Monkmonk in black; Mr. Teacup in navy. Earlier posts italicized.

 

First, from what I have seen, you've endorsed the Lieberman's and other neocons' doctrine of pre-emptive war without congressional authorization

I've said nothing specifically about when pre-emptive war might be justified. I have implied that it might be justified in the case of a country who supports terrorist organizations habitually and who is likely developing a nuclear bomb (and not cooperating with the IAEA). We haven't even discussed congressional authorization.

You praised the Kyl-Lieberman amendment and characterized people who opposed it as PC terrorist-appeasers and moral relativists

Here's what I said about Kyle-Lieberman:

I think you can make an argument that was Obama was right in not giving Bush "the benefit of the doubt" on Kyle Lieberman. If you can believe Clark, at one point they wanted to invade something like 5 countries in the region and were drawing up plans to do so. If they had been given Kyle-Lieberman, they might have rushed into something in Iran. You can also argue that the other way, though.

 

I assume you know this, and endorse the Bush-Cheney rollback of Green/Orange democratic checks on executive power.

Several times now you have jumped to conclusions about my positions on things. What else do I endorse?

 

Nonetheless, it seems like you must choose between two positions: Lieberman correctly supports the unitary executive theory as good, sound teal policy. Or Lieberman doesn't support the unitary executive theory and has merely been mislead by his allies in the administration, which doesn't inspire much confidence, whether he is teal or not.

This is just an entirely seperate issue than the one we have been discussing. It's an important discussion, but all we have been discussing is whether it might be justified to launch a pre-emptive strike against Iranian nuclear facilities. We haven't even touched on whether it would be legal or not. For the record: no, I don't support all the Bush-Cheney power grabs. I don't even see why you bring up Lieberman in that context.

 

I don't know what you intend to get out of invoking Wilber, the Clintons and Blair. Simply defining yourself as the embodiment of integral third-way politics serves only to shut down debate, and if that's what you want I will be happy to oblige you.

 

Goodness. Let's look at the sequence of events:

 

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

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"?

I don't know what you intend to get out of invoking Wilber, the Clintons and Blair. Simply defining yourself as the embodiment of integral third-way politics serves only to shut down debate, and if that's what you want I will be happy to oblige you.

 

First of all, don't you think saying things like, "No, the point is you're a conservative with little love for Green" is not conducive to a clear discussion? You jumped to quite an extreme assessment when we had really said very little and only about one or two issues.

Then you said :

 "I'm sure you bristle at the assumption that integral politics = progressive politics" and "It wasn't intended as an insult, just the truth."

Now if saying something is "just the truth" doesn't shut off debate I don't know what does. But you seemed to disagree with the position (belonging to Wilber and others) that integral politics does not equal progressive politics (which tends to mean liberal or Green politics). So in invoking Wilber's name I was just bringing that apparent disagreement of out into the open so we could discuss it, if in fact that was part of the disagreement.

 

At any rate, I don't think integral politics is a monolithic thing with a uniformity of opinion; that there will be integral progressives and integral conservatives who are hopefully closer to each other than to their mainstream counterparts, but nonetheless, they have their differences.

I agree with you on this, that there might be integral politics with a masculine flavor in some people or a feminine flavor in others, that people might be a little more conservative on one issue, a little more liberal on others, depending on any number of factors, including knowledge about the issue.

But still I will say that people will generally get integral cognition first while still feeling Green. They might start getting reaquainted with Orange first on a feeling level and finally Amber. On the subject of politics I have seen very few "integral" types who will take different positions than liberals. What makes it twice as difficult is that the culture they are moving in is probably very Green, and it is of course very difficult to take a position other than Green in Green culture. They will not think you're integral for doing so; they will think you're Orange or Amber.

 

For example, you argue that an integral politician has a particular approach to patriotism and so Obama's failure to wear a lapel pin is proof positive of his non-integralness, apparantly unaware that a range of positions are possible for an integral politician based on what he or she thinks is appropriate for the times.

If Obama had been integral he would have understood that no one but Green or higher would know what in the world he was talking about when he said that he would display his patriotism in other ways. Amber wouldn't understand that in a million years: If you're a patriot, you wear the flag. If you're not wearing the flag (when all politicians do), there must be something unpatriotic about you (according to Amber).

It makes perfect sense to Green what he did. Integral will understand that he might well be a patriot even though he doesn't wear the flag, but Amber and likely Orange will not understand it. Thus, so that the Amber and Orange citizens will know where he is coming from, the integral politician will wear the pin. He will understand that his Green "there are other ways to show patriotism" will not get through to them. This is one reason why Obama did not connect with Amber and Orange Democrats during the primary. He was a type unifier (black, white, latino, native american, etc.) but not a level unifier. It still remains to be seen whether he will be an integral level unifier.

 

You might think I'm changing the subject, but your view of "integral as political party" combined with your apparent willingness to represent your opponents as "unserious" in order to poison the well and prevent other viewpoints from being fully heard speaks directly to your credibility as a judge of whether Obama is integral or integral individuals have good reason to support him.

Goodness gracious. For one thing, let's go through the sequence of events with the "seriousness" flap.

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

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?

 

Please notice first the question mark there--I was asking for clarification. Also, the word was used with regard to how much of a threat one believes the Iranian nuclear program is--in your last post it's morphed into "represent your opponents as unserious." My opponents? We're just talking about how big of a threat Iran may be not how serious or unserious progressives are in general. Do you disagree that progressives tend to discount the threat that the a nuclear-armed Iran would pose?

