Integral friendly Marianne Williamson running for 2020 President: What do we know, think?


Yes, some of the ways Marianne addresses things are meaningful to me. Like on her website where she states the need to bring “higher wisdom” to politics and government and to “uplift hearts and minds.” She doesn’t always succeed in doing this in her speaking, but at least it is her authentic intent, I believe. I’m a little uncomfortable with her use of phrases like “dark psychic forces,” not because I don’t think there’s some truth to that, but because it contributes to a narrative of good vs. evil, and I don’t view the current cultural or world situation as that simplistic. But, a couple of conservatives have resonated with and agreed to that phrase, so I suppose she’s caught the attention or touched people she might not otherwise.

People with intelligence and courage and integrity and strength and conviction can withstand mockery and vitriol, and carry on. Many people in history have suffered much worse than mockery for espousing beliefs that were not understood or popular at the time. What much of the ridicule of her says to me, more than anything else, is, not just how unenlightened or anti-anything-that-smells-like-spirit, but uneducated so many people are, as well as lazy. There is plenty of information on her website and plenty of opportunity throughout the internet to get to know her better, what she stands for, her policy positions and such. The world is so far gone (or so not arrived) that someone who believes in waging peace and speaks of love as an appropriate element of governance is considered ‘wackadoodle?’ I think is the word I’ve heard a lot. She has answered multiple times in interviews when asked ‘what does love look like in governing,’ that it means saying ‘no’ to certain things, and that it is reflected in policies that are, among other things, inclusive. She gives examples of some of these policies.

All of that said, I do think she’s having an influence on the other Democratic nominees, to speak in larger contexts, to connect their wonk to some philosophy or vision or hope, or something, besides just dry points a, b, and c. She brings more historical education/context to the conversation than anyone else too, it seems to me. While I’m actually still surveying the entire field (Buttigieg looks good to me too), I do appreciate Marianne’s voice in the mix, very much.

As far as your question about us maybe working on developing something together in terms of moral messaging, here is my idea. Since you want to be president someday (and I don’t), and maybe run for political office much sooner, how about you start practicing by developing a message that speaks to interiors. You know, just put together maybe 10 sentences (or more or less, whatever) that are authentic for you, what you would like to get across to people as a form of, to use MW’s term, higher wisdom. You could PM me if you like, and I’ll share my views on it and add to it if you like. This would be fun, and there’s no rush on my end. Who knows what might come of it? You could also get input from the group on Discord.

And as for the group calls, thanks so much for the thorough update. I think I’ll pass on the Discord calls right now. Like you, I too have had some health issues. I hope we both continue to heal, but if needed, I’d be glad to pull out my crystals, light a candle, and do a healing ritual for both of us :slightly_smiling_face:


To second a communique from Terry Patten, if anyone gets polled re: preferred Dem candidate, and if you are not too antagonistic towards this idea, why not say “Marianne Williamson.” Bernie, Warren, Yang, Buttigieg and 5 or 6 others have already qualified for the September debates, in both number of donors and polls. Marianne has not polled high enough in enough polls yet to be on the stage in September, and many people agree, she’s a positive influence in the conversation. So if you’d like to keep hearing from her, answering polls with her name will help.


And another update: Marianne has half-qualified for the September debates in that she has met the standard of 130,000 individual donors. She still needs to meet polling qualifications.

Here is an “Open Letter from Transformational Leaders about Why We Support Marianne Williamson for President.”


And yet another update, for anyone interested. Marianne will not be on stage in the September debates, but has not dissolved her campaign. She has enough donors, and has met the qualifications for polling in one poll but still needs to reach 2% in three more DNC-sanctioned polls for the October debates.

Here is her response to the latest mass shooting in Odessa [The Washington Post (WP Company LLC) (US) |

And “an inside look at her campaign” at

And a 2-minute video on reparations at


I would love to see her get the nomination but I am afraid it just ain’t gonna happen. She missed out on being in the next debate because she didn’t get enough supporters. She can be in the October debate if people get behind her. I think if she makes it into the October debate she may have a chance. With less people on the debate stage she could actually let the general population know her views.And that may, by a miracle, put her into contention. Go Marianne!!!


Yes, it does look pretty unlikely at this point that she would get the nomination, but I’m glad she’s not throwing in the towel just yet–I’d really like to see the other Dem candidates pick up on some of her perspectives, vision, and language. Her donor support shot really high after the July debates. My preference would have been that the DNC keep the qualifications for the September debate the same as for the first two rounds, to allow the lower-polling candidates to be on stage at least three times, but that’s water under the bridge.

