^Which one do you pick? Not super over thinking it here so... Thinking of it now, the game sorta has the message that a Republic+Democracy like the United States failed and led to nuclear war. So don't pick the NCR. You could side with Mr. House, maybe he did or would impose himself as monarch of the area. He said "If you want to see the effects of democracy on the world, then look out the window." Reminds me of that one neoreactionary idea that democracy is incompatible with freedom. However, like communism, libertarianism is a materialistic philosophy that reduces much of life to money and resources, so that makes reactionary ideas more appealing to me. Leads me to my next point: siding with The Legion. They are like trying to recreate the Roman Empire. If you want a stable and free society, perhaps you have to have some spirituality and/or religion as a part of it. I'm not really into religion, but I have some sort of spirituality in hoping that "God" exists and so on.

So perhaps siding with the Legion would be the best. But how do you make sure that your specific idea of a good society persists? You can encapsulate it in a Republic: with very important laws and stuff laid out in the Constitution which is impossible or very difficult to change. Maybe the Legion could set up a Republican Monarchy. What would that specifically be that I would support? Similar to the early/mid US politics, laws, and republic but as a monarchy with zero or little democracy. It could be more economical libertarian too. Also maybe an ethnostate. Something I like: Early US has a spiritual aspect to it but also a clear separation of church and state.

So basically, side with the Legion because they are trying to set up a reactionary government (hopefully not a shitty one). Don't side with the NCR because they aren't trying anything "new". Or maybe do side with them if they align more with my/your values than the Legion.

Nazis are revolutionaries and not reactionaries, but both groups have realized something. They know that the concepts of "freedom, liberty, and equality" are vague concepts and should not be strived for in some cases. (I meant these abstractions: "liberty, equality, and fraternity".) They know that the merits of those ideals are greatly overstated and their downsides are greatly understated. This is a depressing realization, but a necessary one in order to create a political viewpoint that aligns with reality. An example: communism really strived for equality and freedom, but ended up making widespread misery and death the world over. Freedom: "do whatever you want as long as you aren't hurting anyone else", but you could end up hurting yourself.