Thanks, that clears it up for me. I think I will go with Neo-Mercantilism and Environmentalism.
I initially looked at it that way too but eventually settled on a rationale that if a person does too much to help others, she or he runs the risk of neglecting their own needs and by doing so both undercuts their own quality of life and future capacity to continue being charitable. Perhaps at some point I should try to replace it with a word with a less positive connotation. What makes a trait vicious is its extremity; in the Red/Blue context it is good to be ambitious and compassionate but at some point selflessness becomes too compassionate and greed becomes too ambitious for one to fruitfully improve both their own lives and those of folks around them. What do you think?
I understand what you mean, though I agree that a word with a less positive connotation might be better. The key is that your audience understands what you are saying. Perhaps "Fecklessness" (I don't know if that's a word; the root is "feckless" or not being careful with how you spend or give your money) could work as a substitute for "Selflessness"?
Yes and no, really.
The heavy influence of Aristotle weaves Western biases into the model but at the same time I intend for the virtues to be fully compatible with democratic, aristocratic, or monarchical systems. A section of the book discusses not the desirability of Western-styled democracy so much as it attacks ochlocratic, oligarchical, and tyrannical forms of government as corrupt and vicious. My bias is primarily that in favor of constitutionalism and the republic.
A reexamination of the colorless virtues will be necessary at least in part because at least a few of them are incompatible with the political realities of developing countries. One of the best examples coming to mind is a discussion I had many months ago with a friend who lives in Lebanon. He pointed out that honesty or transparency in the politics of his country, and an unwillingness to manipulate people to ones own ends would at best make a person unable to thrive, competitively, or at worst lead to being killed by extremists. I would say the colorless virtues are ill-suited for places where political violence and forms of patrimonialism are socially acceptable since they are more idealistic and anti-corruption than their colored counterparts.
For now I intend to include all twenty virtues in the book but may as a way of compensating set aside some space for discussing the importance of adapting ideas to ones own political culture rather than trying to use the prescriptions as a "one size fits all" recommendation for all countries. Either way, I encourage people to adapt my ideas and reject others at their own discretion. No matter how thoroughly I think things through I will sometimes be far off mark. 
I see. Another relevant anecdote is a discussion I had with a guy from Croatia. We were talking about civil service, and he basically said that in Croatia it is culturally unacceptable to
not engage in nepotism. The mid-level bureaucrat who passes over a family member in favor of a qualified applicant is shunned by his family and looked down upon by everyone else, even the more qualified applicant would be a little weirded out. It just goes to show how different cultures treat politics so very differently.
Here is what I cam up with for my colors.
White: Vanguardism
Yellow: Liberalism
Blue: Neo-Mercantilism
Green: Environmentalism
Pink: Multiculturalism
Orange: Internationalism
That combinations means I am "9. YBGPiO: Trudeauist". May I ask why the Black-White category was excluded from the schema?
One last little comment; you might want to replace "vanguardism" and "curatorism" with two other terms in the White category, since you already used them in the black. I don't have any good suggestions though
