Paternalism

Paternalism is the broad term for any country that has a strong executive power but also some elements of political expression, such as parliament or elections, though the impact these have on the government varies greatly depending on the nation. These can range from presidential dictatorships to provisional governments to military mandates.

Proponents and subideologies

Note: People marked with an asterisk are their countries' starting leaders.

Subideology	Description	Adherents
Default (None)	The political philosophy broadly falling under the denomination of Paternalism has existed as the principal ethic for myriad forms of governments throughout millennia, from Despots, to Monarchs, to Emperors. The ideology behind paternalistic forms of government paints the nascent rise in liberal political thought as a cause for injustices and instability against age-old cultural and political norms, institutions, and truths, and seeks to counter said influence through the restriction of rights and liberties, either temporarily or perhaps even permanently, as a means of preserving the nation, its society and culture for a bright and better future, likening the role of the State towards the welfare of its citizens as like the guidance from a parent to their children. The ideological similarities to the numerous autocratic regimes currently dominating Europe and Asia in this regard are hard to ignore; both liberal and conservative forms of democracy generally abhor the dictatorialism perceived in Paternalistic forms of government, believing it to be little else but an embryonic form of emerging Fascist political thought, or a thinly veiled imitation of it. That said, few within Paternalistic societies are likely to care for the opinions of their neighbors, and will often pose stiff resistance, politically or militarily, to any attempt, internal or external, to supersede that.	Charles de Gaulle* Nnamdi Azikiwe Yusuf ibn Hasan Abebe Aregai
National Conservatism	The past twenty years of human civilization have shown, above all else, that might truly does make right. It is the strong nations, the nations which are united, that have the best chances of winning out on the world stage. Anyone who wishes to replicate their success should also replicate their rigid sense of nationhood, this is where National Conservatism comes from. A deeply right-wing ideal, national conservatives believe that the unity of their particular nation is paramount to all other social goals, and that this unity is maintained by upholding the nation's unique traditions. The state becomes an organ by which this national cohesion is strengthened, and although many national conservatives support laissez-faire economic policies; others believe that the state should provide for the people in a paternalistic capacity. Many of these conservatives emphasize the differences between their ideas and those of fascists, many more are perfectly willing to collaborate with fascists when there is an alignment of goals. Whether or not the ideology can survive in a world dominated by Fascism is yet to be seen.	Curtis LeMay Margaret Chase Smith António de Spínola Alejandro Rodríguez de Valcárcel Alparslan Türkeş Oleksander Ohloblyn Ian Paisley Juha Rihtniemi* Matti Virkkunen Pramarn Adireksarn Syed Jaafar Albar Komla Agbeli Gbedemah* Miguel Ydígoras Fuentes Arnulfo Arias Federico Chaves Jorge Pacheco Areco
Social Nationalism	One of the most egregious crimes that man can commit against his fellow man is that of colonialism. To colonize a land, a people, and a country is to deny them of their right to a proper existence. It turns the nations that fall victim to it into husks of what they could have become, and it turns its perpetrators into glutenous parasites, incapable of proper social function. This state of affairs can be seen clearly all over the world, whether it be with the Americans and Europeans in Africa or with the Japanese in Asia. No crime can go unanswered for too long, however, and the answer to the brutality of colonialism is the theory of Social Nationalism. It, unlike the nationalism which birthed the Reich and the Showa, posits that the colonized can become nationally cohesive units through the recognition of a shared struggle. Social nationalists do not argue that their people should unite on the grounds of their ethnic or cultural superiority, instead, they must unite to defeat their oppressors. Although social nationalism can use any economic system to achieve its aims, most of its proponents also struggle for the establishment of at least some form of socialism in their lands. In the first decade following the war, social nationalism found itself crushed under the weight of German bombs and Japanese military exercises, but the world is changing now. If all the cards are played right, they might just be able to win.	Dobrica Ćosić Trương Tử Anh Aung San* Claro M. Recto Johannes Leimena Hamengkubuwono IX Mustafa Barzani Abd al-Karim Qasim* Adib al-Shishakli Messali Hadj Abdulla Aliş* Ähmätzäki Välidi Tugan* Yuriy Krylov Ivan Zavoloko* Marian Spychalski* Subhas Chandra Bose* Joseph Oduho Félix Malloum Charles Okala Michael Grigg Alberto Bayo Manuel Cepeda Vargas
