Integral Politics
With Ken Wilber and Ron Paul on my mind lately, I’d like to present you with a post from Holons blog on why Barack Obama is the most Integral (Wilberian) candidate.
I was particularly interested in the “secular humanism” that the blog post mentioned. I couldn’t find anything regarding Mr. Obama’s spirituality on his official website, an unusual omission for a politician, but Wikipedia was there to help:
In Chapter 6 of the book, titled “Faith,” Obama writes that he “was not raised in a religious household.” He describes his mother, raised by non-religious parents, as detached from religion, yet “in many ways the most spiritually awakened person that I have ever known.” He describes his Kenyan father as “raised a Muslim,” but a “confirmed atheist” by the time his parents met, and his Indonesian stepfather as “a man who saw religion as not particularly useful.” The chapter details how Obama, in his twenties, while working with local churches as a community organizer, came to understand “the power of the African American religious tradition to spur social change.” Obama writes: “It was because of these newfound understandings—that religious commitment did not require me to suspend critical thinking, disengage from the battle for economic and social justice, or otherwise retreat from the world that I knew and loved—that I was finally able to walk down the aisle of Trinity United Church of Christ one day and be baptized.”
Again, I’m not exactly sure where secular humanism comes in, but it sounds like Mr. Obama came to his faith mindfully and from a background of varied spiritual experience. That’s always nice.
You can check out Ken Wilber speaking about Integral politics here. I enjoyed this video. Ken is kind of funny.
Good luck to all of the candidates today in New Hampshire. This was in no way intended as an endorsement for Barack Obama. My loyalties lie elsewhere.
Christopher Hitchens has an interesting comment on Obama’s religious identity in this article:
http://www.slate.com/id/2181460/
Sen. Obama is a congregant of a church in Chicago called Trinity United Church of Christ. I recommend that you take a brisk tour of its Web site. Run by the sort of character that the press often guardedly describes as “flamboyant”—a man calling himself the Rev. Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr.—this bizarre outfit describes itself as “Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian” and speaks of “a chosen people” whose nature we are allowed to assume is “Afrocentric.” Trinity United sells creationist books and its home page includes a graphic link to a thing called Goodsearch—the name is surmounted with a halo in its logo—which announces cheerily that “Every time you search or shop online! Our Church earns money.”
Thanks Laura! Here is the link to Trinity United: http://www.tucc.org/about.htm
I’m even more confused about the “secular humanist” thing now that I’ve checked out the website. Maybe Mr. Obama personally aligns with secular humanism?
I thought it was weird that there was no mention of religion on Mr. Obama’s website, but I can’t find one on Ms. Clinton’s either: http://www.hillaryclinton.com/about/
But I did find an article that talks about most of the candidates’ religions: http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/30/politics.religion.ap/index.html
Also this about Mr. Obama and racism: http://www.slate.com/id/2181585
I hadn’t realized Mr. Huckabee was an ordained Baptist minister.
They left our buddy Ron Paul out though. According to Wikipedia, he considered becoming a Lutheran but is now Baptist. Maybe he could go to Minister Huckabee’s church. Ha!
Hello Laura? Emily? - (not sure who the poster is)
As a student of Integral Theory (just completed the 1 year JFKU certificate program) and an amateur political activist, I was instantly drawn to Barack’s campaign (I actually have been advocating for him since the 2004 Democratic Convention). His message is transpersonal and sparks an inspirational note in many people. You may have noted that he rarely bashes Republicans (Bush yes… but not Repubs in general) and calls for a “new majority” which is an inclusive message. His message is also world-centric but he has (smartly) toned down this rhetoric on this front. Most Americans don’t want to hear that their candidate is worried about the health of the world over the health of the nation.
As to his religion, this is a curious note that my ultra-conservative uncle brought to my attention in the last few days. I think the original post does a good job of outlining one possible explanation. While Obama will not wear the african american cause on his sleeve… it would be political suicide to do so … it is one of many causes that he is using his influence to further. The Trinity church, I sense, has a message of leadership for the black community that Barack finds to be effective. Applying a Spiral Dynamics approach, you meet people where they are and couch the message in terms most effective for their filters… as long as you are encouraging HEALTHY development.
I’m curious about your “other loyalties” - as I agree that Obama is definitely the most integral candidate?
Thanks for the post (Thanks Jens for the link!)
- Skip
Skip,
Thanks for your perspective on things. I am a Ron Paul fan myself and haven’t paid much attention to the Democrats so I appreciate having hearing from someone who knows more about that side of things.
I will be bugging you soon for more info on JFK. Hope you don’t mind :)
I’m feeling compelled to post this: http://blog.pmarca.com/2008/01/ron-pauls-great.html
Very bad news. I’m very disappointed in Ron Paul. I don’t want to wear my button anymore.
Emily, can I ask how you feel about the newsletters now? I mean no-one actually ever dared accuse Ron Paul himself of being rascist, it just wouldn’t stick on the guy. He has certainly associated with a lot of interesting characters, all the more reason to judge the man on what we can find in depth and not just dismiss from appearances.
And now that Ron has been proven correct, nay even prophetic, on so many economic issues (the ost recent being the nationalisation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac), I am especially curious to hear more about what I-I comes up with in terms of an Integral Economics. I think those guys will find that this one will be a bit more challenging than putting different psychological schools on the one map. It will be unavoidable to come to the conclusion that some economics schools of thought are simply disasterously superficial and short-sighted compared to others, and only one school (the Austrian one Ron has studied in depth) remembers that economic value is actually SUBJECTIVE and based ultimately on individual preferences - a very good start in terms of Integral.