Is There an Integral Guide to Voting in 2024?

1

Not really. Corey de Vos admits as much in his recent video conversation with Mark Fischler titled, “Polarity Politics and the 2024 Election:”

“As integralists, we always want to do the both/and thing. We want to look at all the polarities and integrate as many sides of those polarities as we possibly can. However, the nature of the beast when it comes to politics is you can’t just sit there and ‘both/and’ all the time. Politics is, by definition, an either/or scenario. You have to pull this lever, or you have to pull that lever.”

To that I would add: …. and Integral Theory can’t tell you which lever to pull. Just as IT cannot solve any political problems (a point I argued in this space a few months ago), neither can it tell you how to vote. For that decision you have to use the usual kind of calculation based on your personal political philosophy and policy preferences.

After taking us through an interesting exercise in nuanced thinking and polarity mapping about several aspects of the American political system, at the end of the video Corey and Mark each stated whom they will be voting for — Harris/Walz in both cases. Not surprising Most reasonable people, I suppose, would think the decision a slam dunk, no nuanced thinking required. Two choices, Democrats Harris and Walz (liberal mainstream) and Republicans Trump and Vance (radical right-wing extremism). Voting for the latter two is unthinkable, and so….Harris and Walz. Neither Corey nor Mark are all that happy with the policy positions of the Democratic Party, but they will vote the Democratic ticket anyway, because “Trump is a wrecking ball.” That is called strategic voting, voting for the lesser of two evils, which often means voting against one’s conscience.

Progressives have been asked by the Democratic Party for decades to vote for them because the alternative is just too awful, and a vote for a third party is a gift to the conservative opposition. This is how the two-party system (a “duopoly”) is maintained year after year. Progressive candidates emerge from time to time — Bernie Sanders in 2016 and 2020; Ralph Nader ran for president four times; Jill Stein of the Green Party is running her third campaign this year. Rather than adopt the progressive policy positions of those candidates, the Democratic Party spends millions of dollars making sure they have no serious chance of competing. And so Americans are denied real choice at the ballot box election after election.

Interestingly, Corey and Mark did not mention Stein or the Green Party, even though the Green platform includes most of the planks any progressive could wish for. How come? Because, we are told, strategic voting is the only way to save America from the abyss of Maga fascism. A vote for the Greens is a wasted vote that only helps Trump. I respect that argument, and at most times, perhaps, I might vote that way. But this year is different.

Harris and Walz are tied inseparably to Biden’s foreign policy which in turn is a prisoner of Benjamin Netanyahu’s monstrous war against Gaza, the West Bank, and now Lebanon, Syria, Iran, and Yemen. The red line for me is Gaza, where the Israeli military is conducting a genocide against the Palestinian people. Netanyahu is a monster whose war crimes would fill a very thick ICC file folder, and Biden and Harris are his partners, enablers, and apologists, supplying him with the weapons without which he could not continue his atrocities for even a single day. Biden and Harris are complicit in the genocide and all the war crimes ensuing therefrom. The complicit are as guilty as the perpetrators.

My vote has to be meaningful to me, not just strategic. Genocide is a red line. If I were to vote Harris/Walz, I would be complicit in the Israeli genocide against the Palestinians. I won’t do it.

3 Likes
3

Great points Charles. The overload of Red in the US Orange will come back to bite its behind. I personally would vote for Marianne Williamson but of course the mainstream media is not ready for her yet.

1 Like
4

Politics is filled with “back room cigar smoke.” It’s like a magician’s trick, watch my right hand while my left hand is pulling out a card from my sleeve. What I mean is that the national politicing, the debates, the poles, the commercials, Alan Lichtman’s 13 keys, and the rest of the show is not how candidates are elected. It is really county by county, ward boss by ward boss. The money earned is supposedly for advertising. But the money mostly is used to pay off local bosses to make sure they “get out the vote.”

Trump is a political babe in the woods. At best he leads a cult of personality. He is incapable of building a political machine and made the mistake of making his daughter-in-law the head of the RNC. The RNC was the only chance he had to win this election because they, yes, they know how to “get the vote out.” I am still not sure what the issue was but Clinton wasn’t able to convince enough African-American bosses and other green leaders to back her. Biden on the other hand, tipped the scales when he got South Carolina’s Jim Clayborn to back him late in the election. This signaled the rest of the non-participating “green” democrats to go all out for Biden. Unfortunately, as you know, Tim Scott took Clayborn’s place and is paired up with Lindsay Graham. I wonder which way South Carolina will go (joke)?

