Integral Politics - The 3rd Way?

[The River]

The Search for Cohesion
in the Age of Fragmentation
By Don Edward Beck, Ph. D.

"THIRD WAY POLITICS. Traditional Republican thought in the US is classic Blue (rule of law) and Orange (free- market economy). The Democrat Party joins Purple-Red "victims" with Green "rescuers," setting up the bipolar, two party political impasse. A legitimate "third way" policy would place the Spiral right in the middle of the left-right wing political spectrum. One could then cobble elements from both wings and apply them at different levels within the developing Spiral. This is neither a centralist or compromise position, but an entirely new direction in national politics. Both Bill Clinton's "vital center" champions and George W. Bush's "compassionate conservatives" lean in that direction but without an All Quadrants/All Levels perspective, they will not get there. The political thinkers who grasp this concept will dominate for decades to come."....

http://207.44.196.94/~wilber/beck.html

Take a look and make up your own mind but do take notice of the graphs in the article. If you really "get it", politics suddenly becomes so much easier to understand.

Who is studying Integral Politics??

http://noosphere.cc/integralpolitics12.html

"The emerging Integral Politics approach has already caught the attention of advisors to Clinton, Gore, Blair and the Bushes (Bill even gave one Wilber book on how to integrate religion and science to Al who called it "one of my favorite new books" in a later New Yorker article he wrote)."

[shraby]

1. I have a better suggestion

Actually find out where the citizens stand on issues. Start interviewing throughout the country. Not just little focus groups, but a huge concerted effort to see what people say.
Then and only then can a political party represent their constituents.

[The River]

3. Thats exactly what this does

if you would take the time to read it. It's only been 5 minutes
since I posted it. Are you a speed reader?

[w4rma]

2. "victims" and "rescuers"? I stopped reading after reading that (nt)

[The River]

5. Any excuse not see what other people are thinking?

Sounds like a bad case of "Boomeritis" to me!

http://www.wie.org/j22/debold.asp

[w4rma]

11. I'm not reading it because those clues have shown me that that guy doesn't

understand what other people are thinking which is his selling point.

Heck he even calls the Democratic Party "Democrat Party".

[Teaser]

12. Wilber ain't stupid.

He's a mystic, but I guarantee you he is smarter than most people posting on this board.

He's something of a Hegelian in philosophical terms, but I can forgive that.

[w4rma]

13. I didn't say he was. He *does* have a PhD. He is ignorant tho.

He lacks understanding as those clues I've pointed out attest to.

[arcos]

4. well, they can't even get the name of "the Democrat Party" right... nt

[OrwellwasRight]

6. Yeah, whoever this author is

doesn't get it.

The Democrats are NOT Red. Everyman for himself? Survivial of the fittest?

Sorry, but that is the Repubs.

[HuskiesHowls]

7. There used to be a 3rd way in this country

It was called "compromise", and it used such things as "intelligent discourse" and "bipartisanship".

[s-cubed]

8. Instead of dismissing it, try reading it - keep an open mind!

[The River]

9. Thanks scubed

It's not an easy read but well worth it.
It helps to have a good understanding of
Trans-personal & Integral Psych but not necessary.
As the second article mentioned, Clinton, Gore, Blair,
Bush and others are taking a long hard look at an Integral
approach. You can bet Rove is too.
It never ceases to amaze me how closed minded
DU'ers can be sometimes.
I bet if Will Pitt posted this, they would be
all oohs and ahhhs with a hundred positive
responses by now.

[Eloriel]

14. Umm, not from me

(the oohs and ahhs)

And not for this either. I confess to getting all bristly at the mention of Clinton's Third Way myself. And ANYone who considers "compassionate conservatism" anything other than an empty -- VERY empty -- and very cynical campaign slogan has no business writing anything about politics.

And this is the kind of thing that is like fingernails on chalkboard to my soul:

A further integration of 'competing' outlooks is achieved with the understanding that political approaches will all tend to choose either to blame society's problems on external circumstances (eg oppressive social inequalities), as the Left usually does, or internal factors (e.g. morals, character and self-responsibility - or rather their lack) - the common conservative approach.

Clearly neither alone has the whole answer.

Uh, YES. One side DOES have the whole answer or at least far more of it, at least on this issue. And I rather believe that the left has the right answers -- the ONLY right answers -- on a whole range of issues. Could they be modified, improved and further enlightened? Probably, but IMO not likely by injecting authoritarian sentiments and initiatives from the right. :puke:

Maybe Wilbur handles it all better (and maybe not) in his writings. But given the triggers that trip MY hotwires, I'm not spending any more time with this (tho I will bookmark them).

Edited to add: And this is from someone who believes very strongly as a rule in synthesis -- not either/or but BOTH/AND. I am forever calling DUers on that very thing, trying to make either/or forced choices where none NEED exist. And while I won't go into it, I see Howard Dean doing that synthesis and doing it beautifully where it's appropriate (and it's not appropriate everywhere, IMO).

[madfloridian]

10. "pax universalis" or "pax americana" or "global mesh"

I will read more but these paragraphs really sort of give me an inner chill.

SNIP.."The term "New World Order" itself not only became a fearful symbol of global domination by an elite few, but it also stoked paranoid fears of a new march of jack boots to the cadence of a single ideology. President Bush later softened the sentiment before the United Nations General Assembly with the words: "In short, we seek a pax universalis built upon shared understanding." The time has now come to renew the search for the global operating principle and process.

This quest for the Next Global Mesh is based on such a pax universalis, an initiative that seeks after a "shared understandings" of how we, as a people, emerge through levels of complexity. While "order" conveys the idea of closed systems and regimentation, the term "mesh" suggests a new form of social integration based on the weaving together of the rich textures of human differences and bindings of constant change. The concept of "mesh" carries with it the capacity to absorb the awesome complexities that now confront global people as we enter the next decade, century, and millennium....."

Sounds like another thing to call it when you bomb the hell out of other nations. No offense meant, but that gives me the creeps. I will read further with an open mind. Maybe.

[IndianaGreen]

15. The Hell with centrism and compromise, we are at war!

Pat Buchanan is right when he speaks for a culture war, a war that also has an economic component. The problem with many Democrats is that they have yet to realize that we are in the middle of a war, and that we are losing badly to the Fascist hordes. Enough of appeasement and retreat! We must rally around a handful of core values and principles and go nuclear to fight for them. No prisoners and no holds barred!