As for "poisoning the well" look at all these things that you've said:

My guess is that this rings true to you though.

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

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

I will say that your position on foreign policy appears to be one that even most centrist Republicans have backed away from.

If these aren't poisoning the well they're straw man arguments. I don't mind. Really. I think you're a charming poster!  :) But you have been throwing a lot of stuff around, as well as twisting things around a little bit--and then you accuse me of poisoing the well when I ask you whether a person is necessarily a neocon for taking the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran seriously (when most progressives don't think it's serious enough to do much about it and recall the Cold War and make arguments about mutally assured destruction). How can you say that given all the things that you've said? Again, I really don't mind. But it would be better if we just discussed the issues.

We aren't discussing far-left positions, just as we aren't discussing the far-right's position of immediately dropping nukes on every muslim country in the world. Yet you say that Obama and progressives in general of secretly harboring these views. Is that not equally as paranoid?

 

If you look back I was just discussing the theory in the abstract at that point. I wasn't discussing Obama. Many liberals hold those views quite openly, so it's odd that you say that I say they are "secretly harboring" them.

 

Obama co-sponsored the Iran Counter-Proliferation Act which does name the Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization.

It's not a big deal--I'll give him a half credit--but the bill didn't get passed.

 

One minor point of clarification that I'm sure you will agree with me on: Green is technically correct that the war is "for oil", or more precisely, to ensure Western (rather than Russian or Chinese) control of the most important natural resource in the world.

Yes, we agree!  :)

Green is really disputing the legitimacy of that control, and that is the real disagreement. My earlier comments about globalization apply here as well.

Yes, this is an interesting part of the disagreement. Green doesn't seen any reason why the U.S. should have control over these fields rather than the Russians or the Chinese. But of course this is where Green sorely lacks a developmental perspective and moral clarity--clearly the world would be worse off if Russia and China had greater or equal power than the U.S. While the U.S. may not always have upheld modern ethics so perfectly, these countries hardly ever have.

 

mm

Greetings.

This is quite valuable listening to a couple of people who know their politics. I am amazed at how one stays on top of all of these things. Seems like a full time job.

Mr. Teacup: I want to share something that I promulgated about a month ago. I proposed voluntary adoption of a set of rules that would govern Integral discussion of serious topics. The model was the Federal Rules of Evidence.

(You can probably guess how well that went over ....)

One of the rules was that: all comments would be relevant to further determination of a matter at issue. And in that vein, any reference to another speaker would generally be deemed as irrelevant. The idea is that the statements or comments of another would be dealt with at face value without bringing the motives, beliefs, and tendencies of the other speaker into the debate.

In federal court, for example, if you stand up, and start talking about the opposing lawyer, the judge will reach out and smack you in the head. The 2nd time, you will be held in contempt of court and pay a fine. You get to talk about the issues, and the positions, but not the opponent.

A number of times, the discussion here has gone down a road which can only be deemed relevant if the idea is to discredit the ideas of MonkMonk by showing that MM is inconsistent, a flipflopper, a wishy washy person, a flake, a nut job, or some combination, etc.

That is the infirmity of most political debate in America. We attack others by trying to show that they are inconsistent, they lack a firm and coherent view, etc. And there is just no end to the ways that this pingpong match can go.

The real challenge is to identify bona fide issues and then identify governing principles that tend to shed light on those issues. A flip flopper can come up with relevant ideas that advance inquiry.

For example: what does Integral politics even mean? What does it look like? How do we recognize it? How does it help us? What can be done to advance it?

Of course, I defend the right of everyone to simply engage in furious pingpong matches, throwing jabs, making overhead smashes, etc. But at the same time, there is a way to penetrate issues in a disciplined way that does not generally allow reference to others, their motives, their overall tendency to flip flop, etc.

This is shared in a "for whatever it's worth" vein.

 

 

 

A number of times, the discussion here has gone down a road which can only be deemed relevant if the idea is to discredit the ideas of MonkMonk by showing that MM is inconsistent, a flipflopper, a wishy washy person, a flake, a nut job, or some combination, etc.

I agree with you that certain types of communication aren't conducive to discussion, debate and understanding. But far from trying to discredit MonkMonk, I am making every effort to take him at his word. My rule of thumb is that if I criticize someone's position, they are the final authority on whether they are being correctly understood. In coming to understand someone's position, it's inevitable that you make assumptions about them, so I think its only fair that those assumptions are open to verification and correction.

I appreciate that, Schalk. That's very important what you say. I really liked it the previous time you brought it up, only then I felt that form may have been too complicated for people. You had all that stuff internalized, but for others it may have been a little much to digest, at least to start with. But I think a simplified version, beginning with what you said here, would be great. Things would be so much more interesting and fruitful if we discussed things like this. The Road Rules--"come from your highest self"--isn't quite enough. We need to add what you say as well. It would be great, I think, to put together a streamlined, easily digested version of that. Maybe more could be added later.

On other threads Mr. Teacup has usually been a very disciplined, right-speech kind of poster, however, I will say. It is probably politics that brings out the devil in him, :),  but I will also take responsibility for it because I said some provocative stuff about Obama. I'm sure it also brings out the devil in me too, but I think discussing it without mincing words is good as long as we don't veer into the ad hominen, intentionally try to zap people as the goal (directly or indirectly), or use it as a means to dump garbage.

