I think Obama is quite a hypocrite. He ran a consistently ad hominen campaign against Hillary Clinton, and he is now doing the same with McCain. Rockefeller accuses McCain of being insensitive or something for being pilot of an airplane that dropped bombs; Clark and Beers also try to turn McCain's war service into a negative--and Obama pretends to be above it all and having nothing to do with it. Just a coincidence they all happen within two or three days. This is the same thing that happend during the primary. I think he is pretty dishonest.

 

mm

The problem with Obama is that he is surrounded by people of a Democratic persuasion - who for one reason or another were not competent enough to make it in the Clinton circles!

Hillary had most of what I call the "happy Democrats." Obama is surrounded with a. Democrats who are in all-reality anti-woman or b. also-rans who couldn't break into the ranks of Clinton machine. Either chauvinists or rejects or both!

Think about it - what exactly is it that would make a really successful, happy, competent, established Democrat not want Hillary? Her and Obama are essential policy mirrors. If they were really successful, happy, etc. they would have already been in Bill's camp. And that directly translates.

No, to put it bluntly, there is absolutely no legitimate, articulable (in good company) reason for a Democrat to abandon Hillary in favor of Obama.

The other factor of course is the age-old: hitch your wagon to a rising star. All the seats at the Clinton round table were taken. Whereas there's plenty of room to jostle for a chair at the Obama table.

I think that most politicians are waiting for the Obama bubble to pop. They know that there is only so long that a handsome, well-spoken, emoter can sustain the support before he has to start showing his character.

And with Obama, that character has been demonstrated by his choices. The people he surrounds himself with. Imagine what kind of allies we will pick up by a guy who hangs with Tony Rezko, Rev. Wright, et. al.

I know it sounds petty. But it isn't. In life, there is a moment very early on where you have to ask yourself, "is this person good?" If they are not, you have to make a tough choice, even given up immediate prospects of self-advancement, and not go to bed with someone.

Obama's game of appearing benevolent and above it all, while his wolves rip into Hillary and now JM is not lost on people. We are judged by the company we keep.

Wesley Clark is a retired General, so I am not legally able to tell you my true thoughts about what he is doing. Let's just say, it wouldn't be pretty.

Amber Christians are a funny bunch. I have generally found that they have a particular gene that says, "when you hear the word "tomorrow" you shall break out in a deep sweat and tremble." Seriously, I think that many amber Christians are people who are simply genetically predisposed to be paranoid and they cling to an ethno-base like they cling to Mommy's tit.

And when it comes time to vote, they will piss and moan about how they don't like McCain because he's from the West and hasn't prostrated himself like they would want him to, but in the box they will vote for him because they know that the aspiritual, intellectual, green package that comes with Obama will be worse for their cause than a knucklehead like McCain.

I don't think Lieberman could be called a liberal exactly on issues other than foreign policy. On some issues, yes, but on others, such as fiscal policy, he is at least a moderate, perhaps a traditional conservative (pay as you go).

If you don't believe me, check out his voting record:

Similar toughness will likely be necessary to finish off Iraq in the proper way and perhaps Iran, and it is questionable that Obama would provide this...

It sounds like you are pretty happy with the way foreign policy has been conducted in the last 7 years.

Mr. Teacup, was it Guiliani's "fortress America" policy that sunk him?

Around 70% of the country thinks Iraq was a mistake, and blames Bush for it. They don't think there is any chance of a stable democracy, but to their credit, they feel responsible for the mistake and are willing to stick it out for a few more years. So they've soured on the idea of more hawkish "toughness", and Guiliani misread the national mood. None of the other candidates attacked him on the character issues because they didn't have to.

The most interesting part about this from a cultural standpoint is how many pundits didn't just misjudge the cultural effects of 9/11, events turned out exactly opposite from what was predicted. They thought that it would be the final nail in the liberal coffin; that the country would throw all that pacifistic squeamishness about war and civilian casualties out of the window - after all, national security was traditionally where Republicans were the strongest. They had every advantage, and had the Democrat-Terrorist-Appeasers on the run. 7 years later, what do we see? The GOP is heading into the worst defeat in 40 years, the base is demoralized and the Reagan coalition is falling apart, while the Democratic party enjoys strong party identification and the base is energized by two of the best candidates in years. Their mistake? They thought they didn't need Green. They tried to get rid of it, to repress it, and what they got instead was an avalanche of individuals transitioning out of Orange and into Green. After 2024, they thought "Why not get rid of Orange too?" and that's when things really snapped. A McCain win in November would strengthen Green in the culture even more. Obama would set off a 2nd tier wave.

One minor point: Wesley Clark is a Clinton surrogate.


schalk:
The problem with Obama is that he is surrounded by people of a Democratic persuasion - who for one reason or another were not competent enough to make it in the Clinton circles!

Clinton lost because they planned to have the nomination locked up by Super Tuesday. Want to talk about arrogance? She's been running for president since 1992, so she thought the nomination was her birthright, and was blind to the strength of the Obama campaign. And just like Bush, she surrounded herself with loyal but incompetent lackies like Patti Solis Doyle and Mark Penn and didn't get rid of them until it was too late and she'd lost too much ground.

MrTeaCup:

You said: "Around 70% of the country thinks Iraq was a mistake."

I'd actually re-phrase that as: "when confronted by a stranger in an apparent position of media authority, around 70% of the American public prefers to present themselves as being opposed to American military action in Iraq."

Now, if you want to know what the same people really feel, count the number of public rallies you've seen in your hometown in the last, oh, 7 years. The American public is a clever bunch when it comes to taking polls and lying to themselves. Watch how they behave and you'll see how they really feel.