I respect Charlies decision not to vote because of his conscious, Right now it is a Hamas/Israeli war (too simple, I know, but that basically is what we are dealing with.) I think the Democratic leadership see Netanyahu as the Trump of the Middle East. Tactically they won’t attack him publicly (which shows a lack of back bone) but privately they are waiting for him to be ousted. I remember him back in the the early 1990s as a newcomer and even then he had an insatiable lust for power. I remember him because I believe he has a Master’s from MIT and a BS from Harvard which is unusual. He will fade away in the near future either by losing or because of his age. Let’s see what happens after that but it is an American foreign policy commitment to support Israel, period. Netanyahu may be the impetus for a parement homeland for the Palestinians. The Palestinians are the one’s who are responsible for taking care of Hamas and whatever other terrorist organization that has or will spring up. One of the thorniest issues is Jerusalem and the Israelis are not going to give away any power. That is the way it is now and because of either/or thinking on both sides is unlikely to change in the near future. Who knows what will happen but I don’t think any of us will be here to find out if a constructive and just reconstruction is accomplished. There are people in my neighborhood who still fly the Confederate flag.

I am voting democrat because as was mentioned, this is an either/or decision, not a and/both choice. Whether we like it are not there are two people fighting for one spot and only one can win. There is the ideal and there is the real. I don’t see Harris/Walz doing anything outrageous and should have a relative non-eventful term. Of course, those could be famous last words.

1 Like
5

I would press this further and say that while an Integral Person may operate in Politics controlled by an Orange Economic system and threatened by a Red Subculture - they will be required to act in ways and implement policies that may cause the outside observer to assume they are at that level.
Even if a person or Party is integral - they will not be able to implement Integral Policies if 51% of the electorate is not Integral (or whatever Electoral college count)
Even IF Intrgral Theory could come up with solutions to whatever problems - If only 10% of the electorate is Integral, they will never win any elections and never hold power. The common rabble will just not understand their superior policies.
In order to operate in a society that is not Integral with laws that are not integral and an economic system that is not integral - well, you necessarily have to dip into 1st Tier in your behavior and may very well be judged by others as being at 1st Tier.

2 Likes
6

My personal guideline for elections lies in answering the question:
Which politician is capable of:

  • recognizing/identifying/appreciating the following 5 perspectives/points,
  • avoiding their respective absolutization, and
  • integrating them into every political decision?

No. 1 (the order is irrelevant): Because we are individual beings, we need a policy that (also) emphasizes individual freedom (UL and UR Quadrants).
No. 2 Because we are social beings, we need a policy that (also) emphasizes social justice and solidarity (LL Quadrant).
No. 3 Because we are also parts of systems (ecosystems as well as cultural systems, energy, infrastructure, information, etc.), we (also) need a policy of sustainability. (LR Quadrant)
No. 4 Because we have both a national identity and at the same time live in an international world, we need a policy for both (development).
No. 5 Because there are both factual realities and also opinions and tastes, we need a policy that appreciates both and knows how to distinguish between them (1st-person and 3rd-person perspectives).

1 Like
7

Ray, I think you’re tongue is firmly placed in your cheek or you are baiting others to see if they’ll respond to this observation about the superior few over the rabble. What’s up with that? I’m not falling for it.

1 Like
8

You have a remarkably – perhaps even enviably – optimistic view of the political future of the Harris-Walz administration if they should win the election. The wrecking ball that is Trump and his minions will not disappear if he loses, and the Harris administration will be forced to deal with the violent backlash. Your confidence that H/W won’t do anything outrageous is testimony to the normalization in the media of the Israeli genocide in Gaza and ethnic cleansing in the West Bank. That Kamala Harris has pledged full continuation of the Biden middle east policy is outrageous enough to cause the defeat of the Democrats in any normal election year, just as LBJ’s Vietnam war doomed Hubert Humphrey in 1968. But of course this is not a normal election year, and Trump is not Richard Nixon. Strategic voting may carry the day against strategic voter suppression. Stay tuned.

1 Like
10

Ironically, we will have the first female African-American president because of the backlash to the backlash of the first American male African-American president. If the United States is going to be remembered for anything, my vision is it will be remembered for being the first truly International/globally organized political entity with first previously marginalized people in this country finding a way to economic power and then political power or visa-versa (Booker T. Versus WEB.) I think will also be remembered as great engineers because we did put a man on the moon. I think we did it seven times.

Three steps forward and two steps backward. If that’s not good enough for you Charles, it’s good enough for me. I don’t expect the ideal to become the real overnight or ever, but I do expect to see more and more unity globally. If you had read my thread more carefully, you would’ve seen that I said there was going to be another backlash. It won’t be Trump supporters because Trump is too politically inept to survive. He will probably start his own news organization but have a limited number of cult of personality followers. It reminds me of a little known movie starring Andy Griffith of all people called, I believe, A Voice (Face?) in the Crowd?

If you look at our history, you will find several presidents that were reviled during their presidency but opened the share of power to more and more people. I don’t want to rehearse that history because it’s way too long for a forum like this but it started in the Massachusetts Bay colony where a theocracy was overthrown by a primeval liberal democracy.

I also am not going to rehearse the US connection to genocide, but let that be for now. For every destructive action of the United States, I will agree with you, but I will counter a constructive action of the United States. This can lead to a tedious and long point/counterpoint discussion where we will end up agreeing to disagree. To be honest, that’s the point I’ve already reached.