 

There is one thing I would like to add about Iraq and oil--I didn't mean to conclude that oil is the one and only reason for the war in Iraq or that it alone would have been sufficient. I only meant to say that oil was certainly a big factor. Oil was the chief factor in the first gulf war, and rightly so. In this war it was certainly a factor--Greenspan once said that removing Sadaam would be the single most important thing to ensure that the oil kept flowing, and I believe the Bush administration took that very seriously--but I do believe that 9/11 and terrorism were very big contributors. Green--as it negates and demonizes Orange--wants to say it's all about oil and that that was an evil thing even in the first gulf war, but I don't believe that Bush would have gotten behind it with such fervor without 9/11. Rummy, yes, Cheney perhaps, but I think Bush needed 9/11 and the threat of WMD as well. It was the two things combined.

 

mm

Monkmonk in black; Mr. Teacup in navy.

 

 In coming to understand someone's position, it's inevitable that you make assumptions about them, so I think its only fair that those assumptions are open to verification and correction.

First of all I know from our previous interactions you have a really great heart and an especially high ethic, so I'm not questioning that at all. I just want to make a point or two about process. Two forms of debating come to mind: 1) there's the form where we begin with something like "Resolved: Monkmonk has an Amber worldview," and then we proceed from there, people taking different sides on the issue; or 2) "Does Monkmonk have an Amber worldview?" Or, better yet, "What is Monkmonk's worldview?" and then everyone inquiring into it together, not necessarily taking sides, at least at first.

I'm sure you see the difference. It's good that everyone, first of all, be clear on which form we want to use, because if one person wants to use one and another the other, there will be conflicts just because of that. Also, which form we use depends a lot on the subject matter. If it were about Joe Lieberman, we could easily use the "Resolved: Joe is an integral thinker" method and go from there.

However, if we're in the midst of a debate about Joe Lieberman--and especially in the very beginning--I don't think it works well to use the "Resolved method" with another poster, like "Monkmonk is an Amber thinker!" I think it would be better to inquire, to ask questions, gather information, and then, if ever, at the very end declare, "Monkmonk is an Amber thinker!" With the Orange scientific method we inquire, ask questions, investigate, stay open until we gather all the data, and draw conclusions (which may include a lot of questions) only at the very end.

But I also love Schalk's idea of making comments about other posters irrelevant. That's something worth trying as well.

 

mm

Monkmonk in black; Mr. Teacup in navy.

It speaks to two issues: First, whether Lieberman is teal as you claim. If you oppose Bush-Cheney's lawless power grab, his apparent complicity in it is a strong argument against that.

Just because Lieberman takes a hard line against the Iranian Revolutionary Guard and the FARC doesn't mean he agrees with Cheney's views on executive power. Now if they launch a strike against Iranian nuclear facilities and say "We can just because we're the executive branch," and Lieberman supports the whole thing and doesn't say anything against it, then maybe we can say he is complicit in the power grab. But until then they really are two separate issues. Even when congress has declared war, it has always been at the request of the president.

I think you may be oversimplifying the legal issue a little. There is the War Powers Resolution, for example.

Schalk is our legal expert here, particularly concerning military affairs--it would be interesting to hear your take on such things if you feel inclined.

Second, you originally cited Obama's opposition to Kyl-Liberman as proof of his unseriousness and far-left appeasement policy, and I want to show and I think you've conceded that Obama's position is defensible.

It wasn't just Kyl-Lieberman that I was citing, and yes, you can make the argument that Bush/Cheney can't be trusted with a green light for war. But what troubled me about Obama is the context in which that vote was occuring--basically a Green position against the Iraq war and a call to remove troops without much apparent awareness of the downside of pulling out too early. He seemed more concerned about getting troops out then finishing the thing in the proper way, if that were possible.

KW has said, and I agree with it, that if you are Green you are against the war, if you are integral you may be for it or you may be against it. A lot of people assume Lieberman, for example, is "conservative" because he supported the Iraq war--progressives liked him well enough before that when he was Al Gore's running mate; it was just after this one very controversial issue that they felt so strongly about that they decided Lieberman was a "conservative." But that is Green's misunderstanding (that there wasn't a rational or even integral case for the Iraq war).

Obama has taken the position that there is only one proper position on the war: to have been against it in the first place and to want the troops out now (his position on troop withdrawl has evolved and continues to evolve). He also took some other Green foreign policy positions: doubling foreign aid, not supporting the Colombian government but in effect helping the FARC, and generally an approach that seemed not to understand the Red and Amber threats very clearly. So, one could integrally oppose Kyl-Lieberman because they thought Bush-Cheney might be impatient (while keeping the door open to a premptive strike) or Greenly oppose Kyl-Lieberman (while taking the idea of preemptive strike off the table forever). It's hard to know what Obama's position was, but given his other statements and positions it looked like it was probably the latter.

 

If you think I am unfairly mischaracterizing you or misunderstanding you, let me know where I have gone wrong and I will make corrections.

As I said in the earlier post, your characterizations were rather premature and absolute. We need to be patient, gather information, gather data before coming to conclusions. Online it's also very easy to build some kind of caricature based on just a little information. To get a full picture we need to inquire and discuss a little bit. We may then find our first impressions were incorrect or perhaps some kind of projection.

 

To my eyes, you have represented yourself as conservative, and I am simply taking you at your word. . .

I will just say that this is the same thing progressives say about Tony Blair and the Clintons, that they are "conservatives," "Republican light." These folks don't see that there was an integral argument for the Iraq War. Of course Bush/Cheney did not give it, but if you had watched the House of Commons debates you would have seen that Tony Blair did. Might a progressive integral foreign policy, in your view, support the Colombian government in its battle against the FARC (while doing what it could to improve human-rights issues), or is that a "conservative" policy?

