and individuals. Neither dominates. Not questioned.Most procedural news coverage | Power leans concentrated. Institutional authority expands with limited input.DC v. Heller · WV v. EPA · Airline Deregulation | Power concentrated. Institutions act with autonomy. Deregulation empowers corporations.Telecom Act · Texas SB 8 · Section 230 | Power strongly concentrated. Oversight suppressed. Dissent treated as threat.PATRIOT Act · Drug war · 1994 Crime Bill | Total concentration. One institution controls all domains.Theoretical — totalitarian or corporate totalitarian |
| TraditionalismAre social hierarchies constructed or natural? | All hierarchies constructed. All should be dismantled.Theoretical extreme | Major hierarchies are constructed injustices requiring structural reform.Brown v. Board · Voting Rights Act | Social categories are not natural. Law should correct inherited inequalities.Obergefell · Title IX · Roe v. Wade | Some hierarchies questioned. Reform appropriate but not radical.DADT Repeal · UK Equality Act | Hierarchies exist. No strong position on whether they are natural or constructed.Coverage that reports without examining categories | Existing arrangements generally appropriate. Change should be cautious.No Child Left Behind · Hyde Amendment | Social hierarchies natural and worth defending. Challenges are disruptive.DOMA · FL Don't Say Gay · Idaho trans ban · Heller | Proper social order is self-evident. Challenging it is illegitimate.Dobbs · Stop WOKE Act · State book bans | Hierarchy divinely ordained or biologically determined.Iran Constitution (velayat-e faqih) |
| Gov. ScopeNational or transnational framing? | No nations. Governance fully transnational.Theoretical — borderless cosmopolitanism | Strong sovereignty pooling. Binding international governance.Theoretical — no enacted example this deep | Transnational frameworks accepted. International law binds.Paris Agreement · GDPR · EU AI Act · Maastricht | International cooperation valued. Bilateral agreements pursued.IRCA · DACA · DREAM Act proposals | Mix of national and international. Neither dominates.Most domestic policy coverage | Primarily national framing with selective engagement.Taiwan Relations Act · USMCA · CHIPS Act | National sovereignty emphasized. International obligations optional.Secure Fence Act · Arizona SB 1070 | National interests override all commitments. Withdrawal from agreements.Paris withdrawal · Texas SB 4 | Complete national isolation. No international obligations.Theoretical — full autarky |
| Dem. Acct.Is governance accountable to the governed? | Direct democracy. Those affected make the decisions themselves.Paris Commune (72 days, 1871) | Representatives bound tightly to voters; money stripped out; barriers dismantled.Voting Rights Act · 19th Amendment · public financing | Expanding voter control and reducing money's role.Automatic registration · anti-gerrymandering reform · small-donor matching | Donor influence and structural barriers named as problems to fix.Moore v. Harper · DC Statehood bill · DISCLOSE Act | Representatives are beholden to the voters — policy tracks the affected majority; neither money nor malapportionment stands between the vote and the outcome.Measured against structure | Donor-responsive policy and structural barriers treated as normal; public opinion's weak effect unremarked.Most procedural political coverage · "money is access" | Donor capture and counter-majoritarian structure defended as wisdom.Citizens United · Electoral College defenses · the filibuster | Governance openly belongs to elites and funders.Regulatory capture · Shelby County · FISA Court | Policy decoupled from public preference; elections as performance.Honduras ZEDE — private company sued democracy for $10.7B |
Important: This axis measures where power ENDS UP, not which institution holds it. EPA regulation scores -2 (distributes protection to the public). Deregulation of industry scores +1 or +2 (concentrates power in corporations). Both involve the government — but one distributes power and the other concentrates it. The direction matters more than the mechanism.
Why five axes instead of "left" and "right"?
Because "left" and "right" collapse five independent questions into one label. A president can create the EPA (-1 ownership) and launch the drug war (+3 state power). No single label captures that. The five axes let each question speak for itself. The combinations that surprise you are the most important findings.