No two human torsos are identical. Rather, torsos come in a variety in width, height, circumference and asymmetry. But T-shirts come in only five sizes.

For the purpose of garment manufacturing, these five sizes achieve what successful models achieve condense reality down to a few simple archetypes, which encapsulate underlying complexities. And for better or worse, the human mind seems to employ models as a way of understanding the world.

So how might we model political beliefs? I am proposing a model with three archetypes: the Sheep, the Stray and the Cloth. The gist is that everyone's character is made up from each of these archetypes, but not in equal measures.

the Sheep

Man is a social animal. This is reflected in the Sheep. It neither is, nor desires to be, an individual. Rather, it desires the safety, the security and the simplicity of the herd. Or better: the Sheep desires to share a common fate with the herd.

The Sheep is a monk, sharing a communal life with his 'brothers'. The Sheep is a socialist and his peers are 'comrades'. The Sheep is a fascist desiring to blend into the masses. But also: the Sheep cares for his peers and is willing to sacrifice for them.

When confronted with a problem, the sheep will ask: what should we do?

the Stray

The Stray is the opposite of the Sheep. The Stray is an individualist; caring for his kin but not much beyond. The Stray desires freedom and to forge his own fate. The Stray prefers an ordered society, because the alternative interferes with his freedom.

We might think that the Stray does not leave much of a mark on history, as Strays cannot be organized. But we see the Stray in the permanent erosion of the common fate: neither monasteries, nor the workers' paradise, nor fascism survived.

By a 'common fate', we mean a group of people sharing the same prosperity, beliefs and life expectancy. It seems fair to say that for most of history, people lived like Sheep, sharing one common fate in roaming tribes, in remote agricultural villages, in monasteries.

When confronted with a problem, the Stray will ask: how do I solve this?

the Cloth

Which brings us to the third archetype: the sheep's Cloth.

The ideal of the common fate has an innate flaw. Human nature (and even mere entropy) erode the common fate. We are, assuredly, not created equal and the vicissitudes of fate will conspire to differentiate our lives.

It follows that the common fate has to be policed. This is the task of the sheep's Cloth. But due to this position of authority, the Cloth's fate is different from the Sheep and the Stray.

There is, of course, a wolf that is hiding underneath that Cloth. This wolf advocates for a social, caring world. But the purpose is not to blend in. The purpose is to stand apart and regulate the herd. Thus, the wolf wears sheep's clothing for his own, individual purposes.

When confronted with a problem, the Cloth will ask: how do I profit?

an accounting

A reasonable question would be: is the Sheep, Stray and Cloth (SSC) model really true? And the answer is: no, of course not. The human torso does not come in five sizes; and the human mind does not come in three archetypes. But a better question is: is SSC valid? How well does this model explain history and even the present political reality?

SSC points to the lure of the common fate throughout history: tribes, poleis, churches, kingdoms, empires, monasteries, religious denominations, nation-states, cults ... every organization of man offered some form of a common fate. There have been many iterations, some of which have disappeared ... only to be replaced by a newly organized common fate.

Even when a common fate was the historical default, we see people differentiating their fates as soon as prosperity allows it. Priests, royalty and nobility lived markedly different lives. The Stray asserted itself: people seek to better their lot; for themselves and for their family.

Let us consider the history of Christendom, and see if it fits the SSC-model. While the first centuries of the catholic church are obscure, we know that the criticism of opulence of the priests is almost as old as the church itself. It seems that the Cloths quickly rose in the church's hierarchy.

During the Middle Ages, the inevitable critics of opulence were easily dealt with: they were invited to form a monastery where once again there was purity of faith ... and a common fate among the brothers. This is the origin of the Franciscans, the Dominicans and countless other orders. But in due course, these orders were also corrupted by their Cloths.

It should come as no surprise that Marten Luther was such a monk. But he strayed from his Augustinian order and therewith initiated the reformation. SSC views the reformation as a rising of the Strays: people reading the bible themselves, forming opinions contrary to ecclesiastical doctrine. But we also know what became of the protestant denominations: the Cloths took over and rigor mortis set in.

This seems to be the way of the world. Strays initiate a new organization. If it offers a common fate, it attracts Sheep. The flock grows, and now the common fate needs to be policed. This is when the Strays are ousted by Cloths. The Cloths institute a regime, which actually corrupts the common fate. The two-tiered fate becomes ever more apparent. The Sheep become disillusioned and ready to try the next iteration of the common fate.

Optimists might view history as the slow rise of the Stray: as ever more people attained prosperity, they became more individual: expressing doubts about long-held beliefs. This seems to hold both for the prosperous period of antiquity and for modern times.

