Most people treat power as a zero-sum contest between groups.

Evidence

Power may be physical, psychological, emotional, or a combination of these. Most view power as a scarce resource. If one person or group has more, then others must necessarily have less, like a seesaw. This suggests that in every interaction—whether between people, groups, or organizations—the competition for power necessarily creates an us-versus-them dynamic: if they have more power, then we’ll have less, and vice versa. — Andrew L. Whitehead, American Idolatry, 224

Categorization

• DEFINE: Defines the zero-sum vs. positive-sum conception of power that underlies the chapter’s contrast between Christian nationalism and Jesus’s servant model.
• SEED: Potential angle: how the zero-sum assumption about power shapes not just Christian nationalism but ordinary political grievance across ideologies.
• XREF: connects to: Fear-driven groups become the very threat they fear — Andrew L. Whitehead, American Idolatry, 417; Resonances compete for power as a zero-sum game when crowded together. — Eric J. Heller, Why You Hear What You Hear- An…, 1153; Belief in zero-sum competition is an ideology that maintains hierarchy for dominant groups — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice: Fifty Years…, 1486 (+2 more)

Broader Connections

• Resonances compete for power as a zero-sum game when crowded together. #exemplifies (0.90) — Eric J. Heller, Why You Hear What You Hear- An…, 1153
• Belief in zero-sum competition is an ideology that maintains hierarchy for dominant groups #expands (0.85) — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice, 1486
• Zero-sum conflict contexts make groups treat any concession as weakness on all issues #expands (0.85) — Cathy Gormley-Heenan and Roger Macginty, Ethnic Outbidding and Party…, 37
• A dominant minority can hold power through threats and enforced coordination costs #qualifies (0.75) — Thomas C. Schelling, The Strategy of Conflict, 287