The American public was genuinely opposed to Vietnam. And they acted in accordance. Good businessmen don't listen to polls. They watch where the customer goes and what he actually does with his money.

Monkmonk in black; Schalk in Navy; Mr. Teacup in Purple; New York Times in Dark Green.

The problem with Obama is that he is surrounded by people of a Democratic persuasion - who for one reason or another were not competent enough to make it in the Clinton circles!

:) A valid point. Too pluralistic is another reason.

No, to put it bluntly, there is absolutely no legitimate, articulable (in good company) reason for a Democrat to abandon Hillary in favor of Obama.

The reasons I have heard are either Red or Green.

And with Obama, that character has been demonstrated by his choices. The people he surrounds himself with. Imagine what kind of allies we will pick up by a guy who hangs with Tony Rezko, Rev. Wright, et. al.

No other politician could have gotten away with something like Rev. Wright. There are a half a dozen things Obama has said or done that would have sunk Hillary Clinton in a week.

Wesley Clark is a retired General, so I am not legally able to tell you my true thoughts about what he is doing. Let's just say, it wouldn't be pretty.

It's a Swiftboat attack, no doubt about it. They saw what the G. W. campaign did to McCain in South Carolina in 2024, and they are going to try to do the same here. It worked against Hillary; they figure it will work against McCain. A lot seems to hinge on media coverage. I am quite amazed at how people have been manipulated by the media this election year and how few really look into things. (John Edwards made the point not long ago about how hard a person has to work to get real information, and it is quite true.) But the difference here is that both the conservative and liberal media wanted Hillary out, but now it's only the liberal media that wants McCain out.

And when it comes time to vote, they will piss and moan about how they don't like McCain because he's from the West and hasn't prostrated himself like they would want him to, but in the box they will vote for him because they know that the aspiritual, intellectual, green package that comes with Obama will be worse for their cause than a knucklehead like McCain.

I think you're right about that. They know a vote for Barr will be a vote for Obama. I think even progressives have learned that lesson by now.

The longer this goes the less I am able to tell what Obama really stands for. He has never actually been an agent of change. He voted "present" something like 120 times in the Illinois Senate, and those bills he was given credit for were all handed to him by Emil Jones, who said something like, "I'm going to make me a senator." Then he spent the first two years of his term actually in the U.S. Senate and ran for president the second two. What many commentators have noted is that he is awfully ambitious when it comes to his political fortunes, but not particularly ambitious when it comes to any specific causes.

 

If you don't believe me [that Lieberman is a liberal], check out his voting record:

Thank you for the link, Mr. Teacup, but the page is no longer available.

Lieberman is integral in my opinion. He has a foreign policy record with many conservative elements in it, but probably no neocon elements in it. On fiscal policy he is not a Green liberal or progressive--he wants to balance the budget. This is not the liberal mantra. He voted to limit punitive damage awards in product liability cases, one of four Democrats to do so. He has supported school-voucher programs, which is also a conservative position. He supports free trade, in contrast to liberal protectionism. He also agreed to a certain extent on the Bush adm. detainee policy, which was not the liberal position.

I agree, though, that he supports many liberal issues and that many conservatives would not like him. They may even jump ship, but they may not. He has been very strong on social issues for a Democrat, is strong on defense, and they might swallow him at the end of the day.

Colin Powell is another person who would make a great vp choice for McCain. What do you think about him, Schalk? But Powell is said to be torn--he doesn't like Democrats, but apparently he is faced with a tough choice because he wants to see the first African American president and is also disenchanted with Republicans. He does apparently have good relations with McCain, though. Some in the McCain campaign are worried that a Powell endorsement of McCain would have a powerful effect, but Powell's reputation was wounded because of his role in the Iraq War, and at any rate a lot of people would dismiss it as ethnocentric bias. But I think he might be the perfect running mate for McCain. He may have comprimised his own convictions in favor of some notion of loyalty in the pre-war period, but I still like him.

Guiliani misread the national mood. None of the other candidates attacked him on the character issues because they didn't have to.

I don't know if Guiliani misread the Republican mood, which would be the issue in the Republican primary, but the other candidates didn't have to attack his character (if they didn't) because the media was doing it for them. Listen to what his hometown newspaper, The New York Times, wrote about him:

Why, as a New York-based paper, are we not backing Rudolph Giuliani? Why not choose the man we endorsed for re-election in 1997 after a first term in which he showed that a dirty, dangerous, supposedly ungovernable city could become clean, safe and orderly? What about the man who stood fast on Sept. 11, when others, including President Bush, went AWOL?

That man is not running for president.

The real Mr. Giuliani, whom many New Yorkers came to know and mistrust, is a narrow, obsessively secretive, vindictive man who saw no need to limit police power. Racial polarization* was as much a legacy of his tenure as the rebirth of Times Square.

Mr. Giuliani’s arrogance and bad judgment are breathtaking. When he claims fiscal prudence, we remember how he ran through surpluses without a thought to the inevitable downturn and bequeathed huge deficits to his successor. He fired Police Commissioner William Bratton, the architect of the drop in crime, because he couldn’t share the limelight. He later gave the job to Bernard Kerik, who has now been indicted on fraud and corruption charges.

The Rudolph Giuliani of 2024 first shamelessly turned the horror of 9/11 into a lucrative business, with a secret client list, then exploited his city’s and the country’s nightmare to promote his presidential campaign.

 

Then there were personal issues--infidelities and such--that the social conservatives didn't like and also his health. I don't know that it was his anti-terrorism message that Republican voters objected to.

