I know that the DIM hypothesis is involved in the argument over who you should vote for. It seems that Bush is a Mis-Integrator and Kerry is a Dis-Integrator, and Mis-Integrators are more dangerous because they actually have an operating theory, whereas Dis-Integrators are relatively harmless wafflers, or something like that. (In other words, it's okay to have some syrup with your president, just so long as you don't have to say grace first.)
So the concern is that Bush is leading the way to totalitarian theocracy.
I'm sure Leonard Peikoff would not welcome such a comparison, but the DIM thing reminds me some of David Kelley's three cultures: religious, enlightenment, and postmodern. (He may have described them a little differently.)
One thing that disturbs me... if DIM is just a hypothesis, should it be used to strongly recommend a presidential candidate? Is it that strong a hyphothesis?
Finally, I don't like the name. Wouldn't MID be better? DIM sounds too much like the hypothesis itself is dim.
It's his idea,
So the acronym
Whether MID or DIM
Is up to him