Who is more evil: Clinton or Trump?

Anyone that is voting third party or Bernie or Bust supporters will agree with me on these two statements about Trump and Clinton:

Both are 1% candidates;

Both are pathological.

They say politics is like fantasy sports for nerds.  It is simply a waste of time to debate politics like we have before. There is a reason they say to never discuss politics and religion at parties. One rarely converts the other with information. Why? My argument would be this: there are higher and lower levels of human consciousness. All of us are born on the bottom level and, as we develop, we have the potential to increase our depth by being expanding our level of care to others. The more developed we are the more we have expanded our level of care. If your level of development is for example, Christian only or Muslim only, then your worldview is at a certain level of consciousness. A higher level of care would transcend religious boundaries (race, gender, sexual orientation) and recognize that I should care for you because you are human.

 Anyone that has ever attempted to convince another person that their point of view is higher than theirs will recall the experience similarly to the old physics paradox: what happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object? Think of a parent trying to convince their teenage child of “the ways of the world”. Or a Red Sox fan trying to convince a Yankees fan that their team is better. The argument is going to fall on deaf ears. The same can be said of politics: You are basically advocating for where you are in your development.

This is the only viable framework that I have come across that can adequately describe politics in a way in which you don’t want to reach across the table and strangle the other person.
I think it is no accident the media/networks take absolutely zero time to educate their viewers on this point of view.

For those of you who have never heard or read up on Ken Wilber’s integral theory I will attempt to summarize his view on the development of human consciousness. This information is taken from the book Integral Life Practice. And then I will attempt to explain why, using this framework, that Trump’s worldview is lower (less depth, fewer levels of care) than Clinton’s.

“The common denominator for all development in the interior is an individual is consciousness itself, and the rough equivalence that all levels share is their altitude of consciousness.

Each basic altitude of consciousness has its own unique worldview, its own way of interpreting and making sense of things. All the worldviews described below are true…but partial. And each step up to a higher altitude marks a truer and less partial views than the step before. We all have a “center of gravity” worldview from which we operate the majority of the time, while sometimes, we operate from above and below. In the individual dimension, everybody starts at square one.

The color spectrum-Red. Amber, Orange, and so on- make it easier to talk about the various altitudes of consciousness. Keep in mind, however, that the colors designate altitudes and can refer to any line of development.

One line that’s particularly useful is the worldview line because it gets at a person or culture’s most fundamental assumptions about the world.

Red- Power Worldview- Seeing itself as the center of the world (egocentric), the Red individualized self seeks to express and fulfill its wants and desires immediately. “It’s all about me.” People with a Red worldview don’t plan for the future, but rather act impulsively to get what they want now. Red lives and dies by the “survival of the fittest” maxim of the jungle. Intimidating and dominating others is how Red gets things done.

Amber- MythicWorldview- The violence and chaos of Red impulses threaten this orderly world. Order and goodness depend on strict laws, strong police, and soldiers. Conservative and traditional, the Amber worldview emphasizes order, consistency, and convention.

Polarized, black/white, ethnocentric prevail. You’re a believer or an infidel, with us or against us. The authority shows the true path to righteous living.

Orange- Rational Worldview- The ideals of equality, liberty, and justice for all come from Orange. The phenomenal success of Orange science and technology continually enhances the standards of material living around the world.

Green-Pluralistic Worldview- The Green worldview can stand outside the monolithic systems of Orange and see multiple points of view. Since Green cannot yet make judgments of depth, pluralism, and egalitarianism become the most appropriate responses. The pluralistic worldview attempts to give equal recognition to a diversity of perspectives. Green first made itself known on the world stage in the 1960s. Green’s strong sense of pluralistic sensitivity drives it to scan  the horizon to make sure that nobody’s feelings get hurt and nobody gets left out. Political correctness, an emphasis on community, and consensus decision making processes often result.

Teal-Integral Systems Worldview-Teal realizes every perspective captures some important aspects of reality extremely well, and yet also de-emphasizes, or marginalizes, others aspects of things (that is, each is true, but partial). Teal also realizes that some views are more true, and less partial, than others. In other words, every view is not equal; depth exists.”