Controlled Democracy	In our modern era, there is no greater achievement in the world than democracy. The ability for the citizens of the nation to have a say in how their government is to be run and managed is one of the greatest achievements in the past few centuries. Elections provide accountability through the ballot box and allow the marketplace of ideas to weed out the bad ideas. But the largest problem with democracy is the fact that sometimes the people don't know what they want, or what is best for them. In fact it's very likely that voters, blinded by impossible promises or destructive slogans, can actually destroy the nation by elected unqualified politicians. Many a Fascist or Communist dictatorship was established in democracies with lies and vague promises, and look how that has turned out! Controlled Democracy resolves this flaw by preventing such radical and destructive thoughts from entering the system with the use of heavy government propaganda to tell the people what is best for them, and ensuring that all the political parties in the nation agree with and support the long term strategies of the nation. Free and fair elections are still held, but the results will never challenge the overarching goals of the nation, no matter what that goal is. There is opposition to Controlled Democracy, namely that elections are seen as a sham, and it's basically an authoritarian system in the disguise of a democracy. Of course, the people who say such things are those that would undermine and destroy the nation, so why should we care what they say?	José Yulo* Quintín Paredes Louis Lansana Beavogul Mamadou Dia Christophe Soglo Nicolas Grunitzky Fily Dabo Sissoko Hamani Diori Maurice Yaméogo Félix Houphouët-Boigny Tito Okello Saïd Mohamed Jaffar Igor Shafarevich Miletiy Zykov Vasily Ivanov* Boris Shcherbina Daniil Kharms Nikolai Andreev* José María Lemus* Franck Lavaud Carlos Lacerda (Imperial Presidency) Carlos Julio Arosemena Monroy* César Charlone
Stratocracy	Stratocracy is a form of government centered around military service. Military forces control all branches of government, but unlike other military governments, it is not entirely undemocratic. Both active service members and honorably discharged veterans have a voice in the direction of the government, and all that one has to do to earn political power is serve loyally. Rather than involving a suspension of the constitution, stratocracies often have constitutions in laws explicitly supporting the military's role in society. Though stratocracies do not by nature have to be oligarchic or autocratic, they often end up as such due to the necessities of military rule. Stratocracies that do not take care to maintain their meritocratic characteristics usually become regular military dictatorships, and the civilian government and armed forces separate, not always peacefully. This fusion of military and democratic governance is exceedingly rare, and comes about through a combination of meritocratic beliefs and sustained military pressure, such as through war or domestic conflict. This rarity should not be mistaken for weakness, however. A stratocracy is legion, and a legion conquers.	Nikolay Pavlenko Alexander Medvedev Jānis Mendriks* Konstantin Rokossovsky* Pavel Batov Ivan Yumashev* Mitchell WerBell III Nikolay Ivanovsky Hadji-Umar Mamsurov
Oligarchy	Oligarchy, derived from the greek words oligos, few, and arkho, to rule, represents a government where power rests in the hands of a small group of people. They may be separated from the general population because of their wealth, education, military or political control, or in some cases, a minority group that maintains control of the majority. This form of government can be backed up by law, either under the guise of an emergency or transitional government, or through illegal or secret means. Although some oligarchal states pass power down hereditarily, this does not ring true for every oligarchy government. An oligarchy can arise from many different circumstances. For instance, over time power can become concentrated in the hands of the elite through continued enfranchisement of the upper class, until the wealthy dominate all aspects of government, either overtly or covertly. Or perhaps after a coup d'etat, a victorious general works to entrench the power of his clique or the military in general over the population. Although one oligarchy state can be vastly different from the other in terms of what group is in power, they all usually exert heavy control over the populace. Civil liberties are usually limited, and voting at any level is usually restricted. However, exceptions can be found in states where some form of sham democracy, whether a sham by intention or by effect, exists. These sham elections may allow for a veneer of democracy, but ultimately the average person has no control over their leaders.	Andreas Meyer-Landrut Umberto La Rocca Sergio Osmeña Jr. Carlos García y Polístico Moïse Tshombe Alexander Pokryshkin* Louis Déjoie* Élie Lescot Gérard Élie Lescot Louis Déjoie Jr. Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan
