I can’t help but notice that a lot (if not most) people in integral circles
are rooting for Barack Obama. No surprise there. Obama is a charismatic
politician with a sharp wit and oratorical flare which sets him apart
from the rest of the other candidates. However, what I also notice is
that aside from Obama’s character traits mentioned above, I have yet to
see integrally-aware peeps make convincing arguments and analysis of
Obama’s policies and political history on why he’s better than say,
John Edwards, or Hillary Clinton.
In short, I’m disappointed that most people on the integral camp seem
to buy Obama’s rhetoric hook, line, and sinker, while the rest seem to
be contented to be aloof fence sitters (i.e. unwilling to talk about
politics, or simply choosing to be silent on this election). As a
result, I benefited more from science bloggers and technologists for
informing me of the crucial issues and for doing the necessary
political analysis.
Case in point: See Steve Kirsch’s essay, "Who would make the best President". And as one conscientious science blogger had put it:
"Obamamania reminds me of Deanomania
from four years ago – what is important to the young-uns is the
excitement of being a part of the revolution, not the understanding of
political landscape, electoral politics, economics, or even where the
candidate even stands on these things. That generation is four years
older and wiser now (and hugely in the Edwards camp this time around).
But the new kids are naive and went for the wrong guy again."
Ok, for the sake of argument, assuming that Obama is an "integral" thinker (as some people suggest) due to his non-partisan rhetoric and "Yes we can" mantra, my question is:
Is
the current political climate in the U.S. conducive to such a type of
integral leadership? Is non-partisan politics the best solution in our
current situation?
Well, according to Lambert Strether, a "food fight" is exactly what we need (i.e. a more confrontational and strong partisan leadership like Edwards or Clinton.)
"Obama presents himself as post-partisan, but partisan politics are needed.
The "food fight," obviously a partisan food fight, is purest
Equivalation. The Democrats didn’t break the world record for
filibusters when they were in the minority; but the Republicans just
did."
"Obama wants to "reach out," but that strategy has already been tried.
Obama says he wants to "reach out" to Republicans. But Reid and Pelosi
"reached out" to Republicans, and that strategy was a miserable failure."
"Obama presents himself as unifying, but accountability is what’s needed"
"Obama presents himself as a change agent, but weakens the forces that bring about change.
You can’t win mandate with a content-free platform, and conflict-free
is content-free. And if there’s no mandate for change, then there’s no
change."
This post is not meant as a put down on Obama. I like the guy too. My
intention here is to inquire why integrally-informed people (or at
least those whom I’m aware of) flock to Obama instead of Edwards or
Clinton. Due to the absence of political analysis coming from an
integral perspective, I suspect that integrally-aware people (present
company included) are no different than average voters in terms of
political awareness. They pick a candidate based on intuition (or worse based on corporate media exposure) then use integral lingo in rationalizing their choice.
(Note: If you’re integrally-informed and you’re still rooting
for a Republican (in this election), I question your judgment and political awareness. But
feel free to justify your choice. We’re in a democracy here. I accept
the possibility that my reasoning is flawed. And so should you 
)
Comments (3)
To begin, policies aren’t isolates, they come in swarms. And policies shouldn’t be impositions they should be solutions.
So, as you seem to come to agree, analyses of policy positions is not the end-all. The reasoning and spirit that promotes policies is vital at getting things done in the first place and in getting things done that are meant to aid the whole of the nation and not just part of plot where one segment tries to rip off another segment.
Obama isn’t another Howard Dean, bless him. Dean caught fire first for his willingness to blast Bush. While Obama is not a wimpy pacifist [not that there is anything wrong with wimpy pacifists, mind you, except that they would be eaten alive in NFL politics.], his impulse is not to launch ‘first strike’ attacks against opponents, but to search for the truth of things.
Obama is definitely operating from a ‘higher plain’ in the politicosphere. This is his background and the spirit of his life, what we know of it.
The guy’s fluffy as hell. I have no doubt that he feels others’ pain. But unlike the Clintons whose extreme ambition often results in ‘feeling others’ pain’ as performance art, Obama is always authentic.
I’m not nearly expert enough in matters Integral to measure the integro-harmonics in every Obama pronouncement, but his openness — even to the point of saying something about Reagan without his guard up to prevent what he said from being intentionally misconstrued — is evidence of spiritual maturity, in my humble estimation.
Obama is not a poseur, he is fluffomatized down to his marrow.
Yes we can … believe it.
hey Tom,
good to see you chiming in on this.
you said: “Obama is definitely operating from a ‘higher plain’ in the politicosphere. This is his background and the spirit of his life, what we know of it.”
you may be right. and judging by Obamas rhetorics, he seem to operate from a post-partisan politics. but the proof will be in the pudding. so i will withhold my judgment until we see him in action as President (should he win the election). but my other point is: is the Obama post-partisan politics the kind of politics we need at this current state of U.S. politics? the Daily Kos article i linked to argues that it’s not — it’s food fight that we need at this time.
and here’s another argument: people flock to Obama looking for a transformative leadership. but this Open Left article put it very succinctly, Transformative Leadership: It’s NOT the Charisma, Stupid!
and finally, my other point is this: Ignore the rhetoric and follow the money
~C
Integral consciousness matters. What’s probably more important to me is to have a smart, articulate president, and Obama, Clinton, and Edwards all have those qualities. The reason for voting for Obama is that he is black, as well as smart and articulate, and what a wonderful, water-shed moment in American history THAT would bring!