Robin Hanson is the leading voice (anywhere?) in the analysis of everything as status. Sure the PUA community talks personal interaction as all status all the time, but Hanson wins the broad analysis contest.
It seems to me that Hanson or Tyler Cowen or someone once posted in this direction, but I can't very well find it, so here's my line on the negative interpretation of political analysis, as parsed through the Master, Monk, Merchant context.
Progressivism is the position that Monks should be highest status, with Masters second, Mothers idolized, and Merchants belong in the morally suspect class with Malefactors, below the Masses and Mendicants. Shockingly, this is the default position of anyone who considers herself an expert.
Conservativism is the position that Masters should be highest status, with the Masses second, and the Merchants a distant third, though still above others. Monks and Mothers should be narrowly respected, inside their expertise, but not accorded particularly high status. Mendicants are well above Malefactors, but both are morally suspect. I think that this is actually the position of 90% of the world population (masses, military folks).
Libertarianism is the truly radical position that Merchants deserve the highest status spot (which they have come to occupy rather often), with different libertarians placing the Masses, the Monks, and Mothers in various positions of 2,3,4. Mendicants are bad. Malefactors are worse. And Masters are truly evil. By observation, this position is fundamentally opposed to the ESS morality, as merchants as a force for good emerged only very recently, and the science of it (Micro-econ) is even more recent.