The GOP is heading into the worst defeat in 40 years, the base is demoralized and the Reagan coalition is falling apart, while the Democratic party enjoys strong party identification and the base is energized by two of the best candidates in years. Their mistake? They thought they didn't need Green.

It will be a long while before the GOP thinks it needs Green. They never have thought they needed Green, so that's not a new mistake.The GOP mistake was not so much that they didn't integrate Green, though of course a little Green would be nice in the right places, but that they didn't integrate Orange. They fell to Amber too often and didn't live up to modern values, modern ethics.

A McCain win in November would strengthen Green in the culture even more. Obama would set off a 2nd tier wave.

McCain is a moderate who has voted for environmental legislation, among other things, so he would galvanize Green less than the Bush administration for sure. As for Obama setting off a 2nd tier wave--well, his support is basically African Americans and Green progressives, the latter of which want to vanquish conservatism once and for all. I believe that Obama has shown a hint of integral here and there but really it's just a hint. I mean, there is a reason that Green progressives not only are flocking to him but supporting him in the most delerious sort of way. Obama--at least during the primary--was sending out some seriously Green vibes. It was for this reason that we saw the entire "Democratic wing of the Democratic party" (Daschle, Bradley, Kennedy, Kerry, etc.) come to his side. Now--during the general election--he is sending out some Orange and Amber vibes.

Today he expressed his hope that faith-based initiatives would expand. The other day he expressed his love for guns. Soon he will surely be talking about bombing various countries if they do something we don't like. But his Green supporters are not phased: they know what he was doing; they have not left him, though a few are worried about his centrist economic team. Could he really be leaning integral? Yes, it's possible, but progressives really do not like integral, so if he were really integral, I don't think they would be supporting them as they are. I will hold out hopes, though, if he is elected, that he will govern in an integral manner, but on foreign policy in particular I would doubt that he would. His opposition to the war in Iraq has not been one that betrayed an awareness that there actually was an argument to overthrow Sadaam (though certainly not a good argument to support the post-war, nation-building policies).

 One minor point: Wesley Clark is a Clinton surrogate.

Wesley Clark used to be a Clinton surrogate. :) He is now quite clearly an Obama surrogate. I don't see how you go from being a Clinton surrogate one day to attacking McCain's war record the next (at the same time as at least three other Obama surrogates are doing the same thing) without having become an Obama surrogate. Update: Clark is now a military advisor to Obama.

Clinton lost because they planned to have the nomination locked up by Super Tuesday. Want to talk about arrogance? She's been running for president since 1992, so she thought the nomination was her birthright, and was blind to the strength of the Obama campaign. And just like Bush, she surrounded herself with loyal but incompetent lackies like Patti Solis Doyle and Mark Penn and didn't get rid of them until it was too late and she'd lost too much ground.

Those are good and valid points, but there are many other reasons Obama won that need to be considered. Very briefly: 1) He successfuly played the race card on both Clintons and turned African Americans away from them; 2) He successfuly smeared Hillary Clinton's character (1 and 2 especially with the help of the media); 3) Green hates Clinton and loves Obama; 4) Amber and Orange hated Clinton more than they hated Obama; 5) Hillary was a woman; 6) Obama was a talented and inspiring politician; 7) Obama is African American; 8) Obama had better campaign strategists; 9) the media gave Obama a pass on things that would have sunk Hillary immediately. 10) an integral candidate like Hillary gets attacked from both the left and the right (Amber, Orange, and Green all dislike integral), while Obama was attacked just from the right (or just from Amber and Orange); 11) because the American electorate as a whole is woefully underinformed and not well educated, particularly the kids who supported Obama; 12) because the media was not only anti integral but sensationalist and superficial in general; 13) because people want "change" and someone with the last name "Clinton" does not appear to represent change; 14) because an integral candidate will not look like positive change to Green, or to Amber or Orange for that matter; 15) because a lot of people believed Obama was an agent of change because he said so in an inspiring manner.

It sounds like you are pretty happy with the way foreign policy has been conducted in the last 7 years.

Hey! Don't jump to conclusions!  :) I am simply making the point that sometimes conservatism (ideally "conservatism" from an integral perspective) is more effective than liberalism. I do believe, for example, that the Reagan administration and other cold warriors deserve some credit in causing or hurrying the fall of the Soviet Union. I believe they also deserve some credit in keeping the Western Hemisphere relatively free of Hugo Chavez's and Fidel Castro's (and I say that as someone who studied Latin American poltics in college and who was very Green on that issue for many years).

 The original point was simply that the Bush adminstration has apparently defeated the FARC, the oldest and perhaps toughest far-left insurgency in Latin America, and that Green Democrats surely would not have. Not a chance. The Bush adminstration went after them in a bold way and rooted them out while Green Democrats objected and decried human rights abuses on the part of the Colombian government. What they didn't realize is that first you have establish national security; then you can start worrying about how labor unions are treated. Better trading status (which Obama, Clinton, and other Democrats voted down but which Bill Clinton supported) would have strengthened the Colombian government so that they could defeat the FARC. And it would still be a good thing because the FARC is not yet totally vanquished, but Democrats control congress, so it is not going to happen (while Canada, somewhat ironically, did improve trading status with Colombia). They also may deserve credit for disarming the North Koreans, but the North Koreans have fooled us before; they could be doing it again.

An integral foreign policy in this era will include some tough freedom fighting at the appropriate times and places.

 

mm

 

 

Check out today's New York Times:

Joe Lieberman front and center with John McCain in Cartagena, Colombia, with Colombian president Alvaro Uribe. Of course that doesn't necessarily mean Lieberman's the front runner in the vp race, but it's a good sign. McCain national cochair Lindsey Graham is just behind McCain. I'm sure Lieberman would be McCain's first choice, political considerations aside.