Solidarism	Solidarism is the ideology promoted by the Vyatka-based National Union of Solidarists. Violently rejecting communism, it aims to provide a twentieth-century basis for dealing with present-day issues, rejecting a purely materialistic approach to socio-economic and political problems, and promoting inter-class solidarity, brotherhood, Christian tolerance, and charity. They also claim to promote democratic participation in government (with or without a Russian monarch), individualism, and civil liberties. Their end goal is to bring about a Second Revolution that is "neither left nor right but at the front" and will rebirth Russia without returning to Bolshevik or Tsarist errors. Its critics, on the other hand, argue that it displays a predisposition towards a corporatist organization of society and an overfriendliness to the prospect of a "temporary" dictatorship in order to bring about their desired "moral and spiritual regeneration". To these critics, solidarism is alarmingly similar to Italian fascism, as well as the corporatism practiced in Salazarist Portugal and the former State of Austria pre-Anschluss.	Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
Military Mandate	Military Mandates are regimes where the nation is governed by a foreign military power, and almost always led by a high-ranking military officer. Almost always the result of invasion or annexation, military mandates tend to be authoritarian, and preoccupied with eliminating local resistance. Military mandates can be temporary structures, designed merely to protect a strategic region, facilitate annexation, or help smoothly transition into a new regime. With complete control of government given to a foreign military power, there tends to be little civilian representation in these regimes, and they often are dominated by that foreign government's interests and ambitions. These military mandates rarely, if ever, have any true independence. If their masters demand they endanger the stability of their regime in order to comply with orders, they will follow those orders. If their masters demand they dismantle their regime and return home, they'll do exactly that. Regardless of their support amongst the local populace, military mandates live and die by the competency of their soldiers and officers. An incompetent regime quickly becomes a massive resource drain for the occupying power, quickly becoming counterproductive to their initial purpose. However, even a powerful military can crumble if they fail to adapt to their conditions, and the demands of the people. With the increasing prominence of asymmetrical warfare, and the current status quo crumbling, many of these military mandates must prepare for the coming storm.	Creighton Abrams Jr. John D. Lavelle William Westmoreland Thomas Hinman Moorer Dwight Edward Beach Ângelo Nolasco de Almeida
Dixiecrat	A Dixiecrat (a portmanteau of 'Democrat' and 'Dixie') is a complex description of the various factions and figures in the American South who were originally members of the Democratic Party, but who, for one reason or another, have fled to the National Progressive Pact as its right-most wing. Originally coined by a journalist during the 1948 Presidential campaign to describe Richard Russell of Georgia's States Rights' Party, it has now become the go-to term for the NPP's southern wing. Divided and highly fragmented on economic grounds, with many Dixiecrats adhering to either rural populist traditions of figures like Huey Long, Thomas Watson, and Benjamin Tillman, or traditional liberal or conservative economics, they are united in their dislike of civil rights and federal intervention in 'home affairs'. Depending on the candidate, the Dixiecrat base can range from white workers, southern industrialists and business owners, social conservatives, and the traditional agricultural barons that continue to control the South a century after the Civil War. Many are haunted by the stories of post-Civil War Reconstruction, and are intent on using their collective power on all levels of government to maintain segregation -- one way, or another.	George Wallace Strom Thurmond