What I’m aware of now is how stressed all these candidates are, with the kind of schedules they’re having to maintain in addition to fund-raising. I think this is showing in Marianne and others, with defensiveness and attack and tit-for-tat attack (that’s a tongue-twister). She’s really having to work harder than the rest, in many ways, given that she’s subject to so much ridicule for a belief system that, imo, is saner and of “more truth” than the others’. She’s certainly finding out that the larger society is not flowing in the same stream of consciousness as her usual followers. So she has to adjust to that, and adjust some of her language as well. But she has made an impression, for sure, and who knows where this all ends? Regardless of where it ends, as you say, Go Marianne! Go Democrats, period.


Watching Marianne’s run from Australia mostly from SM posts which I scan but don’t drill down since there’s so much. And I don’t pretend to understand the US election process.
I’m impressed she is still there and still putting out so much energy. It must be so draining. It will be a miracle if she makes it, but so was Obama. So lets all send her love and energy to smash through. What a difference she will make. She is what this planet needs right now, especially after 3 year of Neanderthal leadership. Go Marianne2020


Ry and LaWanna, thanks for all your careful input. Ryan, please study what turned off both parties re: Yang, Gabbard, and other clear thinkers. Recognize the Masks Behind the Curtain and their manipulation games as in Orwell’s 1984 and The Art of War. (Even at the risk of being labeled a Coincidence Theorist – Sean Hargens is already well into teaching along some of these lines.) Then literally run for it! It may just be your time.




I’m curious why she doesn’t try to run for something like Governor of California, or at least Mayor (in whatever city she lives in)?

Being an Executive requires specific skill sets and going into a job without practicing these skills at a slightly lower level will mean the person has a steep learning curve during their first year. During this time the organization that they lead lacks direction and tends to be chaotic.

Even though I think Trump is a terrible executive, I do recognize that at least he does have certain executive level skills that “work” toward building a amoral dystopian future for America. If we want a Fascist dystopia, Trump is our best shot towards that.

Everything about leadership is just theory until the person is actually faced with the decisions. There is even a huge difference between being a Senator or Representative and being a Mayor or Governor.

I think the best thing she could do for her resume would be winning a race for Mayor or Governor and doing an outstanding job there.


Celebrity tends to work well for candidates in the current environment. Although there does appear to be a growing firewall of moderate voters who pushed back against that in the recent mid-terms.

Listened to about an hour of a Joe Biden speech today on the economy. Very concrete, kitchen-table focused. Things like insulin costs, how to fund Medicare, inflation, promoting electric vehicle adoption through union jobs. Generally striving to reconnect the Democratic Party to blue collar concerns. Does Marianne Williamson speak to any of that?


I’d say there was a period where one man’s celebrity worked well for him to get elected - once. But he was also a household name.

Williamson is far, far less well known. Heck, I’m even partially in the same community as Williamson and only kind of know of her - ish.

Even other well-known national celebrities didn’t do as well recently. Dr. Oz and Herschel Walker both lost.


Not disagreeing. Oz and Walker got through primaries on celebrity, then came up short. On the Republican side in particular there seems to be a swim lane (currently occupied by Kari Lake, for example), in which it’s not clear if getting elected is the end game, or if getting a lucrative conservative media gig is more the true end game.

Another different - but somewhat related phenomenon - celebrities’ of various types (business, entertainment, sports, etc.) declaring for president as a sort of vanity project. They get a few news cycles of media buzz, then it all sort of goes away.

Not using any of this to classify Marianne Williamson in any way. She is different in various ways than any of the other names/types mentioned. Just putting some points of reference out there.


I think a number of people are asking this question. She did run some years back for a seat in the California House; came in 4th out of 16 candidates.

You can check out her website for her positions and platform. She definitely speaks to “blue collar” concerns; in fact, that might be her main concern. She wants universal free healthcare, free college tuition, free childcare, an increase in the minimum wage, etc.etc. Says she would sign an executive order to decrease the cost of any medication that the federal government helped fund research on (which apparently is within the law and apparently, according to what I’ve heard, able to be done through executive order).

In interviews and presentations she’s done, she has lauded Biden for actions he’s taken to “help people survive during these times,” but she wants more than “incrementalism;” wants people “to thrive.” She states she is running “against the sociopathic economic system.” That seems to be her main ‘target,’ the system itself. I thought she provided a needed service and energy last go around when she ran, and I think many people on the left think her running this time will possibly serve in a similar vein, that she will raise questions and bring perspectives that will possibly push things a little further to the left, in terms of the economic system anyway.

I personally am glad for her voice in the mix. Her candidacy has already revealed just how shallow the commitment to the democratic process is on the part of some in the current administration, e.g. the press secretary smugly ridiculing her and her candidacy.


Ran across this article today -

Decided to apply it to the Marianne Williamson website. The article defines a scale of “mature” vs “immature” conservative, liberal, and radical thinking. To focus specifically on the content addressed by the political economy article, I’d love to consider if others view Williamson’s economic positions as more or less mature.

Also, no matter how mature a reader may consider these positions to be, are there more mature (i.e. more integral) ways to work towards the underlying values?