In modern capitalists society, most people own their own home and (perhaps indirectly) invest in stock, bonds and other valuables. The Stray has triumphed: each individual creates his own fate. The result is a wide variance in wealth and modus vivandi. Even a shortened life-expectancy results from personal choices like crime, drugs or gluttony.

Are we happier now? The Sheep disagrees. We still hunker for community: our youth is attracted to socialism. Cults (both religious and non-religious) pop up like mushrooms on an autumn day. Social-Media occupy the lion's share of the internet-bandwidth.

If history teaches us anything, it is that the Stray's pre-eminence is short-lived. And we do, in fact, live in the Age of the Cloth. So let us get acquaint ourselves with that Cloth.

Above, we stated that the Sheep's response to a problem is: what should we do? The Stray's response is: how do I solve this? So both sheep and strays may solve a problem, or contribute thereto. However, the Cloth's response is: how do I profit? Often, the Cloth profits by letting the problem fester and thus keeping himself relevant.

So, once an institution is captured by Cloths, the latter types of problem tend to accumulate. This exhibits itself as the rigor mortis we pointed to above.

This refusal to actually solve the problem can show in a discussion with a Cloth. The Stray or the Sheep will try to exchange ideas, in order to better understand each other. The Cloth is evasive, will change definitions in mid-sentence, will resort to jargon and use statistics like the proverbial drunken man: for support rather than illumination. The ultimate goal of the Cloth is not a free exchange of ideas; it is to show that he is smart, educated and morally superior and thus is entitled to something better than the common fate.

counter-politics

To better understand our Cloth, we need to discuss a concept from game theory: counter-tactics. It is best described by the venerable game of rock-paper-scissors. You may win the game by playing rock, but not because the rock-move is inherently strong. It is only winning because I played scissors.

In human society, we see a similar play. It presupposes that a majority will continue to support the status quo. This opens up the radical move; someone advocating to upset the status quo. The radical move garners attention, moneys, fame and even political office.

Take the Soviet Union, which was heralded as a promised land since its inception in 1917 until the 1980's. In Europe (and in the USA to a lesser extent), countless millions voted communist and often a majority of the electorate voted social-democrat. And yet, who followed in the footsteps of Lee Harvey Oswald and emigrated to the Soviet-Union?

Advocating communism is a quintessential counter-politics move. None of its advocates vote with their feet. No-one moves to Cuba, even though the climate is much better there.

Counter-politics is the answer to the age-old question: how do I profit? In the above case, the Cloth does not offer a better alternative to the status quo. If he did, he would be living that alternative and move to Cuba or the USSR. But by espousing socialism the Cloth can profit from the Sheep's hunkering for a common fate. As such, counter-politics is the go-to move of the Cloth; and SSC explains why college-students espouse socialism and why much of our current political discourse consists of rehashing the ideas of a failed god.

the age of the Cloth

When the Cloths crowd out the Strays and the Sheep, we expect rigor mortis to set in. We expect problems to fester. We expect rigorous policing of doctrine.

The above seems like an apt description of the present times. We live in the Age of the Cloth.

SSC explains why our institutions have been ideologically captured. These zombie-institutions live on after their raison d' être has died. Here, Greenpeace offers a locus classicus: founded to save the whale, it now advocates for windmills in sea which kill whales.

The astute reader will understand where this is headed. Western civilization is in crisis. The academics reap funding by churning out politically palatable research. The politician gains office by catering to the base, rather than reaching out to all his constituents. The journalist espouses a narrative that qualifies him for a promotion to an NGO. Everybody is profiting from the problems; nobody is solving them.

This 'ideological capture' is not easily reversed. It is my impression that Cloths tend to promote other Cloths at the expense of Strays and Sheep. Perhaps another Cloth lends itself to quid pro quo. Perhaps Cloths detest the moral honesty of Strays and Sheep.

postscriptum

Rereading the above, it seems a real-life example of the Cloth's modus operandi is in order. Let us discuss the unaffordability crisis for residential real-estate. Economically, this is a pretty simple case: too little supply, i.e. too few homes have been built.

What happens when a development is proposed? All manner of consultants start billing hours: lawyers, engineers, planning consultants, traffic consultants,... The list is endless.

What is the worst case for these consultants? A permit, because then the billable hours dry up. But the gravy train keeps running as long as they keep the proposal in committee.

What about the politicians? Being anti-development is not a good look, but neither are nimby-protests. But keep the development-proposal in committee and you appear pro-development without upsetting the nimbies.

In the meanwhile, the unaffordability worsens and politicians do well for themselves by calling attention to the unfairness of it all.

The worst thing that can happen to a Cloth is that a problem is solved.