While I'm all for applying integral theory to socio-political activism, heretofore sorely neglected and urgently needed, I'm still a bit leery. I listened to the 1st 6 minutes of their video intro and Phipps was past editor of EnlightenNext, Cohen's magazine. And recall McIntosh's whole-hearted endorsement of Cohen's book on evolution. So from both Phipps and McIntosh I get a hyper altitude sickness feeling, much like we discussed in this thread. On top of that Mackey from Whole Foods and conscious capitalism are involved, so recall this thread. That's why I'm more apt to promote the likes of Rifkin for implementing integral socio-economics, as well as Arnsperger.
Their polarization plan is based on a false equivalency between Republican and Democrat. It fails from the outset because generally this is a huge difference between regressive and progressive, which are not equivalent. They note it is not the Democrat Party that is polarized but rather the radical left activists, who react to the ever more right leaning Republicans in terms of "combative tit-for-tat." True, most of the Dems are pretty blase and just as much under the thumb the corporate money. And true, the progressive left like me are vociferous in our war against the regressive GOP. But again, it is not a matter of an equal and opposite polarization; it is a different levels war.
Yes, war. You cannot reason with a raving lunatic bully; you must punch him in the face and beat him, as it is the only language they understand. If you compromise with one you immediately lose ground and will lose more and more from then on. Obama if anyone has learned that from trying to take the integral post-partisan bullshit seriously and losing at every step.
Now the paper is aware that the regressives are intent on creating polarization as their very lifeblood. But they quote people who say if you play their game by fighting them you lose, which is exactly wrong. Their game is to get you to compromise, thereby proving you are weak so they can take further advantage of you. It is amazing that those who espouse a higher consciousness cannot even understand this very basic psychology of bullies. I submit that their supposed higher consciousness, and its desire to take the 'high' road, is in fact exactly part of the regressive strategy they play into, as they know it weakens the progressive position and further strengthens their resolve to destroy it.
Their solution? Incorporate 'healthy' versions of each Party. Wrong. A healthy version of a lower level is again not equivalent to a healthy version of a higher level. What is a healthy version of slavery? Wage slaves? It seems the same ongoing confusion between basic and transitional structures discussed in this thread. We in no way should be "integrating and harmonizing the fundamental truths of each ideological camp." We should be transcending and replacing the ideology of the regressive camp and promoting further development of the progressive camp. And this replacement requires a fierce fighting spirit. Anything less will not do.
They claim their view is higher vertically, beyond left and right. But left and right are not on the same plane; left is the higher view. And their self-professed higher than progressive integral view is effete and as mentioned above plays right into the game plan of the regressives. Hence it is not higher at all but ironically caught at the same level in a master-save polarization. They are unconsciously playing out their slave part in buying into the false notion that it's more evolved to submit to ineffective 'concessions.' Obama is prime example number one and has tried everything they suggest and to what effect?
And by the way, the country itself is become much more progressive, attested to by polls on many specific issues, from gun background checks to marriage equality to immigration reform. One wonders if we should concede to partial racial equality, like separate but equal? No! We march forward and leave behind regressive views and polices of the past. And we fight to get their, even wage metaphorical war. Agreeing with Wilber, all war is not bad and some wars are not only worth fighting but must be fought and won.