Here is the whole article.

This issue is one very good reason to vote for McCain over Obama and very good evidence that Obama is Green and not integral. 

 

mm

Lieberman is integral in my opinion. He has a foreign policy record with many conservative elements in it, but probably no neocon elements in it.

Since the link is broken, I will summarize his voting record:

• National Organization of Women: 77
• NAACP: 87
• Human Rights Campaign: 89
• NARAL: 100
• Planned Parenthood: 100
• Alliance for Retired Americans: 90 (their big issue: protecting Social Security)
  
• Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence: 90
  
• National Right-to-Life: 0
• NRA: F
• American Conservative Union: 8
  
• Christian Coalition: 0

For me, his positions on torture and Iran put him squarely in the neocon camp.

It will be a long while before the GOP thinks it needs Green. They never have thought they needed Green, so that's not a new mistake.The GOP mistake was not so much that they didn't integrate Green, though of course a little Green would be nice in the right places, but that they didn't integrate Orange.

There are a number of reformers in the GOP who are already moving in a Green direction, much as the British Tories. And when I say that the GOP didn't need Green, I should add that they also went out of their way to call them traitors. My guess is that this rings true to you though.

As for Obama setting off a 2nd tier wave--well, his support is basically African Americans and Green progressives, the latter of which want to vanquish conservatism once and for all. I believe that Obama has shown a hint of integral here and there but really it's just a hint.

Right now, progressives are not having an easy time with Obama at all: his positions on telecom immunity and the Heller ruling are causing some heart burn, and not for the first time, either. Green support is almost completely based on his anti-war position and the fact that he's African American. Secondly, you seem to be applying a double standard here: Obama's Green support is a sign he's Green, but Hillary's Amber support is a sign she's Integral? This doesn't seem like an adequate basis to make such a judgment.

I assume you've already made up your mind, but Obama is constantly talking about the false choices that we are faced with, and his desire to transcend those differences, replacing either/or thinking with both/and. He's the first Gen X candidate, and that plays into it, and beyond the rhetoric, Obama's embrace of behavioral economists like Goolsbee and Sunstein is one of the most clear indicators. For me, behavioral economics is integral economics (or as integral it gets so far), and its inclusion at such a high level is stunning. His speech on race was groundbreaking - given by anyone else, Green would have instantly denounced it as excusing racism against minorities. His strength with Green is vital, because Green, always adverse to leadership in principle, desperately needs a leader to transition it to second tier. The person who can best lead this transition is, to me, a very significant criterion for selecting the integral candidate.

Monkmonk in black; Mr. Teacup in Red.

And when I say that the GOP didn't need Green, I should add that they also went out of their way to call them traitors. My guess is that this rings true to you though.

My goodness! A little acerbic. The point is that I am really an Amber infiltrator on this integral forum?

 

• National Organization of Women: 77
• NAACP: 87
• Human Rights Campaign: 89
• NARAL: 100
• Planned Parenthood: 100
• Alliance for Retired Americans: 90 (their big issue: protecting Social Security)
  
• Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence: 90
  
• National Right-to-Life: 0
• NRA: F
• American Conservative Union: 8
  
• Christian Coalition: 0

These ratings are not far from meaningless if we are trying to determine whether Lieberman is integral. We would really have to look at specific issues. I mean, the Christian Coalition will probably give you a zero if you are not pro-life and want to make birth control available; the Republican Party is in the midst of a purge (kind of like the Democratic purge of third-way politicians like Joe Lieberman) where they are getting rid of all "Republicans in Name Only" (RINOs). I doubt that the American Conservative Union would help us ascertain whether Joe Lieberman was integral anyway. Really, this does not give us any information that we can use. Planned Parenthood can differentiate between Green and Integral? It tells us we are not dealing with Amber. That's all it tells us.

 

There are a number of reformers in the GOP who are already moving in a Green direction, much as the British Tories.

Orange perhaps. I would be very suprised if you found any evidence of Green in the GOP. I would like to see it if you do.

 

For me, his positions on torture and Iran put him squarely in the neocon camp.

Here is a blurb from Lieberman's Wikipedia article:

Geneva Conventions

Lieberman supports the Alberto Gonzales policy memo on the application of provisions of the Geneva Conventions. He believes "the decision was, in my opinion, a reasonable one, and ultimately a progressive one." He agrees with Gonzales in describing certain provisions of Geneva Conventions, specifically "that a captured enemy be afforded such things as commissary privileges, script advances of monthly pay, athletic uniforms and scientific instruments” as "quaint". He also agrees with the legal decision that al Qaeda's members "were not entitled to prisoner of war status."^[91] In 2024, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld that "at least" Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions is applicable to combatants "in the territory of" a signatory of the Conventions.^[92]

During an exchange with Donald Rumsfeld in the 2024 senate hearing on the Abu Ghraib scandal, Lieberman denounced the abuses as "immoral" and deserving of an apology. Then he added, "I cannot help but say, however, that those who were responsible for killing 3,000 Americans on September 11, 2001, never apologized. Those who have killed hundreds of Americans in uniform in Iraq working to liberate Iraq and protect our security have never apologized."^[93]

 

Of course the devil is in the details, but here we have him taking a hard line on these detainees and at the same time denouncing torture. That's about what we would expect from an integral politician. The Green politician would decry the whole thing and want detainees treated like any American citizen. (For the record: I believe they should be treated fairly, but our justice system was not created for criminals who could kill 3,000 or more in a single day, and so things need to be reevaluated.)