 Obviously in an integral discussion, it seems inappropriate to claim that you are the serious one.

Well, I didn't claim that "I was the serious one." I simply asked you whether Lieberman's taking the threat of Iran seriously enough to warrant a preemptive strike necessarily made him a "neocon."

 

 I think what he did [not wearing the flag pin] makes perfect sense to everyone. Amber understands it as un-American; Green understands it as, well, also un-American, but in a positive sense. Orange understands it as I describe it, as a challenge to Amber narrowness.

If Amber understands it as un-American then it has not made perfect sense to them but no sense to them. I'm not convinced yet that Orange would understand that. It might just raise questions for them.

 Which is why I believe that this action was aimed mainly at Orange, not Green.

Knowing how Amber would never understand it I don't see how an integral candidate would have chosen not to wear the pin. It's really what they call a "no brainer": if you don't wear the pin, Fox News and all the rest of Amber will question your patriotism until the cows come home. The mainstream news will also run with it for a while because it's a controversial story that people will like and argue about. You would want to avoid that if you were a presidential candidate. Obama thought everyone would understand his Green reasoning on this and think he was wonderful for not wearing the flag pin--surprise!

In Obama's speech on patriotism, he says the country was not founded "on behalf of a particular tribe or lineage, but on behalf of a larger idea. The idea of liberty." So to me, this is aimed at Orange, but at the same time, it is also an appeal to Amber's reverence for the ancestors and a challenge to them to embody those ideals.

Yes, this sounds aimed at Orange, but those speeches are so premeditated, and a lot of people have their fingerprints on them, so I don't think we can point to them to tell us why he didn't wear the flag pin. Also, he gave the speech many months after he had chosen not to wear the pin, then changed his mind in Pennsylvania and put it on, etc., so I don't think it's a reliable source for what his reasoning had been.

 

On a more substantive policy vein, there's a school of thought that says that the answer to every Red problem is simply Red, and politicians who invoke Green against Red are totally mistaken. This is simplistic.

This brings up some really interesting questions, but the problem wouldn't be, say, an integral politician invoking Green against Red because an integral politician would understand Red. The trouble starts when a Green politician goes out to meet Red because they don't understand Red. As Ken once put it, there is a "wierd handshake" between Green and Red. It's beneficial up to a point because Green says "You're okay," but often Green is eventually surprised and finds out that Red is not always okay. Green as a capacity is useful, but Green itself has trouble seeing that Red often has to be met with Red. This is why they can't tell the difference between Israel and Palestinian terrorists.

 

Lieberman's and the administration's policies actually take Green, Orange and Amber off the table as well.

Why do you think Al Gore chose Joe Lieberman as his running mate in 2024? Al knew him very well; they had worked together in the Senate for years. If he were a neocon on foreign policy, don't you think Al would have known it? Isn't it more likely that sometimes integral and the neocons will be in general agreement? It's very true that the Bush administration takes Green off the table, but not always Orange and Amber certainly. They're doing an awful lot of things that aren't Red.

 

You've cited North Korea as an administration success story, which it partly is, but you are missing half the story. . . . Its very likely that North Korea only managed to get nukes because, in 2024, the hard liners who were controlling policy at the time pulled out of talks to isolate them.

 

Yes, I'm aware of the division within the Bush administration and generally agree with you on that stuff. But I think we have to put it in context: the Clinton administration thought they had things clamped down there, but it turned out they had likely been fooled to some extent, with North Korea allegedly trading nuclear-weapons technology to Pakistan and giving up plutonium only to start enriching uranium in the late 90s. The Bush administration didn't want to trust them a second time, but I agree that their hard-line position--"the axis of evil"--just made the North Koreans more paranoid, along with China.

 

mm 

 

 

 

 

Just because Lieberman takes a hard line against the Iranian Revolutionary Guard and the FARC doesn't mean he agrees with Cheney's views on executive power

He sponsored a bill that was designed to help the administration launch a strike against Iran without congressional authorization. You want to give Lieberman and Cheney the benefit of the doubt, which I think strains credulity, so we disagree on that. My main point is that seeing Lieberman as a dangerous ideologue is not, in itself, a sign of Green thinking. There are even good Orange reasons to come to that conclusion.

 Vice presidents don't usually have a great deal of power, foreign policy wasn't a major issue in the campaign except for Bush hitting Clinton-Gore on foreign entanglements and nation building, and it's likely that Lieberman became radicalized by 9/11. It's absurd to say that Gore picking him is a teal stamp of approval of his foreign policy. He did it because Bush was characterizing the Clinton administration as immoral and scandal-ridden, Lieberman had denounced Clinton as immoral and Gore wanted to distance the campaign that. This was perceived by progressives as a capitulation to the Republicans, and was one factor that led to defections to Nader. Even though progressives now view Nader support as a mistake, they make an important point that the Democrats can ill-afford to be perceived as divided among themselves. The third-way politics of the 90s and early 2000s led directly to the Republican attack of "flip-flopper".