Corporate Paternalism	Even within polites that operate for the benefit of its investors and corporate mavens above all else, most corporatocracies maintain the form of a nation-state for external convenience, its successes built on the back of its people - its 'employees,' bereft of a voice in the machine that profits from their labor. An emerging heterodox school of thought among the corporate elite challenges the notion that capital should solely be an exploitative enterprise in opposition to labor. Proponents emphasize the benefits of stability over profit provided by reflecting the demands of labor in business decisions to a 'reasonable' extent, arguing that a content workforce is more productive in the longer term. While this model of industrial relations is not uncommon in capitalist societies, the unique circumstances of a polity centered around corporations inevitably means this economic theory carries significant political implications. The advocates of this theory envision a more expansive role of the government in providing public services to the nascent 'citizen-employee', in exchange for their labor and a continued acceptance of corporations and market forces dominating public life.	Akio Morita Robert J. Fleming*
Social Credit	Social Credit is an economic theory developed by British engineer Clifford H. Douglas after World War I. In the 1920s, he argued that economic depressions were caused by arbitrary discrepancies between the market prices of goods, the costs of their production and the wages of those who produced them. Essentially, he noticed that businesses were arbitrarily selling the prices of their manufactured goods far higher than their workers could actually afford. Because of this artificial scarcity created in the pursuit of profit, the workers' lives suffered and economies were hindered by lower consumer spending. To remedy this, Douglas called for governments to distribute money, or "social credit", to consumers in order to close the gap between production and their own purchasing power so that consumer spending could rise and drive economic growth. In Canada, Douglas's economic theories have been synergized with Christian fundamentalism to form a right-wing populist political programme. The Social Credit Party worships individualism and private enterprise almost as much as they worship Christ. They call for a vast expansion of the money supply through providing direct lines of credit to consumers and producers and decry the national debt as a tool used by international bankers to loot the economy for profit. While championing free markets, they are far less keen on free moral choice. They are rabid opponents of counter-culture movements and believe their conservative interpretation of Christianity should be upheld as Canada's official religion. Some members of the party even praise the economic policies of the Iberian Caudillos and the late Duce of Italy, and progressive Canadians dread discovering where Social Credit will take their nation.	Réal Caouette
Kemalism	Kemalism, as the name suggests, is based around the ideals of the Turkish Republic's founding figure, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. Born as a rejection of the perceived backwardness of the late Ottoman period, Kemalists seek to create and preserve a modern Turkish nation-state based on six guiding ideals; republicanism, populism, nationalism, laicism, statism and reformism. Kemalism has historically held a tenuous relationship with democratic principles, having served the official ideology of both elected and unelected governments. The principle of Turkish nationalism has been increasingly emphasised in the years following the Second World War, largely as an overture towards the fascist powers of Europe, and a countermeasure against the far-right at home.	İsmet İnönü* Kasım Gülek Nihat Erim Cevdet Sunay
Semi-Constitutional Monarchy	As absolute monarchism has fallen out of favor over the world in favor of a constitutional equivalent, a different alternative has also manifested. While in most constitutional monarchies, the power has been delegated to officials, executive, and legislative state organs, this is not the case in a Semi-Constitutional Monarchy. Within this system, checks on their power are few, and often symbolic in practice, leaving monarchs who wield significant power over the government, be it executive or legislative. Semi-Constitutional Monarchies have often been driven by monarchs themselves, who wish to moderate their image, and simultaneously not give up their existing power. While not as unrestrained as an absolute monarchy, there ultimately remains little in place that can effectively challenge them, leaving nations at the mercy of the monarchy they have no means of removing.	Jean d'Ormesson Boun Oum Na Champassak Hussein bin Talal Talal bin Abdulaziz Al Saud Mohammed Reza Pahlavi* Mir Ahmad Yar Khan* Charlotte Louise Juliette Grimaldi* Rainier Grimaldi*
