Al- your welcome.
It's an interesting analysis, factor, yes.
I'll agree the other maps are much too cautious (and much too stuck on keeping the two parties roughly similar, btw.) Just look at King's every-24-years timeline.
Some minor points (to Al as well as you): I don't think the law & order rhetoric and especially the anti-immigration rhetoric we're getting over here is really socially conservative. Certainly it doesn't appeal only to social conservatives. Nor is it to any extent whatsoever founded on christian teachings.
I would consider that law & order and immigration are social issues, only in the sense that they are not economic or foreign policy issues. They certainly don't involve religion, but I tend to categorize any issue that isn't primarily either economic or foreign policy as a social issue. For the most part, I identify less libertarian (tough-on-crime and anti-immigrant) policies as relatively conservative on the social axis, though of course this suffers the pitfalls of all left-right axis thinking. And certain tendencies such as the Democrats' anti-smoking/gun control bent would seem to go against the grain. But I think they're generally speaking the exceptions.
I won't pretend to be an expert on Pinochet, I know very little about him... and I hadn't seen your previous posts, I didn't intend to discount them. One of the things I had picked up though besides his brutal authoritarianism was that he was one of the first to implement the neoliberal economic policies. Here's what wikipedia says on his economic policy:
"Once in power, Pinochet immediately set about making market-oriented economic reforms. He declared that he wanted "to make Chile not a nation of proletarians, but a nation of entrepreneurs". To formulate his economic policy, Pinochet relied on the so-called Chicago Boys, who were economists trained at the University of Chicago and heavily influenced by the monetarist policies of Milton Friedman.
Pinochet launched an era of economic deregulation and privatization. To accomplish his objectives, he abolished the minimum wage, rescinded trade union rights, privatized the pension system, state industries, and banks, and lowered taxes on wealth and profits. Supporters of these policies (most notably Milton Friedman himself) have dubbed them "The Miracle of Chile", due to the 35% increase in real per capita GDP from 1960 to 1980 (later, from 1980 to 2000, it increased by 94%, but Pinochet was no longer in power after 1990). Opponents such as Noam Chomsky dispute this "miracle" label, [5] (
http://www.chomsky.info/articles/199011--.htm) pointing out that the unemployment rate increased from 4.3% in 1973 to 22% in 1983, while real wages declined by 40%. However, Pinochet did manage to address at least part of these problems during his final years as President, since unemployment was down to 7.8% in 1990. The shortage problems during the final years of Allende's administration were also remedied.
The privatizations, cuts in public spending and anti-union policies generally had a negative impact on Chile's working class and a positive one on the country's more wealthy strata.
The former President Allende's economic policy had involved nationalizations of many key companies, notably U.S.-owned copper mines. This had been the primary reason for the external (mostly American) opposition to Allende's government. Much of the internal opposition to Allende's policies was from business sectors, and recently released US government documents confirm that the U.S. funded the lorry driver's strike, [6] (
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,260382,00.html) which was to a significant degree responsible for the chaotic situation just before the coup."