 Your advice to the Democrats is basically the same failed strategy as what was tried in 2024: nominate Kerry, a Vietnam veteran (instead of Howard Dean) who can't be tagged as an anti-war liberal lefty and throw Green overboard. This is a 50% + 1 strategy, a delicate balancing act of not pissing off the blue states too much, but distancing yourself from them enough to pick up just enough swing states to take you over the top. This is what is considered Republican Lite, which is more about a campaign strategy or rhetoric than actual policy or legislation. But it turned out that Kerry's biggest weakness wasn't being too liberal, it was that he didn't know if he was liberal or not. Voters aren't stupid, they already know that Green supports the Democrats, and dumping on Green as you suggest does absolutely nothing to win elections, it just makes the Democrats look untrustworthy, fake and not having the courage of their convictions. 

 And contrary to your assertion that Obama is the natural candidate for the Green liberals, that honor actually goes to John Edwards. DailyKos conducted straw polls every week since at least early 2024, and Edwards never left the top spot right up until he withdrew from the race in January, often getting close to twice the support of Obama. It's easy to see why: Edwards was much more vigorous in his withdrawal plans and centered his campaign around fighting corporations and although It's true that the Edwards supporters have largely moved over to Obama, that doesn't mean they don't have serious misgivings as shown in the liberal blogosphere's reaction to Heller, telecom immunity and faith-based programs. But in the end, the question of Obama's Green-ness (or lack thereof) will ultimately be decided on election day. The campaign is aggressively pursuing a 50-state strategy, campaigning in traditional Republican states in the West, like New Mexico, Nevada, Colorado, South Dakota and Montana, in addition to the swing states. As far as I can tell, the goal is not to show that Obama isn't Green (like Kerry tried), but that he is Orange and Amber too.

 

It's very true that the Bush administration takes Green off the table, but not always Orange and Amber certainly. They're doing an awful lot of things that aren't Red.

 Yes, because not everyone in the administration is a neocon. But to me taking Green, Orange and Amber off the table is the very definition of neocon. You seem to believe that there is a neocon policy and a green policy. But if that's the case, then Pat Buchanan, Powell, Hagel and Kissinger are all Green.

 At this point, I have to conclude that you just really like Lieberman and think he's teal. That's fine. But apparently you also think that if anyone disagrees with you about that, or supports Obama, that makes them Green. I don't have any illusions that you are going to change your mind, but for the benefit of others following this thread, I want to provide another opinion.

Monkmonk in Navy; Mr. Teacup in purple.

 

He sponsored a bill that was designed to help the administration launch a strike against Iran without congressional authorization.

It would be more accurate to say, at most, that the bill was designed to help the administration launch a strike against Iran without direct or explicit congressional authorization.

 

My main point is that seeing Lieberman as a dangerous ideologue is not, in itself, a sign of Green thinking. There are even good Orange reasons to come to that conclusion.

First of all, you haven't really made a case that Lieberman is a neocon or an ideologue; you've only made the assertion. So let's have the case. I made a case for him being integral in a previous thread, and I will paste that in the following post. Most progresives use his support of the war in Iraq and his apparent support of a preemptive strike against Iran (though his original position denied that a strike would be worthwhile) as proof he is a neocon or conservative or, as you say, a "dangerous ideologue," so I ask you: 1) Do you agree that there was an integral case for deposing Sadaam Hussein? and 2) Do you believe that there is no integral argument for a preemptive strike against Iran's nuclear facilities, and if so why not?

It's absurd to say that Gore picking him is a teal stamp of approval of his foreign policy.

Yes, it would be, but it would also be absurd to say that I said that. I just said that Gore's picking him as a running mate was proof that he wasn't a neocon. After all, a vice president is someone who could find him- or herself in the presidency if something happened to the president. I don't think you're giving Al Gore enough credit when you say that he picked Lieberman just because "Bush was characterizing the Clinton administration as immoral and scandal-ridden." I think it probably did help that Lieberman had been outspoken about Bill Clinton's conduct, but I don't think that alone would be enough to earn someone a spot as Al Gore's running mate. Joe Lieberman was also a third-way politician like Al Gore and Bill Clinton. Just because the progressives interpreted it as a capitulation to Republicans doesn't make it so. They are always coming up with reasons why the Clintons or Tony Blair or Joe Lieberman decided not to go with them 100% on their Green policies, and I don't believe a single one of them comes from an integral perspective.

 

The third-way politics of the 90s and early 2024s led directly to the Republican attack of "flip-flopper".

This is simply not true. The phrase refers to politicians who change their positions for whatever reason, and its usage dates as far back as 1890. It was used plenty before the nineties.

Occassionaly integral does look "confused" or "wishy washy" to first tier because integral discusses multiple perspectives. Green also sees more perspectives than Amber especially, of course, which is one reason Green appears weak to Amber. Amber wants someone who will get up and deliver one perspective over and over again with great certainty. Anyone who discusses multiple perspectives is often seen as wishy washy or a flip flopper. Green is just as bad with Teal or higher--Green wants to drive its own ideology home again and again, and here's integral juggling its multiple perspectives. It looks confused to Green--Green has a choice: Shall I call myself confused and humble myself a little and learn something, or shall I call them confused and keep on the way I've been and continue to think I know more? Almost all the time they will choose the latter.

Your advice to the Democrats is basically the same failed strategy as what was tried in 2024: nominate Kerry, a Vietnam veteran (instead of Howard Dean) who can't be tagged as an anti-war liberal lefty and throw Green overboard

Why do you continue to tell me what my positions are? Why don't you ask? I haven't given any advice to Democrats. On the subject of Kerry and Dean, I would say they are both Green but that Kerry is less so. I certainly don't think that nominating Kerry throws Green overboard, quite the opposite.