As for Iran, that's a big subject, and I wouldn't mind getting into it, but I really don't think a hardline on Iran--even one that considers a military strike a possibility--is necessarily neocon. They have not cooperated with the inspectors, which even their apologist and supporter El Baradei has acknowledged, and they repeatedly talk about destroying Israel. They support Hezbollah, anti-U.S. fighters in Iraq, Palestinian terrorists; they're probably developing nuclear weapons--and you're saying that someone who takes that seriously is necessarily a neocon?

Green support is almost completely based on his anti-war position and the fact that he's African American.

I think Obama has thrown out some Green vibes on a lot of issues. Mentioning Hillary's time with Walmart as though she had committed a felony, his speeches where he reels off the list of all the ethnic groups, tax restructuring, trade agreements, Colombia, the doubling of foreign aid, the environment, many others--you're right: those are the two main issues that you listed, and that is a good point, but there are others.

Secondly, you seem to be applying a double standard here: Obama's Green support is a sign he's Green, but Hillary's Amber support is a sign she's Integral? This doesn't seem like an adequate basis to make such a judgment.

I actually never said or implied that "Hillary's Amber support is a sign that she's integral." But that Obama has gotten nearly all of the Green support (with the exception of a few women perhaps) and that they all mistrust Hillary because she is not so purely Green as they are is one indication that Obama is sending out some really Green vibes and Hillary is not (though of course she was Green for years). All the canditates are trying to appeal to a broad range, so it's hard to tell what they really think, but one indication of where they really stand is where certain groups are flocking because they can read pretty well if someone agrees with their value sphere. How do you read Obama's reluctance to wear the flag pin? Is that integral? I can't imagine who would do that but Green or disgruntled Red.

 

I assume you've already made up your mind.

Why do you make that assumption? Have I appeared to question Obama more than you have questioned McCain or Lieberman? I have left open the possibility that Obama could perhaps govern in a reasonably integral manner. And for the record, I have not voted yet or made it my mind.

 

Obama's embrace of behavioral economists like Goolsbee and Sunstein is one of the most clear indicators. For me, behavioral economics is integral economics (or as integral it gets so far), and its inclusion at such a high level is stunning.

I give Obama credit for his centrist or perhaps integral economic team, which includes some key people from the Clinton administration, though we still really don't know what he would do as president. It is nevertheless one good reason to vote for Obama.

 

His speech on race was groundbreaking - given by anyone else, Green would have instantly denounced it as excusing racism against minorities. His strength with Green is vital, because Green, always adverse to leadership in principle, desperately needs a leader to transition it to second tier.

I think his speech was shot through with moral relativism. He didn't show much leadership there at all; I am surprised to hear you claim he did. There were some good things in there, but he should have simply denounced Wright and shown a little moral clarity rather than putting him on the same moral level as his grandmother and Geraldine Ferraro. I could say more on this, but I will leave it at that for now. It was a successful speech politically--it took the Wright tapes out of the news cycle. A post-racial speech? It certainly was not that. He blamed poverty among African Americans on Jim Crow laws that have been over and done with for decades . . . We could discuss that if you like. It was a speech from a person who had spent 20 years in Rev. Wright's Afrocentric church, not a speech of someone who had transcended his race. I can elaborate on that later if you like.

 

monkmonk

 

My goodness! A little acerbic. The point is that I am really an Amber infiltrator on this integral forum?

No, the point is you're a conservative with little love for Green. I'm sure you bristle at the assumption that integral politics = progressive politics, so I'm not doing that. The progressive view on the traitor question is that it's completely illegitimate, but maybe you have an integral view of why it's correct or reasonable somehow. You have presented yourself as a conservative who happens to speak the language of integral, so that's how I'm approaching this.

These ratings are not far from meaningless if we are trying to determine whether Lieberman is integral.

As long as you are willing to give Obama the same benefit of the doubt, then I agree. But if you recall, I brought up Lieberman's voting record to point out his liabilities as McCain's VP, not in relation to whether he is or isn't integral.

They support Hezbollah, anti-U.S. fighters in Iraq, Palestinian terrorists; they're probably developing nuclear weapons--and you're saying that someone who takes that seriously is necessarily a neocon?

I see: the only "serious" position on foreign policy is yours. And by extension, all others are unserious, irresponsible and unworthy of consideration.

How do you read Obama's reluctance to wear the flag pin?

As a refusal to concede patriotism to conformist Amber.

Monkmonk in black; Mr. Teacup in indigo.

No, the point is you're a conservative with little love for Green

This is the typical "progressive" response to integral or "third-way" politicians, that they are conservative, "Republican lite," neocons! I have a Green friend who is serious about learning integral, has read a few books, visited I-I, wants to start an integral group. I have tried to explain this to him as I have tried to explain it to many others: integral politics involves a blend of interior-causation thinking and exterior-causation thinking. That doesn't quite say it all, so we'll add: integral politics involves a blend of conservative policies (from an integral perspective, which is a different thing than a conservative (or Amber or Orange) implimenting conservative policies) and liberal policies. My friend responds: "No! No conservatism!" Green hates Amber and Orange. It wants to vanquish it utterly and create its Green utopia, little realizing that conservative notions provided the building blocks for its own consciousness as well as the foundation for our moving into integral and super integral.

