Polarity Politics and the 2024 Election

In this episode of Integral Justice Warrior, Corey deVos and Mark Fischler dive into the complexities of the 2024 U.S. presidential election, offering a nuanced perspective that goes far beyond typical political analysis. They explore the delicate balance between “both/and” thinking — which allows for consideration of multiple viewpoints — and the “either/or” decisions required in voting. The conversation unveils how the very structure of our political system shapes not just parties, but our culture and individual psyches, often leading to polarization, oversimplified narratives, and broken sense-making.

At the heart of their discussion is a practical approach to navigating political polarities. Corey introduces a method for recognizing when we might be projecting our own shadows onto political issues, or when we may be standing in someone else’s shadow projections or introjections. This insightful framework provides tools for more self-aware and productive political conversations, potentially transforming how you engage with differing viewpoints. Corey and Mark also offer their reflections on the recent Harris-Trump debate, analyzing how presentation and substance can dramatically shift perceptions even among committed partisans.

As the conversation concludes, both Mark and Corey share their personal voting decisions for the upcoming election. However, rather than simple declarations, they provide thoughtful explanations that weigh multiple factors, from immediate policy concerns to long-term impacts on political discourse. Their approach demonstrates how integral thinking can inform political choices while respecting the complexity of the issues at hand.

Whether you’re politically engaged or simply seeking a more nuanced understanding of current events, this episode offers valuable insights and practical tools for navigating the chaos of our current political realities.

1 Like

I found this discussion interesting as an understanding of polarities, but like many integral discussions (just finished reading The Post-Truth World) I get frustrated to not read or hear examples of what turquoise or teal leadership would look like. I fully appreciate the irony and trap of the mean-green-meme’s hierarchy quagmire, but what would an Integralist policy that accommodates the truth of previous levels look like? Any example will do.

I don’t hate or feel condescension toward Trump supporters. I’m sad that they are so taken by someone they think “gets” them that they can be conned into thinking these policies will solve their right quadrant issues, or their left ones, for that matter, except for belonging to a tribe.

Maybe guns would be an easy place to start. While I personally have no interest in using firearms, I recognize for many guns make them feel safe and powerful. It is both true and a fallacy, as possession isn’t love and arrogance is false confidence, but someone pointing a gun at me does have power, even if it is illegal and therefore temporary. I might still be dead before that is recognized and resolved. I don’t run out and buy a gun, even as more and more people do fearing others with guns, because I feel my world is a safe place, and having a gun would make me feel it is not, and I believe the statistics that I’m more likely to be the one who gets hurt, so someone I love. So what might an integral gun policy look like? Or an integral immigration policy? And how could we bring in people at every level to support it?

I do agree that such ideas would help us culturally to not have half of us hate the other half. I’m always curious about why it is half-and-half, would it be integral if it was 60-40? 75-25?

Perhaps it was merely luck that many of those who became leaders when the US was founded seem to have been at the leading 10% edge, but those thinkers are not emerging as people who can influence policy today. They certainly don’t seem to be running for office. I don’t detect many leading big corporations, either.

I also note that people at green seem to get really beat up in this community for not transitioning to integral immediately, while those at orange/amber/red get an accepting shrug. It reminds me of the third kid in a row in the last inning who strikes out getting blamed for losing the game. Lots of examples and criticisms of problems and failures at these levels. Ok. But where can I look to see turquoise in action, not theory. There must be some examples out there in the real world - in Europe, where they had a head start on green? In small communities, where they can enfold the present situation and surpass it? In fiction? Even we conceptual thinkers need some examples. Any citations of an impassioned integralist rally speech? If we’re at 5 and possibly 10%, why are they only speaking out in intellectual circles? Isn’t the point that every level should hear and receive the message and be able to join in, no matter what level or state or stream or quadrant they are in?

1 Like

Wilber gives many specifics about Trump and Clinton vis a vis their levels, and many videos from various integral speakers give examplars of green behavior, orange, amber, and red not only from history but from current events and actual people. Who’s demonstrated turquoise, other than Wilber and the other speakers themselves? (They explain their integral thinking and beliefs (Q1), but I’m not sure I’ve heard an example of behavior (Q2).) I certainly haven’t watched every video, so any references would be greatly appreciated.

1 Like