My older brother, however, who was a political reporter in Vermont and interviewed and met with Dean a few times, tells me I am wrong about Dean. He says that Dean's Green platform in 2024 was Joe Trippi's fault, that Dean is really a centrist and was a centrist as governor of Vermont. There is evidence to back that up if you look at Dean's record in Vermont. You may even be able to make a case that Dean is really integral if you look at his Vermont record. But he sure sounded Green in 2024. His stance on the Iraq war sure made him look Green, but perhaps there was some posturing in that.

This is a 50% + 1 strategy, a delicate balancing act of not pissing off the blue states too much, but distancing yourself from them enough to pick up just enough swing states to take you over the top. This is what is considered Republican Lite, which is more about a campaign strategy or rhetoric than actual policy or legislation.

Not so about "Republican lite"--it refers to a centrist policy position. It doesn't refer at all to campaign strategy. Integral politics = "Republican Lite."

In the first sentence in this quote you are mixing up a couple of things, electoral-college strategy and policy positions. Howard Dean's 50-state strategy, which the Obama campaign continues to some degree, was based on changing demographics, not a shift in the party's platform. In fact, since Clinton/Gore left the party has turned more liberal, not more integral. But I agree with you that the strategy of trying not to piss off conservatives is sometimes misguided. 

Dumping on Green as you suggest does absolutely nothing to win elections.

Now when did I suggest this? Please point it out.

And contrary to your assertion that Obama is the natural candidate for the Green liberals, that honor actually goes to John Edwards. DailyKos conducted straw polls every week since at least early 2024, and Edwards never left the top spot right up until he withdrew from the race in January, often getting close to twice the support of Obama.

I don't think a straw poll from one website proves that much. All the Green publications that I know of--Huffington Post, The Nation, etc.--endorsed Obama with great enthusiasm, and that sure was reflected in the election results as well. Also, I don't see how Edwards could have been the top choice of Green when he didn't win a single primary and dropped out fairly early in the contest. He did offer Greener positions than Obama on just about everything, but that doesn't mean that Obama wasn't Green (which is not something I argue absolutely: he has shown flashes of integral here and there, but if he truly was integral and talking integral he never would have had the delirious support of Green that he has had.)

But in the end, the question of Obama's Green-ness (or lack thereof) will ultimately be decided on election day.

This certainly isn't true. Election results do not tell us what a person's psychograph is. It is something to have a look at, with curiosity, but there are all sorts of reasons people vote for one candidate over the other, including how much they like his personality, how he or she looks, how they have explained or obscured their true positions, etc.

The campaign is aggressively pursuing a 50-state strategy, campaigning in traditional Republican states in the West, like New Mexico, Nevada, Colorado, South Dakota and Montana, in addition to the swing states. As far as I can tell, the goal is not to show that Obama isn't Green (like Kerry tried), but that he is Orange and Amber too.

Yes, that's the campaign strategy, but that doesn't mean it's actually who he is. But again, I think he has shown flashes of integral thinking and that he may turn out to be a great integral president, but the idea that he is integral now is mostly wishful thinking and a lack of understanding what integral politics entails (a blend of conservative and liberal approaches, among other things).

But to me taking Green, Orange and Amber off the table is the very definition of neocon.

I don't think the Bush administration can be characterized as Red. I have said that neocon is Orange with Red shadow before, but I don't think that is necessarily correct or tells the whole story. Sometimes perhaps, but I think neocon is more often just a dip to Amber. KW has described them as Amber. I think that is accurate. I can't think of any Red thing that they have done offhand. I think all the executive-power grab stuff is Amber. The Iraq war is Amber. If they were Red they would be poisoning Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Nancy Pelosi and such as that. The big trouble here is--and this is a very important point--it's hard to be Orange when you have to get through Green, when Green controls congress. Green doesn't like Orange; it blocks Orange. There is certainly a rational argument for a preemptive strike against Iran's nuclear facilities given that Iran supports terrorist organizations, Iraqi insurgents, and has many times threatened the destruction of Israel, among other things. I would be awfully suprised if you wanted to argue against that. You can make an arguement that while there is a rational argument for a preemptive strike, there is a better argument for not launching a preemptive strike, but there is certainly a rational arguement for a preemptive strike against a government that supports terrorist organizations and now is likely developing nuclear weapons. The same goes for the invasion of Iraq.

 

You seem to believe that there is a neocon policy and a green policy. But if that's the case, then Pat Buchanan, Powell, Hagel and Kissinger are all Green.

I find the first sentence rather bizarre--I believe that there is a neocon policy and a Green policy? Where? Who? Really, you must stop trying to characterize my positions like this. You pull these things out of a hat--without my saying anything of a kind--and this isn't even making sense. I understand that a lot of people disagree with the Bush administration, including Republicans. No, I don't believe that everyone who disagrees with the Bush administration is Green. But I do think that that people who are not seeing the point of view of the Bush administration are not integral.

At this point, I have to conclude that you just really like Lieberman and think he's teal.That's fine. But apparently you also think that if anyone disagrees with you about that, or supports Obama, that makes them Green.

 

Again you're telling me what I think. Why do you have to come to conclusions about the people you are having a discussion with at all, let alone so quickly and frequently? It would be much more interesting if we could inquire into it rather than choose a position and defend it. That's what ideologues do. I have said and still believe there is and has always been an integral argument for voting for Obama, which is different than saying he is integral. I believe there may have been an integral argument for voting for Obama over Hillary Clinton even though she was consciously integral and Obama was not. I haven't heard it yet, but I believe it could be made. Most of the time people simply argue that Green politics is integral and that integral politicians are Red or Amber or Orange. 