As long as there is Red and Amber in the world (Red dictators, Red terrorists groups, aggressive Amber regimes like the Iranian) we will have to--from an integral perspective ideally--enact some policies that are heavy with Red, Amber, and Orange. We will need some force. Out-of-touch Green in the U.S. and Europe takes for granted national security issues and economic stablity--of course! Because the people around the world are no less developed than we are; in fact they are even more developed and ethical than the bad, bad white man, especially the bad, bad American white man, of which Republicans are the worst kind (never mind that it was conservative--meaning Amber and Orange--policies that created the country and was more responsible than any other country for stabalizing Orange around the world).

We need to differentiate between a couple of things here: integral cognition and integral emotions (or perhaps we could say integral self-sense). It is not uncommon at all on these integral forums to find someone with integral cognition (less common to find Turquoise than Teal naturally). It is very, very uncommon on these integral forums to find someone who is also integral emotionally (or perhaps we could say has an integral self-sense). I can think of maybe 5 off the top of my head, though that is likely selling a few people short, so please don't take that too seriously. It is simply exceedingly uncommon to find someone so deeply integral that they feel integral, that they feel the importance of Red, Amber, and Orange as much as Green. It is extremely common to find people who have integral cognition but are Green emotionally (or have a Green self-sense). That is the norm in fact.

Whenever things get emotional you will see this--suddenly those with integral consciousness a moment ago will start throwing around ad hominens, insults, sarcasm, engage in aggressive or passive aggressive behavior. (It's rarer still, of course, that someone is so deeply integral that they can enact Red consciously and with detachment--Ken Wilber, in his wild-west blogs, is one of the very, very few people who can really do this.) Poltics is a very emotional thing. I suspect a lot of other lines come into play when people start discussing politics, like ego, emotional lines, control, etc. At any rate, when politics come up in integral forums everything takes a big dip. Usually Green is equated with integral. The friend I mentioned claims that Dennis Kucinich is the "most integral" politician out there. This betrays an utter lack of understanding of integral politics. This displays a Green self-sense (if that phrase can be applied in this way, which I think it can) and also, to go so far as to say an extreme liberal like Dennis Kucinich is integral, a failure in integral cognition.

How long before people realize this? How long before integral politics becomes the norm in integral circles? If you haven't seen it already I recommend this video from Ken. You might reread A Theory of Everything as well. One of the things that helped me a lot was something he said in that book or at least around the time that book came out, that "conservatism is more spiritual than liberalism." That really troubled me at the time. I really thought it was the other way around (after all I had been into Green politics for over a decade at that point). But I trusted Ken. I trusted he was saying it for a reason, even if he didn't believe it is absolutely true, which I don't think he does, and I looked into it. And I found yes, in many instances conservatism is more spiritual than liberalism. If you don't see that, then I would suggest you look into if you are interested in becoming deeply integral.

I have plenty of love for Green, but I understand that if the conservative fundamentals are not in place we have a rotten foundation for integral and beyond. The Bush administration--this is a fine example--gave lots of money to the Colombian government to fight the Marxist-Lenist FARC, who have done such things as murder judges and kidnap presidential candidates, like Ingrid Betancourt, who amazingly was freed today. I hesitate to make assumptions about you as you have of me several times, but you don't think it is an unhappy turn of events that the FARC is being defeated, do you? The Bush administration and the brave Colombian soliders have gone out and killed these terrorists and forced others to give up and desert. A "progressive" would have failed so miserably here I can hardly overstate it. They would have done nothing but weaken the Colombian government (pushing for "progressive" policies there years or even decades too early and withholding aid and trading privilidges, weaking the government relative to the insurgency), and they certainly wouldn't have been giving military aid to the Colombian army. Obama can still do nothing but gripe about labor unions in Colombia, which are very important (and can likely be discussed while we do these other things, which the Bush administration would of course be incapable of and only an integral administration could really pull off), but from an integral perspective we understand that defeating an insurgency who is trying overthrow the government, disrupt the economony, terrorize the population, is the first order of business. Until we do that, right-wing death squads will emerge, oppressive policies--without the threat of the FARC these right-wing death squads will dissapear, as they have in every other Latin American country after the insurgency was defeated, and conditions will become stable enough for Orange and Green institutions to emerge.

 

As long as you are willing to give Obama the same benefit of the doubt, then I agree. But if you recall, I brought up Lieberman's voting record to point out his liabilities as McCain's VP, not in relation to whether he is or isn't integral.

You're half right with this--the context was his liabilities as McCain's VP, but your response was simply that Lieberman was "a liberal" aside from his foreign policy, suggesting that he was not fully Green yet, hadn't quite become so enlightened as, say, those at the Huffington Post.

I have been willing to give Obama the benefit of the doubt, though he does make it difficult at times and hasn't been making it any easier lately. I could, for example, point to intuitions of integral thinking in his speech on race (in addition to indications of moral relativism). Overall, he is certainly not consciously integral, I would say, and likely quite confused by integral standards.

I see: the only "serious" position on foreign policy is yours. And by extension, all others are unserious, irresponsible and unworthy of consideration.

This is another descent, another ad hominen, another fall from an issue-centered debate. If you read closely and long enough, you will see that I am willing to make conscessions, give people the benefit of the doubt. For example, while I don't believe Obama is integral right now and that the argument for him being integral is quite weak, I believe that there are examples of integral thinking you can find in his speeches and that there has always been an integral argument for electing him, which is different from saying he is integral. I also believe that he may well turn out to govern in a reasonably integral manner and become consciously integral fairly soon, though the chances of that would increase enormously if the consciously integral Clintons were around.