Dominant-Party Democracy	Sometimes, a political party is not just a political party. Often times, in periods of great upheaval or change, political and otherwise, a party will emerge alongside it, representing the new way of doing things without any true competition as the country changes dramatically. It's possible, in times like these, that the political party can travel with the tide and emerge with a near-monopoly on power, even in systems that include democratic systems and traditions. It is not that there is a lack of other parties or ideologies, but that it has been difficult or impossible for them to gain enough in the way of traction or foundations to challenge the establishment. As a result, any meaningful pluralism of politics and ideas takes place within the party's halls itself, rather than necessarily by way of democratic discourse, a fact that only serves to make ending the system all the less likely. This entrenchment and institutionalization of power is often aided by the very foundation and democratic structure of a country, which is shaped to favor it. But these institutional methods act as a mere safeguard, in case the primary means of maintaining control falls through. The truly key component of dominant-party systems is that the power is not something that must be maintained by micromanagement of the political situation, devious schemes to subvert the will of the people, or by sheer force of political or military might. The party itself has become such a fundamental fact of life in the politics and everyday lives of the people, that most of them would never dream of voting for anyone else. Whether driven by true belief or cynical acceptance, many have simply embraced the party's sheer pervasiveness as a fact of life, unchanging and unassailable.	Seán Francis Lemass* Mıgırdıç Şellefyan Modibo Keïta* David Dacko Nikolay Petlin
Peronism	As the world's attention was occupied with the fall of London and Moscow, Colonel Juan Perón magnanimously accepted an apparent demotion to the most recondite corner of Argentine ministerial politics: the Secretary of Labor and Prevention. The move, however, was a calculated attempt to achieve Perón's overarching vision: saving Argentina from the spectre of communism, by ensuring that its working class and its trade unions would be integrated into the political system as an estate of the realm. In the course of accomplishing this, Colonel Perón's movement absorbed wildly different ideological currents: Socialists, Conservatives, Catholic Liberals, and Fascists; all congreated around the rising figure of Perón, and their views seeped into the virgin mold of the ideology of which he would become the namesake. Which particular facet of Peronism is most prominent on any given day is ultimately the Colonel's decision. Years of manoeuvring in and out of government have, however, distorted and stretched the definition virtually beyond recognition. Insofar as Peronism - or Justicialism, its technical name - still retains any recognizable characteristics beyond its vagueness, its exaltation of the unwashed masses against the decadence of oligarchy, its predilection for economic nationalism, and its adoration for trade unions, are just about all that remains. Of course, this raises the possibility that said characteristics, and by implication Peronism, could outlive its creator in an organized form, the extreme personalism of the movement notwithstanding.	Juan Domingo Perón Cipriano Reyes Carlos Saúl Menem Julián Licastro
Provisional Government	The horrors of war do not simply fade away when conflict passes, they remain as scars, continuing to haunt nations as they descend to chaos and their regimes collapse. Emerging from these ruins is the provisional government. Serving to restore order and the rule of law after extended periods of turmoil, the relative serenity that arrives with these temporary governments is often cheered on by the people as a soothing comfort in comparison to the near-anarchic conditions of the previous era brought on by never-ending war or the volatility and violence that comes with revolutions. The discord of the past is often discarded off in favour of renewed national dialogue, as the regime begins to define the legal structure of the subsequent permanent government. The regime partakes in a long struggle of rebuilding: reviving institutions eroded by neglect and corruption, clarifying laws; assessing the damage sustained by the nation, and both literally and figuratively dealing with the messes and troubles that remain from the former regime's administration through programs of political and economic reconstruction in hopes of restoring any sense of normality to a nation shaken to its core and its accompanying citizenry.	Telesforo Monzón Emil Fieldorf Yuriy Horlis Knut Møyen Lev Shestakov Kou Abhay* Mohammad Hatta Viktor Grigoriev Viktor Kolesnikov Mikhail II Pavel Sudoplatov Alexander Zinoviev Nikolay Artamonov Fidel Castro*