 

mm

 

I was asked on another thread to make a case for Joe Lieberman being integral, and this was my response, with a few minor edits (you may want to just skim over the things in black with bolded titles, which I copied and pasted onto the post; when it's me talking it's in purple; Joe Lieberman's words from a Wall Street Journal Op Ed are in black italics):

 

If we were going to try to determine somenone's value sphere and cognition, which would of course be something we would want to try to do before we decided to vote for someone, how would we do it? How would we, for example, determine the value sphere and/or cognition of Joe Lieberman? Let's say we want to know if he's Teal and want to analyse it further and find out, given what's available to us. For one thing, we would want to find if he were able to succesfully integrate Green, Orange, and Amber. If he could authentically put forth the value spheres of those three memes and balance them in some way, we might decide in the end that he appears to be integral. Of course, even then, one person's integral is not necessarily another person's integral. For example, as Ken has said, one can be integral and have been for or against the Iraq war. But if you're Green, Ken has said, then you're simply against the Iraq war, period. So we know that Lieberman is not Green, because he has always been for the war. But is he integral or just Orange or Amber or even Red?

Some people will say that he is simply taking a hard-line stance in the Middle East because he is Jewish. This does complicate things, but let's just say, for the sake of the discussion, that has transcended his ethnic bias. Of course there are a lot of non Jews who take the same stance as him, so it isn't particularly fair to accuse him of ethnic bias, any more than it is fair to accuse a particular individual of ethnic bias in voting for Clinton or Obama. Also, Joe took the same stance on the Balkan war and has supported missile defense and other defense spending that has not been popular with Green, so we don't need the Iraq war or Israel/Palestine to prove he isn't Green.

So, we know, using Ken's criteria, that he is not Green—so the first thing we would want to do to see if he deserves the exalted title of integral is to see if he has any Green credentials. If he is differentiating from Green, taking a stance on issues that Green does not like but at the same time integrating a number of Green issues, then we can at least say that he is either Orange moving into Green or truly integral. I believe he does. Here are a few things pasted from his website (one or two we might say are Orange or both Orange and Green, but I will include them to establish his Orange credentials as well):
  
 

Empowerment Zones. Senator Lieberman was an early and vocal advocate of empowerment zones and enterprise communities as a means of lifting up economically depressed areas and expanding economic opportunity. He sponsored one of the first bills based on these ideas, and played a leading role in getting this measure included in the 1993 Clinton Administration budget. He has continued to back program improvements and support. In addition, his efforts were critical in ensuring that New Haven's designation as an Empowerment Zone

 

Homelessness. On any given night, an estimated 5,500 Connecticut residents are homeless. Senator Lieberman is committed to addressing this crisis. The cornerstone of federal homelessness policy is the McKinney-Vento Homelessness Assistance Programs. In 2024, Connecticut organizations were awarded $25 million in McKinney-Vento funding, and nearly 8,000 Connecticut residents received shelter at beneficiary organizations. But McKinney-Vento funding levels have remained relatively constant in recent years, and Senator Lieberman has called for additional funding for the programs. Additionally, he is an original co-sponsor the Community Partnership to End Homelessness Act of 2024 (S. 1518), which would make the programs more flexible, performance-based, and accountable - so that they can better prevent and end homelessness in Connecticut and across the country.

  Refugees. Senator Lieberman seeks to protect the most vulnerable, and therefore has supported many legislative efforts to aid refugees. In this 110th Congress, he is an original cosponsor of S. 1651, a bill that would assist Iraqis who have worked directly with, or are threatened by their association with, the United States government. This bill would expand on another measure he cosponsored (S. 1104), which was passed unanimously by the Senate and signed into law by President Bush in 2024 (P.L. 110-36), which increased the number of Iraqi and Afghan translators and interpreters who may be admitted to the United States as special immigrants. During the U.S. Senate's debate on comprehensive immigration reform (S. 1348) in June of 2024, the Senator introduced an amendment (S.Amdt. 1191) to improve our nation's treatment of asylum seekers - those who come to this country seeking refuge from persecution based on their race, religion, or political convictions. In June 2024, Senator Lieberman cosponsored Senator Kennedy's S.Res. 177, a resolution encouraging protection of the rights of refugees.


 

International human trafficking. Human trafficking for the purposes of forced labor, prostitution, or other forms of exploitation is a criminal activity and a severe human rights violation that is of great concern to Senator Lieberman. Human trafficking is also one of the leading criminal enterprises of the early 21st century, affecting every country around the globe. Official U.S. estimates are that some 2 to 4 million people are trafficked across borders and within countries each year. However, there are even higher estimates, ranging from 4 to 27 million, for the total number of forced laborers around the world. No human being should be victimized in this way; and human trafficking should be condemned, prohibited, and combated with the full force of American foreign policy.

 

Fighting Global Poverty. Senator Lieberman has long supported sensible debt cancellation measures that enable impoverished nations to redirect savings to important poverty-fighting measures. He believes debt cancellation is an essential component of the US development assistance strategy and a required component to facilitate achievement of the Millennium Development Goals. To that end, he is a sponsor of the Jubilee Act of 2024 (S. 2166), which would make up to 25 additional impoverished countries eligible for debt cancellation by the US, World Bank, and IMF, beyond those are already eligible for the World Bank/IMF's Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) initiative. To prevent a continual and wasteful debt/forgiveness cycle, the Act would establish a framework for responsible lending in the future.