As for Iran, I can't take seriously positions that dismiss the threat of Iran out of hand, as most progressive positions do, that think it's absurd to take anything like that seriously, or crazy to even consider military action for such a thing. Israel bombed nuclear facilities in Iraq in 1980 and likely another in Syria just recently--are you saying that was wrong? The position that every country who really, really wants nuclear weapons should be able to have them (because, after all, the bad, bad white people have them and who could be worse than them) is surely one born out of moral relativism and a lack of a developmental perspective.

 

Monkmonk earlier: How do you read Obama's reluctance to wear the flag pin?

As a refusal to concede patriotism to conformist Amber

 

I'm not following you here. I don't see how refusing to wear a flag pin is somehow an evolved form of patriotism. Green, as Ken Wilber has said, is embarrassed of patriotism. The whole thing is an embarrassment. Because Green is so worldcentric, and so beyond anything to do with nationality. But of course integral will integrate patriotism in proper measure, especially a politician running for leadership of a country (especially consdering the fact that there are large pockets of Amber and that all children will pass through Amber, where patriotism is quite appropriate). Of course progressives with their unrealistic vision of a world government in the near future will simply negate patriotism, and not see that patriotism is an important aspect of a country and an important building block for development into adulthood, though of course there can be an excessive amount of it.

If this were a refusal to concede patriotism to Amber he would adopt some other form of expressing patriotism, not an emotional refusal to wear the flag pin or put his hand on his heart while the national anthem is being played, which is much like his emotional refusal to shake Hillary's hand at one piont during the campaign when he was upset and she extended her hand to him. And, finally, he eventually was persuaded to wear the flag pin in Pennsylvania during the primary there, so it certainly wans't a conscious, principled act. He likely had Green and Red reasons for not wearing the flag pin. I am perhaps willing to give him some slack here, but let's call it for what it is.

 

mm

This is the typical "progressive" response to integral or "third-way" politicians, that they are conservative, "Republican lite," neocons!

It wasn't intended as an insult, just the truth. I'm sorry you interpret it that way. I will say that your position on foreign policy appears to be one that even most centrist Republicans have backed away from.

I agree with what you say about Green though. The horror story that conservatives employ every election cycle is "What would happen if Dennis Kucinich became president?" And they played that card so well and so often that they got Amber into power, which created a huge backlash and a wave of Orange defections to Green, so now we really are at risk of Green taking over the country. Having said that, I think Green recognizes on some level that Amber is far worse than capitalism, so Orange has also had some gains in the Democratic party, as well as Integral, so I do think there is hope yet. Of course, this doesn't apply to the activist class, another example of the trend of the avant garde being behind the times.

you don't think it is an unhappy turn of events that the FARC is being defeated, do you

No, but I do think you are oversimplifying the situation. Orange arose in the West in a much simpler and straightforward way, having to contend mainly with Amber. But in the Third World today, you find every first-tier stage including Green and I believe this greatly complicates the situation. Of all the perspectives on globalization, my conclusion is that Orange is the least bad right now, and I await a truly integral viewpoint.

This is another descent, another ad hominen, another fall from an issue-centered debate.

You're the one who claimed to be serious, strongly implying that others were not. And yet you appear to be standing by this statement, so where is the ad nominem attack? By your own account, I have accurately summarized you, because you say:

I can't take seriously positions that dismiss the threat of Iran out of hand, as most progressive positions do, that think it's absurd to take anything like that seriously, or crazy to even consider military action for such a thing.

Most progressive positions are unserious then. Most progressive positions? Which are you referring to? You must know that most progressive positions explicitly include possible military action, and that Obama thinks that a nuclear Iran is the world's biggest threat, so as it turns out, most progressive positions are serious by your standards (which is not to say that you don't still prefer the conservative one).

Faced with this evidence, lots of people simply call Obama a liar, and that he secretly harbors unserious policy positions regardless of what he says in public. I don't think you would do that, seeing as how you are committed to a debate about the issues and loathe ad hominem attacks, but if you don't think he's a liar, then we are left with the strong suggestion that your accusation of unseriousness is dishonest; an attempt to tilt the playing field in your favor and prevent the other side from laying out their case.

I will accept that you simply misspoke and didn't intend for your words to come off that way.

I don't see how refusing to wear a flag pin is somehow an evolved form of patriotism. Green, as Ken Wilber has said, is embarrassed of patriotism.

We have been reduced to patriotism that is best symbolized by magnetic "Support our troops" bumper stickers that can be removed from your car in a second as if it was never there. Apparently glue is reserved for important stuff like parking permits. And a president who says that the best way we can support our country in a time of war is by going shopping. Meanwhile, our political and legal institutions - the true symbols of our country - are tarnished, even desecrated. That is what is truly embarrassing.

Monkmonk in black; Mr. Teacup in navy. Previous monkmonk in italicized black.

This is the typical "progressive" response to integral or "third-way" politicians, that they are conservative, "Republican lite," neocons!

It wasn't intended as an insult, just the truth. I'm sorry you interpret it that way. I will say that your position on foreign policy appears to be one that even most centrist Republicans have backed away from.

So you are saying that integral and third-way politicians--including Ken Wilber, the Clintons, Tony Blair, etc.--are "Republican light" or "conservatives" or "neocons"? This is "just the truth"?

How do you know what my foreign policy position is? I have said that the Bush administration policy with regard to Colombia has been a great success (and the progressive position would surely not have brought about this great success) and that I don't believe Joe Lieberman is a neocon and that Iran needs to be taken seriously, but I don't think that's quite enough to come to any conclusions about what my views are. You're saying that even centrist Republicans have backed away from military action against Iran (or Colombia perhaps you are also referring to), and this is obviously not true, for one thing because McCain is surely a centrist Republican (unless you're simply wanting to call everyone who favored the Iraq War or favors action against Iran a neocon, which would be the Green position). But then you also say that most progressive positions also include military action, so just what position are you attributing to me? Centrist Republicans have apparently backed away from military action against Iran you say (it is too neocon for them) but most progressives haven't?