Right-Wing Populism	Populism, unlike what some may think, is a two-edged sword. While it can serve the interests of the left by appealing to the common people's desire for equality and social justice, it can also be used by the right as a tool to get in power, which makes it difficult to categorise as a coherent ideology: however, one can always still try. Right-Wing Populism, as such, is an ideology with a few identifiable core tenets: first, an emphasis on an anti-elites rhetoric; said elites are portrayed as corrupt and greedy, and are opposed to the common man. Unlike left-wing populism, however, such elites can be used to represent national or ethnic minorities as well. Right-wing populism is also keen on giving out welfare to the people, at the cost of disregarding the wellbeing of the economy. Right-wing populists, while economically populist, generally take a conservative stance on social issues, and quite a few are avowedly anti-communist. Such a combination of attributes could be thought to be a recipe for disaster, but it seems that the tidal wave of populism has started its march nonetheless; and for now, God only knows when it will die down.	Alfredo Covelli James Schwarzenbach Ezio Balducci Ferdinand E. Marcos Nikolai Shchelokov Abraham Williams Calderón Luckner Cambronne Adhemar de Barros Getúlio Sarmanho Vargas Jorge Prat Echaurren Manuel Odría José María Velasco Ibarra Carmelo Ortíz Taborga*
Xunzheng	Dr. Sun Yat-sen set up three stages for China's transition to democracy; Xunzheng, KMT-guided politics, is the final step of preparation for the eventual democratization. Under Xunzheng, though the Kuomintang remains the de jure ruling party, limitations on public gatherings are eased, and non-Kuomintang parties are permitted to have seats and votes in the Legislative Yuan. It is expected that the final stage of democratization - Xianzheng, constitutional politics - will take place once the domestic and foreign situation has been stabilized. The late Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek claimed China had entered the stage of Xunzheng under his rule. But his concept of it was more centralized and authoritarian than had been envisioned; one could say it was merely a façade of legality for his stratocratic rule. Today, with the Republic of China reborn through the efforts of the NPA, Xunzheng shall live up to the true meaning bestowed upon it by Dr. Sun.	Sun Fo
Anocracy	"Anocracy" is a broad term- one that can easily apply to any government anywhere around the world. The basic, scholarly definition is that it's part dictatorship, part democracy- but it goes deeper than that. Often, scholars will argue that it comes about as a product of interrupted or incomplete democratization- a formerly despotic or dictatorial nation, on the road to democracy, may be classified as an anocracy. On the other hand, it may be the opposite- it may be a democratic nation that is currently undergoing democratic backsliding- a phenomenon that is well known around the world. From corrupt presidents to military juntas that allow certain elements of democracy to take place. The length that anocracies survive heavily varies- they can be incredibly brief, as a nation transfers from democracy to autocracy or vice versa- or it can stall out, and remain in this state for months, years, or decades- it all depends on a combination of the will of the people and the will of the despot.	Federal Council*
Left-Wing Corporatism	Corporatism advocates the organization of society by groups on the basis of their common interests. The term is derived from the Latin corpus, body, and describes an explicitly collectivist system of thought. Its ultimate aim is the construction of a society whereby classes cooperate with one another under the aegis of the State, as opposed to the class conflict inherent in systems such as communism. Unlike with technocratic or fascistic strains of corporatism, Left-wing Corporatism cuts down on racialist rhetoric. It is happy to work with—or at least incorporate—left-wing elements. This could be out of genuine belief in the validity of leftist thought, or because the leader sees no other way to keep the proles quiet.	Harold Wilson Kimon Georgiev Hristo Stoykov Sơn Ngọc Thành* Max Hudicourt Rafael Franco
Technocratic Corporatism	Corporatism advocates the organization of society by groups on the basis of their common interests. The term is derived from the Latin corpus, body, and describes an explicitly collectivist system of thought. Its ultimate aim is the construction of a society whereby classes cooperate with one another under the aegis of the State, as opposed to the class conflict inherent in systems such as communism. The technocratic strain of corporatism is explicitly opposed to unions, calling them a roadblock to true class collaboration, and traditionally right-wing in its implementation of policy. Rather than appealing to leftist strains of thoughts it predicates itself more upon traditionally corporatist ideas. However, technocratic corporatism also stops short of fascism; it eschews hardline nationalism as a cornerstone of its societal implementation.