The irony for me is that some people want teal or second level leadership in a country that is at best at the orange level of accomplishment and consciousness. The two just don’t mix. In fact, it is quite astounding to me what has been accomplished, but is taken granted.

So like I say, I’ll take the victories where they come as long as we stay on the right track of expanding a political leadership that in essence will be the first United Nations. In the future, hopefully we will have political leaders of all nationalities/ethnicities, religious beliefs sexual orientation, etc. There is another irony here. Regardless of who is in power they will still make mistakes, be corrupt, provide terrible leadership, be selfish because that is the way of the world. Be careful what you wish for because it just might happen. Sitting out and not voting you’ve decided, in my opinion, to be part of the problem and not of the solution.

If you had also read my thread, it was the last sentence where I said I believe this would happen, but it’s might be my famous last words. The future is unknown, but what we have now is not tenable with the Trump situation. So when I say the Harris Administration will be relatively uneventful, to be more clear I mean like Joe Biden bringing us back to a sense of normalcy. This time however it won’t be an old baby boomer white male doing it but an African-American female bringing the country back to its orangeness. Heck, I would’ve liked to have seen a more amber like reaction to the January 6 invasion/insurrection at the Capital.

Please respond back because I don’t want make this thread too long and we can have a civil and respectful conversation about this most important time in history. This is another crucial turning point. For all of its faults, the US is still the country the rest of the freer part of the world looks to for leadership. I’m too tired right now to make this a polished presentation without grammatical and typographical errors but you get my message.

1 Like
11

Sorry Namal, I did not see your thread because I went directly from my Mail to Charles’s comments. I like the idea of having more fun and laughter. Having fun should not be discredited. Becoming professionalized in a corporate environment for most people for most of the good jobs has taken the fun out of the workplace. Again, I think I’m progressive historically, I think it’s much better than being a craftsman who depended on qualitatively different people (No ability) to commission your work was not that much fun.

So let’s make a pack! You and I will from this day forward have more fun and doing what we’re doing in even very small increments each and every day. What do you say? The love angle I’m a little bit leery about because I’ve met too many people who say things like “ I love all of you, thank you for taking my class, I hope you loved what we did as much as I love presenting it.” When that happens, I think to myself “ he or she doesn’t even know my last name so how can they love me? I don’t love them not in the sense I know what deep love is. It’s just a spiritual bypass.” It’s easy to talk. It’s much harder to walk the walk.

1 Like
12

The tone may be tounge in cheek - but the kicker is that it is 100% accurate.
For example, prior to the rise of MAGA, the people who had the most to lose from Republican policies were the working class. There is a record 100 miles long of the Republican Party passing laws that favor their employers givng them poorer working conditions and lower pay. The Republican Party’s official theory was “Trickle Down Economics” - where if you allow the rich to get richer, they will toss you a few pennies now and again.
But your average American is easily distracted by drama and easily manipulated.
My honest opinion is that the vast majority of the American electorate are not capable of thinking out complex ideas. Even in Academia, you do hear original ideas or see push back against the conventional wisdom. University is more an indoctrination to a particular culture than it is an education.
In my development, I’ve had to look outside of Academia for a real education. One of my favorites is DeBono, who coined the term “Lateral Thinking” and has a whole syllabus on “how to think”.

So while my word choice was, yes, specifically chosen to provoke a specific reaction - just under the surface of that is an uncomfortable truth.

2 Likes
13

Damm, I already left an answer this morning but it got lost in the cloud of unknowing. I want to apologize because I didn’t read your answer in the way you meant it. I thought you were calling superior people those who thought of themselves as integral, not those atop the social, economic, and political pyramid. I have indeed met a hand full of people who actually believe they are better than others in kind, not degree. There are definitely people like that. On the other hand, it is hard to know what the experience is like atop the pyramid and what it can do to one’s perspective, especially one who is famous. I think of Michael Bloomberg who I spoke to briefly about local politics in Baltimore and didn’t know what the hell I was talking about. Anyway, he is an incredible person having moved up from a lower class to amazing $84 billion dollars, much of which was made by creating a must have software tool for Wallstreet. I would say the common consensus is that he was a successful two term mayor of New York. Also, he donated $24 billion to John’s Hopkins which is the largest donation recorded given to a university. So there are exceptions to the rules.

1 Like
14

One can hope. The problem is that the pre-2016 “normalcy” was a very unhealthy Orange structure in American society that created the soil from which Trump and Trumpism sprang in the first place. The Biden administration has not corrected those structural problems. Can a return to that kind of normalcy provide the economic stability and cultural peace the country so sorely needs?

2 Likes
15

Hi Charles,

I used the word normalcy as a vehicle to try to clarify what I was trying to say but I don’t really believe there is a normalcy. I honestly. truly believe we’re living in a mystery and I revel and am in awe of the fact that all the brain power in the world can’t put a scratch or a dent in the mystery of life. Mystery is the meaning of life. The meaning of life is mystery.

1 Like