All I have said is that the threat of Iran needs to be taken seriously--which is all I have heard Lieberman or McCain say (and in the past, by the way, Lieberman has not supported military action against Iran because he didn't think it would accomplish much, though maybe he has changed his mind more recently)--and just what do you think I mean by that? What position is it that I hold that even centrist Republicans have backed away from?  Of course I haven't detailed any position, so I wonder why you jump to such conclusions.

 

Having said that, I think Green recognizes on some level that Amber is far worse than capitalism, so Orange has also had some gains in the Democratic party, as well as Integral, so I do think there is hope yet. Of course, this doesn't apply to the activist class, another example of the trend of the avant garde being behind the times.

 

Thank you for that link; it's very funny. But the Democrats do seem to be purging integral and third-way politicians, who are move evolved than Green, of course, but which progressives (by which I mean Green) equate with "conservatism" or even neoconservatism. The integral Senator Joe Lieberman talks about that here. Progressives simply hate integral. That has become very clear with their attitude toward the Clintons, Tony Blair, and Joe Lieberman, among others. Ken Wilber would probably be likened to Newt Gingritch and Tom DeLay if they were to meet him and have a talk about politics.

You're the one who claimed to be serious, strongly implying that others were not.

I think you really twisted things around there. Let's go through the sequence of events. You said:

For me, his [Lieberman's] positions on torture and Iran put him squarely in the neocon camp.

So the question was whether Joe Lieberman is a neocon. I showed you that his policy on torture was far too nuanced and sensitive to be considered neocon (he called it "immoral" and said it was deserved an apology, adding that the terrorists on 9/11 didn't apoligize either, which was perhaps the only thing on the issue to distinguish him from Green Democrats), and then I listed all the mischief that Iran had been up to and asked if taking them seriously (which is all Lieberman has been arguing for) is enough to put him in the neocon camp for you. And you want to change the subject from Joe Lieberman's neocon status to some apparent slight against progressives.

 

Well, the Green position (which may not be what you mean by progressive) tends to preclude military action, at least if the rest of the world is not for it, especially preemptive strikes. If the rest of the world were for military action, particularly Europeans, then Green might go along with it, because they wouldn't want to offend anyone, especially the liberal Europeans, from whom they are dying for approval. As it is, the president of France has been as tough on Iran as Bush--at one point saying flat out that if Iran didn't disarm it would "mean war"--and a good many Democrats, yes Democrats, as well as Republicans have been signing off on covert operations in Iran, if you can believe Seymour Hersh. Actually, it is Obama who is out of the mainstream on this one. If progressives also don't rule out military action in Iran (and Colombia?) then what is it that distinguishes their position from the position of, say, Joe Lieberman or McCain or the Bush administration?

Obama thinks that a nuclear Iran is the world's biggest threat. . . . Faced with this evidence, lots of people simply call Obama a liar, and that he secretly harbors unserious policy positions regardless of what he says in public.

The evidence is that Obama voted against naming the Iranian Revolutionary Guards a terrorist organization (despite their being responsible for killing hundreds of American soldiers, supporting Hezbollah, Palestinian terrorists, etc.), so can you see how people wouldn't necessarily believe him when, during a campaign, he starts talking tough? He has also been delivering a fairly left wing position on Iraq for a couple of years now (falling short only of those who want to set a date for troop withdrawl like John Kerry). Isn't it perhaps the more reasonable and evidence-based position, considering his vote against naming them a terrorist group, to say he wouldn't be willing to risk much politically to oppose them? He has been anything but someone who will stand up for something when it might cost him politically (voting "present" over a hundred times in Springfield, Illinois, as he eyed a run for the Senate), not doing anything bold in the U.S. Senate either--can you see why people would wonder if he would be bold enough as president?

I will accept that you simply misspoke and didn't intend for your words to come off that way.

We were talking about whether Joe Lieberman is a neocon. You want to turn it into this big drama about some obscure, implied slight of progressives. But, while were on the subject, Green tends not to take Red and Amber threats around the world seriously (because of moral relativism, a lack of a developmental perspective, a dislike for their own country), and I do find it hard to take those positions seriously. They want to decrease military spending; many opposed the joint strike fighter, missile defense (they want to spend the money on Green domestic programs, which is a noble sentiment, but not necessarily effective for one thing, or appropriate when national and economic security have not been fully established). Some Green haven't even been sure about the war in Afghanistan, and some are convinced the first gulf war was also some kind of a neocon expedition, or "for oil." Can you see why some find it hard to take those far-left foreign positions seriously? They have some truth, for sure; I don't dismiss everything they say, but it is difficult to take their vision as a whole seriously. You seem to differentiate between progressives and Green, however, so there may be some semantic confusion here.

I don't see how refusing to wear a flag pin is somehow an evolved form of patriotism. Green, as Ken Wilber has said, is embarrassed of patriotism.

We have been reduced to patriotism that is best symbolized by magnetic "Support our troops" bumper stickers that can be removed from your car in a second as if it was never there. Apparently glue is reserved for important stuff like parking permits. And a president who says that the best way we can support our country in a time of war is by going shopping. Meanwhile, our political and legal institutions - the true symbols of our country - are tarnished, even desecrated. That is what is truly embarrassing.

For one thing, an integral candidate would recognize that symbolic gestures like wearing a flag pin are important to Amber, as well as to children moving into Amber, and so it should not be a big deal t