Transitioning Democracy	Democracy isn't just a political system. It's a societal attitude. As such, it must be grown, nurtured, and developed. This is the purpose of a Transitioning Democracy. In this stage, democratic consolidation either hasn't started, or is in its earliest stages. Political and civil rights, such as freedom of speech, assembly, and press, are beginning to be provided, though usually with some caveats. Police forces and the military typically play a role in the power dynamic, often at odds with the civilian government. Above policies, the definition of a Transitioning Democracy is in its outlook towards a free, liberal future. There are many reasons for why a democracy is in this phase. New officers reforming away from an old military junta, a long awaited revolution solidifying its power, or simply the old government pragmatically adopting a new ideology. No matter the reason, a transitioning democracy is a fragile bird, prone to break at the slightest of wrong moves. However, if care is taken, it can grow into a powerful force.	Rab Butler Thawan Thamrongnawasawat Óscar Gestido
Paleoconservatism	Paleoconservatism, though an ideology in its own right, is also a reaction to the projects of other American ideologies. Whenever a liberal crosses a road to crash his cymbals for baby murder, the Paleoconservative pickets on the curb. Whenever a so-called conservative cedes a town hall's floor to a God-hating commie, the Paleoconservative puts his foot down and says "No. Not anymore." These determined men and women do this because the very idea of the American family rests behind them: a mother, a father, their two kids, and a white picket fence. The Paleoconservative asserts that Americans have forgotten to act like Americans. Christ should stay in schools. Women should marry men. Wives should listen to their husbands. Boys will, and must, act like boys. Socialists should go elsewhere if they want socialism, for in America, people sing songs about freedom, not fake equality. The Blacks want the White man to spend his tax money on great big apartment blocks that bring crime to happy neighborhoods, but the Paleoconservative resists and says "Not in my backyard. You'll just keep asking for more." There will be no foreign interventions because America should focus on America first. There will be no government spooks to take working families' money, freedom, or culture. But the libbers won't even give them that that. They'll rob them. They'll rob prayer from schools, children from parents, and all the pride from the greatest nation on Earth. But on their watch, so the Paleoconservatives swear, they'll never rob God for In God We Trust. America should rest easy, for the surging weight of history carries the campaigning families who hold their heads up high and sing in fearsome strains "I am for Mom and apple pie."	Phyllis Schlafly
Poujadism	Pierre Poujade, an ordinary paper maker from the small town of Saint-Céré, had had enough. Enough of the common man being oppressed by the greedy financier; enough of the sad, sorry state in which France found herself; enough of the anti-democratic practice of the tyrannical Parti National. Enough of all that! And yet, what could he do? Poujade, not being one to stay silent and take it, began to broadcast his message loud and proud. Down with the tyranny of global finance, and with their puppets in the halls of power! Down with big banking, and the judeo-masonic masters! Direct democracy now, by and for the people! Surprisingly enough, and despite what the elites would want you to think, the people sat, and listened. Tired of the Pétainist decay, and yet not lured by the false promises of the technocrats, they slowly woke up, under Pierrot's guidance, to bring him in the highest office of the land. The time for the New General Estates had come, at long last. Now, an hyperpopulistic coalition rules, coalesced in a personality cult around the one and only Pierre Poujade. For free enterprise, against global finance. For traditional values, against degenerate liberalism. For direct democracy, against corrupt politicians. For France, and against all who would wish her harm.	Pierre Poujade