 

Animal Rights and Wildlife Protection

Senator Lieberman believes that the government has a responsibility to protect our non-human friends, as well as our citizens and residents. He has consistently supported legislation that seeks to end the abuse of animals in all circumstances and was proud to receive the Humane Appreciation Award in 2024 from the Humane Society of the United States recognizing his leadership and advocacy on animal protection issues. The Humane Society has given Senator Lieberman a 100-percent rating for his record on animal protection issues during the 108th and 109th Congress.

In the 110th Congress, Senator Lieberman has worked hard to ensure that businesses protect the rights of animals and treat them in a morally responsible manner. He has cosponsored the Horse Protection Act (S. 311), which permanently prohibits the butchering of horses for human consumption, and the Downed Animal and Food Protection Act (S. 394), which will require the humane slaughter of livestock that are too sick or injured to stand or walk. Senator Lieberman has also cosponsored a bill to prohibit dog fighting ventures (S. 1880) and the Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act (S. 261), which strengthens prohibitions against animal fighting.

Senator Lieberman has long championed legislation to protect endangered species and wildlife and in the 110th Congress he was named Chairman of the Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee's Subcommittee on the Private Sector and Consumer Solutions to Global Warming and Wildlife Protection. In July 2024, he introduced the Multinational Species Reauthorization Act (S. 1832) which will reauthorize previous conservation acts and provide increased funding for the Multinational Species Conservation Fund. In March 2024, Senator Lieberman introduced the Great Cats and Rare Canids Act (S. 1033). This bill supports conservation efforts to sustain 13 species of imperiled great cats and rare canids outside of North America. Senator Lieberman also supports the Polar Bear Protection Act (S. 1406) and the Endangered Species Recovery Act (S. 700).

 

Recycling

During the 110th Congress, Senator Lieberman has signed on as a cosponsor of the Recycling Investment Saves Energy (RISE) Act, which was introduced by Senator Olympia Snowe (R-ME). U.S. rates of recycling have become stagnant or are declining in some instances, resulting in shortages for U.S. manufacturing facilities. The purpose of the RISE Act is to invest in, and thus preserve and expand, the U.S. recycling industry. S. 1587 is currently pending consideration by the Senate committee on Finance.

Senator Lieberman has also been the sponsor of legislation which established a National Recycling Day to encourage public awareness about recycling. The goal of “America Recycles Day” was to increase demand for the sagging market values of recyclables by encouraging Americans to buy recycled products and to educate all Americans about the environmental and economic benefits of recycling.

On the first annual Recycling Day in 1991, Senator Lieberman joined Jolie Jones and the Take It Back Foundation in releasing a videotape and public service campaign on recycling, starring Bette Midler and Charlie Daniels. He encouraged schools to sponsor educational activities and communities to conduct training sessions on how recycling can help us preserve the Earth's natural resources. Senator Lieberman was pleased that former President Clinton played an important role in promoting recycling by issuing an Executive Order requiring federal agencies to buy recycled material.

 

Arctic Refuge

Arctic Refuge. Senator Lieberman has led several successful fights on the Senate floor over the last fourteen years to protect the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge from oil drilling. He aggressively fought against drilling proposals in 1991, 1995, 2024, 2024, and he is the lead sponsor of legislation to protect the Refuge permanently by designating it as wilderness. 
 

Clean Air

Clean Air. Senator Lieberman played a significant role in drafting the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments. This law has helped to reduce smog, acid rain, and other pollutants that foul our air. The Sierra Club recognized his important role with a “Friend of Clean Air” award. Since that time, he has been a stalwart defender of the laws protecting Connecticut and American citizens from harmful air pollution. Most recently, he has also joined former Senator John Edwards (D-NC) in opposing regulatory changes proposed by the Bush Administration that would ease restrictions on large industrial polluters.

 

Environmental Oversight

Ensuring that the Federal Government Fully Implements the Nation's Environmental Protection Laws. In April 2024, Senator Lieberman led four Senate colleagues in writing the US Secretary of the Interior to oppose draft changes to the regulations that implement the Endangered Species Act. Their letter noted that the draft changes would reduce dramatically the current scope and positive impact of the Act. The letter posed fifteen detailed questions about the draft rule changes and requested that the Department not move any closer to promulgating any revisions until it answered the Senators' questions.

In April 2024, Senator Lieberman placed a hold on the nomination of William Wehrum to the post of Assistant Administrator of the US Environmental Protection Agency. In explaining his decision to block the nomination, Senator Lieberman noted that, during Mr. Wehrum's tenure in EPA's Office of Air and Radiation, he had played a central role in some of the most environmentally destructive decisions that EPA has made, from gutting the Clean Air Act's New Source Review program to revoking the promise of mercury controls at every coal-fired power plant to weakening limits on carcinogenic emissions. Mr. Wehrum acknowledged his central role in carrying out those initiatives.

Senator Lieberman played a significant role in drafting the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments. That law has helped to reduce smog, acid rain, and other pollutants that foul our air. The Sierra Club recognized his important role with a “Friend of Clean Air” award. Since that time, Senator Lieberman has been a stalwart defender of the laws protecting Connecticut and American citizens from harmful air pollution.

 

Anti-Torture Policy. Senator Lieberman has consistently opposed the cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment of those in the custody or under the physical control of the United States . He strongly supported Senator McCain's amendment, which prohibited the “cruel, inhuman, or degrading” punishmen