This is a follow-up to a discussion that I and Hive account@valued-customer had in my Militant Democracy posts. The original discussion may be found here:
The Gate is Down - What is the End Goal of Information War?

While the basics of our discussion went towards the burden of man to defend himself politically, his arguments brought up a system of defining man by the different ways we have of responding to political systems. This makes it easier to understand why people make political choices that others wouldn't agree were "reasonable".

I like classification systems as a way to get an overall view of things (even though they may not always be precise the deeper we get into details); get three of four fairly accurate classification systems and cross reference em, and we start moving towards a better understanding of complex ideas.

We can also use the word Taxonomy to refer to a classification system

The System

H. domesticus, the go along to get along, easily herded crowd; in fact, most folks. The simple fact is that MOST people do not want to get involved in politics...usually up to the point it is too late to do anything about what just happened to them...
H. machiavellus, the rent-seekers, corruptocrats, kakistocrats, manipulators. These are the people that infect every organization from big government to the local HOA. If they can't make money, then they get a kick over bossing people around
H. vigilus, the rarity, the III%. The guy that actually believes in liberty, and will work towards liberty as a goal

Is there another subgenus for "do-gooders", that set of H. domesticus that props up every plot of the the corruptocrats as long as they get social capitol for doing so? But won't somebody think of the children? Get this retard a bogus boondoggle plan that doesn't put a dime in his pocket, but lets him pretend to be a moral paragon, and he ignores everything but his own "superiority".

H. popmousassitus, perhaps? I'm not schooled in Latin, so I'm not sure if H. moralis parasitus would be correct.
Updated Hive account@cupidzero suggests H. obliviosus as the do-gooder subset of H. domesticus. Oblivious to the fact they are useful idiots, virtue signaling tolerance and reason while exercising intolerance and emotional decision making: "I am for peace and freedom, do as my master says or else!"

Cross-referencing

One thing we can do is to cross reference this system of classification with other systems, and getting a better understanding of how people "think" politically.

Rent-seekers, do-gooders, and "Bootleggers and Baptists"

Rent-seeking refers to processes that provide accumulation of profit from other people's capital and work. The term do-gooding has little to do with the actual performance of acts that create good results, but instead refers to processes with have the appearance of doing good and building personal social capital on that appearance.

Bruce Yandle introduced a concept known as Bootleggers and Baptists, which can be summarized in having the bootleggers support prohibition for rent-seeking motive ( higher prices and less competition in selling booze) while the Baptists had the do-gooding motive of fighting "devil rum".

Source: Human Governance and Critical Thinking, A Conclusion In Four Notes

Cipolla's "Laws of Stupidity"

Part of the "Laws" were a matrix of how people acted; did they help or harm themselves, did they help or harm others.

Hive account@richq11's "Asshole Quotient"

Asshole Ratio- a democracy can support only so many assholes before turning into a tyranny

And defining assholes? Rich establishes a matrix:

A & B designate leader and non-leader types... elites and non-elites.

Positive & Negative Types... Positive (Pos) are people with innate leadership qualities that make people want to follow them. They seldom seek positions of authority- but are sought.

Negative (Neg) types are people drawn to power for what benefits it can accrue for them personally. They seek to lead rather than being sought (as the Pos are). They acquire power by any means necessary- whether subterfuge or force.

In a political sense, the ratio of leaders (A's) with character (Pos) vs those without (Neg) is what determines political outcomes. For a political culture to succeed (sustain longevity) a dynamic equilibrium must be maintained- this ratio is the Asshole Quotient

Hive account@richq11 corrects my summary, and stresses

A&B (Leadership and Non-Leadership types are the unimportant ones. It's the Pos-Negs that are important, the distinction is that Pos are driven by rational self-interest (outer directedness) vs Irrational self-interest (inner directedness/myopic selfishness). This is ultimately what determines the Assholes

"Choosing Officers" Model

This model also uses a 2 factor axis; (Clever->Stupid) versus (Lazy->Industrious). The model has been credited to Kurt von Hammerstein-Equord

I divide my officers into four classes as follows: The clever, the industrious, the lazy, and the stupid. Each officer always possesses two of these qualities.
Those who are clever and industrious I appoint to the General Staff. Use can under certain circumstances be made of those who are stupid and lazy. The man who is clever and lazy qualifies for the highest leadership posts. He has the requisite nerves and the mental clarity for difficult decisions. But whoever is stupid and industrious must be got rid of, for he is too dangerous.

Iron Law of Bureaucracy
Created by the political genius Jerry Pournelle:

In any bureaucracy, the people devoted to the benefit of the bureaucracy itself always get in control and those dedicated to the goals the bureaucracy is supposed to accomplish have less and less influence, and sometimes are eliminated entirely

There are variations of this model, growth complex, bureaucratic politics, but they are basically the same theme.

Robert Conquest’s Three Laws of Politics:
Conquest, who studied the leftist genocide of the Russian populace, came up with these laws.
1-Everyone is conservative about what he knows best.
2-Any organization not explicitly right-wing sooner or later becomes left-wing.
3-The simplest way to explain the behavior of any bureaucratic organization is to assume that it is controlled by a cabal of its enemies.
Hive account@everittdmickey suggests the "monkeysphere", AKA Dunbar's number
This is the idea that we can only relate to so many people on a personal and rational basis; this really fits into politics when you realize how often our voting impacts other people...people you neither know or share a common ground with...taking money from people you don't know is much easier than openly stealing from your neighbor in the name of "charity"
UPDATE 3/11 The Gervais principle I had this feeling I was missing a very well thought out model; while this model is intended to work in the business world, I think you can see how well it applies in politics

"It is a fully realized theory of management that falsifies 83.8% of the business section of the bookstore. The theory begins with Hugh MacLeod’s well-known cartoon, Company Hierarchy (below), and its cornerstone is something I will call The Gervais Principle, which supersedes both the Peter Principle and its successor, The Dilbert Principle."

https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-or-the-office-according-to-the-office/

Sociopaths, in their own best interests, knowingly promote over-performing losers into middle-management, groom under-performing losers into sociopaths, and leave the average bare-minimum-effort losers to fend for themselves.

Conclusion

The more ways that you use to understand a situation, the more information that you can sort and sift, results in a better dissection of the problem.

Looking at our models, we can see some themes emerge...selfishness, self-interest, stupidity, industriousness, self-image.

You might notice that I did not even bring up various discussions of Left versus Right, not the many conflicting definitions people use to describe them. This article is already too long, isn't it? LOL

One of the first things we stress in critical thinking to to understand as much of the problem as possible, and as many interpretations as possible. The more tools to judge and analyze a situation, the better. Remember, politics always comes from personal motives!