Authoritarian Developmentalism	Unlike many other forms of authoritarianism, Authoritarian Developmentalists are usually somewhat democratically elected, do not deny that their government owes any duty to their constituents, and recognize people's right to political participation. However, when it comes to the great crusade for economic growth, which would subsequently improve the overall welfare of the citizens, Authoritarian Developmentalists believe that they are justified in suspending the "political excess" of democratic governance or freedom of expression to maximize economic output. In short, the legitimacy of an Authoritarian Developmentalist regime hinges on the leader's ability to bring constant economic growth, instead of votes from his constituents. If the leader became unable to deliver his promise, he would usually either be forced to step down, or to attempt to cling to power by writing his people a bigger check in the future. In most cases, the latter option poses a great risk, as the only reason why the masses are content with the regime is the money for which they "sold" their rights. If the leader resorted to promising large, non-withdrawable checks too often, he would face challenges both from within and without the government, and would most likely be better off if he had agreed to a peaceful transition of power in the first place.	Ikeda Hayato Kaya Okinori Fukuda Takeo Reginald Maudling Sukarno* Djuanda Kartawidjaja* Daniel Fignolé Paul Eugène Magloire
Herrerism	"In short: neither in the brown ranks of Nazism, nor one more star on the flag of any imperialism". Being an Herrerist is not just following the path charted by Dr. Luis Alberto de Herrera, it means evoking the caudillist tradition of the XIX century. It means honoring Oribe's struggle against European interference in the Rio de la Plata and Saravia's fight for political representation for the common man. Those who call themselves Herrerists are the eternal defenders of the Liberal Conservative tradition, so undeservedly besieged by Jacobinism. They are the true defenders of social justice, for their fight is the fight for transparency and accountability of the government, so used to stealing the riches of the rural man for its petty projects or to satisfy the bottomless stomachs of the urbanites. Herrera's followers are convinced they are true nationalists, for it is they who are against Anglo-Saxon infiltration of Hispanic culture, for it is they who defend the homeland from being turned into a vacation ranch for Americans. They understand that while Sovietization of the Americas is repugnant, fellow nationalists like the Sandinists are allies against the eternal enemy that seeks the unhappiness and subjugation of Latin America; the United States. But the Herrerists are controversial among their opponents for their poor track record at respecting liberal democratic norms and barely hiding their illiberal sympathies. As with many caudillist movements, Herrerism shares the same weakness. For with Dr. Herrera buried and unable to guide, Herrerism is whatever the new caudillo says it is, leading to frequent infighting.	Eduardo Víctor Haedo* Faustino Harrison Alberto Arocena Juan José Gari Francisco Gilmet Nicolás Storace Arrosa Martín Echegoyen Mario Óscar Aguerrondo
Antarctic Administration	Ever since the scramble for Antarctica began in the 1950s, the continent has been divided by several competing territorial administrations. What started as a border dispute between the Chilean and Argentinean regimes morphed into an international incident requiring the mediation of the Organization of Free Nations. Not to be outpaced by the forces of liberty, National Socialism reared its head in the form of Nazi-controlled Neuschwabenland, attempting to enforce a policy of colonization by the pure, Polar, Aryan race. Finally, the Japanese arrived, ignoring all pretense of legitimate claims, seizing their slice of Antarctica through force of arms. While each administration adheres to its specific ideological convictions, the harsh realities of life in the Great White Nothing, and lack of a notable civilian populace, has induced a measure of conformity amongst the regimes. All operate under some form of military governance, be they in direct control, in the case of Japan, or working alongside civilian partners, as with the OAA. Under these hierarchies, many thousands of personnel labor in the bitter cold and biting winds, trying to justify their presence on "the Exiled Continent". Each power attempts to wrest some modicum of value from their slice of ice, however many observers have named this struggle the ultimate in sunk cost fallacy. None of the powers can back down while the others remain, regardless of their losses in money, material, or men. It would take a colossal shift in fortunes to make the Antarctic ventures profitable...	William Francis Raborn* Hyman Rickover Howard Beale Edmund Hillary Phillip Law Jorge Edgar Leal* Emilio Eduardo Massera Julio Escudero Guzmán* José Toribio Merino Augusto Rademaker Giovanni Torrisi

Trivia

• Before Toolbox Theory 3, Paternalism was known as Authoritarian Democracy.