Here is my conclusion on the major candidates’ worldview in this election year:

Trump: Red/Amber

Clinton: Orange/ Green

Sanders: Green/Teal

(What follows is a gross generalization of my take on current American political affairs using the integral model described above.)

Trump: Red/Amber

George W. went on record to say that he thinks he may be the last Republican president, which is another way of saying that he doesn’t see Trump as a Republican candidate. He wasn’t alone. If you somehow managed to troll through the RNC this year it was absent of the several major hitters. 

So why do W and others fail to recognize Trump as one of their one? Old GOP was a combination of Orange and Amber. Led by Fox News, the Koch brothers, conservative think tanks, corporations that have an invested interest in denying any agenda that interferes with profit. Specifically, I am thinking of climate change.

Rejection of science is a rejection of Orange. (Pre-Orange you have the Church burning witches and denying that the sun is the center of the universe.) Authority is grounded in whoever has the most power. This opened the door for Trump’s Red version of GOP. But it should come as no surprise. Once you reject higher levels you open the door for lower levels to come in. Unfortunately for the Old GOP they would have liked to have stayed their Amber-nothing lower, nothing higher. But they let a crack in and in came Trump.

It always surprised me when the big boys didn’t accept Trump. He seemed to be the poster boy for their movement. Is it because he is anti-establishment? Or maybe because he is not taking money from the donors?

His acceptance speech at the RNC is a perfect mixture of Red and Amber. There are hints of green thrown in there (As your President, I will do everything in my power to protect our LGBT citizens from the violence and oppression of a hateful foreign ideology.)

Red:

“These are the forgotten men and women of our country. People who work hard but no longer have a voice.
I AM YOUR VOICE.”
Not to mention the Citizen Kane-esque picture of his face and name during his speech. This is Citizen Kane meets Lex Luthor.
 

 

 

 

Amber:

  There is law and order platform “I will restore law and order our country”

There is also a rejection of green: “We cannot afford to be so politically correct anymore.”

Every level has a side to its own unique unhealthy, or pathological traits. One of the downsides to the Green tier is what Ken Wilber describes as Boomeritis.

Boomeritis is the deadly combination of a modern liberal, egalitarian worldview with a deep unquestioned narcissism commonly held by Baby Boomers and their children. It is characterized by relativism and aversion to hierarchy. Another downside of the green tier is everyone shares their opinion (because all views are equal) but no decision of values gets paid because since there is an aversion to hierarchy all views are equal. Clinton might be the poster woman for Boomeritis.

Clinton’s (and Obama, for that matter) Democrats are pro-business, neoliberal hawks with a conservative (for progressives) social agenda. Her switch on same-sex marriage came only when it was in her best interests to do so, not because she believed it was morally/ethically correct. She still opposes legalized marijuana. Her decision to set up a server so her emails could not be subjected to the Freedom of Information Act is Nixonian. And her record of doing similar things are extensive. She has failed to release her Wall St. transcripts. She says one thing and will do something else behind your back. The FBI director described her as not sophisticated enough. That was PR. She is the machine. Where is there is smoke there is fire and with Clinton there is lots of smoke.

It is a question of who is less evil: Trump or Clinton? Using this criteria I think Hillary has more depth. I think both might be equally pathological but I would have to say Trump has less depth.

I am a Bernie supporter. I will have to wait and see what his final card will be. Maybe, he already played it. He has endorsed Hillary and was able to get many of his ideas on the Democratic platform.

Wikileaks came out with information that the DNC conspired to work against Bernie, but we already knew this. We just didn’t have the proof.

Who will I vote for?

I will have to wait and see. A good question might be who can do more damage? A red pathological person or an orange pathological person. 

It appears he world order is falling apart. Make no mistake both of these are 1% candidates and both display high amount of pathology. Maybe the whole thing should come crashing down.

Now for those arguing #neverHillary, you have to be mindful of the situation we are in. Unless there is a credible threat to these two candidates it’s a risk you have to take. But again this could be arguing with a Yankees fan on why the Red Sox is better.

I still am undecided. Would I vote for Jill Stein as a matter of principle? I might. This might also be the year I ask myself one serious question before I vote:

What would Bernie do?