Are Liberals More Evolved Than Centrists?

[Hardkill]

It’s clear to me why liberals are generally more evolved than conservatives in Spiral Dynamics terms, since liberal values (pluralism, inclusion, reform, openness) usually sit later in the developmental sequence than conservative values (tradition, order, hierarchy, status-quo maintenance).

Liberalism → “modern” (novelty, reform, inclusion, experimentation, expanding rights).

Conservatism → “traditional” (continuity, order, inheritance, restraint, preserving norms).

But here’s my question: Where do centrists/moderates fit in?

On the one hand, centrism can look like a low-stage compromise—splitting the difference for safety, avoiding conflict, or defending the status quo without deeper principles (Blue/Orange shadow).

On the other hand, integrative centrism could be seen as later-stage Yellow—not just “meeting in the middle,” but actually synthesizing liberal ends (rights, inclusion, reforms) with conservative means (stability, institutions, feedback loops, guardrails).

So which is it?

Are centrists more evolved than liberals because they can integrate multiple perspectives?

Or are liberals still more evolved, since historically most major expansions of rights and progress came from liberal/left coalitions?

Does it depend less on ideology and more on how people think (systems, trade-offs, humility, shadow awareness, implementation craft)?

Curious to hear perspectives from those who’ve studied Spiral Dynamics more deeply. Is the “higher consciousness move” to lean progressive, to lean centrist, or to transcend both?

[Kid A]

It’s hard to imagine that the people you’d have to field a 80-year-old presidential candidate for in order to get them to vote Democratic and not Trump are the most evolved…

[Basman]

I don't know about more evolved, but in my opinion center-left parties tend to be the most realistic while also having a vision for a more fair and loving society. Further left parties tend to be more uncompromising with their ideals and unwilling to cooperate with conservative parties, which in practice results in them having less influence overall. The left is a minority, whereas the center-left is a politically conscious voting base (a generally conservative majority). 

I think having non-obligatory voting is detrimental to a country's politics, especially America, as it put pressure on parties on surviving till the next election as opposed to making long-term plans for society. Big issues don't get addressed till it is kind of too late because they take too much political will to execute on. American politics is dominated by a minority of highly polarized and extreme views in part due to normal people broadly not caring about politics and parties having to appeal to tribalism to ensure a voting turn-out.

One of the advantages the CCP has is because it is an authoritarian state with a single party, they can plan for the long-term unimpeded. The Chinese government is to a large extent invincible to average Chinese because the populace doesn't need to be convinced of any one sort of politics and it is actually better that politics isn't in their minds for the most part. 

[psychedelaholic]

Quote

On the one hand, centrism can look like a low-stage compromise—splitting the difference for safety, avoiding conflict, or defending the status quo without deeper principles (Blue/Orange shadow).

On the other hand, integrative centrism could be seen as later-stage Yellow—not just “meeting in the middle,” but actually synthesizing liberal ends (rights, inclusion, reforms) with conservative means (stability, institutions, feedback loops, guardrails).

So which is it?

This is something I've been contemplating fairly heavily over the last month or two. 

I think it really depends on how conscious the individual labelling themselves as a centrist is, how nuanced is their thinking? Mainly, to what degree are they applying meta thinking to their politics. Most people who I interact with who would claim to be centrists, or centre-left/right, are not concerned with actual integration, and larger meta narratives. They're labelling themselves as a centrist to denounce extremist beliefs without really doing any mental labour to join the two halves, they're basically a duck sitting on a fence waiting for the wind to blow strong in one direction.

I'm 26, I would place myself at late stage yellow, I am also deeply construct aware. To give some thought to your question, I do think that if we talk about centrist politics from a meta perspective, it is a higher perspective from which to view ideas of culture, race and society. The main pervasive issue I see in today's political landscape is how insanely polarized the majority of people are, the level of ideological bias, shit flinging, divisiveness that underpins every single narrative people are willing to run with is astounding.

Most people identified with the left or right are far too polarized to have any kind of meaningful discussion about opposing perspectives without making their arguments explicitly derogatory, hateful, unproductive. They simply point the finger at each other, performing exhaustive mental gymnastics in order to make sure the finger is always pointing away from their belief system.

This kind of division and radicalization is unlikely to stop any time soon because the average person is not conscious enough to see past their biases.

Yes, left or liberal beliefs are a higher developmental perspective, inclusion, equality of opportunity, social reform etc.. relative to right or conservative beliefs of structure, cultural norms, preservation, Christianity etc..

Here's the thing though, we cannot sit and say:

"Well because these progressive beliefs are originating from a higher state of awareness, they are without consequence to fully embrace"

There are consequences to radical empathy, inclusion, diversity, believing that people from any part of the world are capable of producing high quality results if given equal access to resources. We're currently seeing consequences to mass immigration in Europe, UK, Canada. There are immigrants that are allowed in from low trust societies that when given resources, choose to rape, steal and commit violent crime. Undermine or subvert the culture of the country they're graciously allowed into with the expectation that they will respect and assimilate to the culture.

The issue when dealing with divisive topics such as these, is again, people that are identified with a set of values that maybe are bringing about harmful consequences, are often incapable of questioning if there are pitfalls that need to be addressed.

Everything the right campaigns is lumped together and labelled as fascist, destructive by the left, every value the left campaigns is lumped together and viewed as suicidal, culturally damaging by the right, when in reality, not so. Do I agree with any of the rhetoric on the right about religion, Christianity, God as the one true saviour of the American people? No, it's ridiculous and it's a regressive knee-jerk back to stage blue values because many of these people view progressive change as an attack on their identity, so they defend it. I don't agree with right to life stances on abortion either, in my perspective people are free to do whatever they want as long as they aren't committing violence against others, an unborn child isn't conscious so it's up to the parent(s) to decide what they do with it.

I also do not align with the current trend of trans identity politics being broadcast so freely, a lot of people are either far too young, or mentally ill (or both) to be making these types of decisions for themselves. Altering your hormones, gender-reassignment surgeries, these are drastic life choices with permanent biological consequences. Many of these people are traumatized in childhood, and instead of working on healing their trauma, gaining some genuine insight into themselves, they turn and run from that reflective process to grasp for "immediate" external solutions. In this case altering their perceived sense of self and identity through medical intervention, and yet, you cannot run from your own mind. Regardless, if an adult of sound mind wants to make drastic changes in their life to their mind and body, who am I to deny their right to do so.

I'm making assertions around current hot button issues in society to illustrate a point that it's possible to acknowledge that multiple perspectives can be held at once, without completely succumbing to identifying with one side or another. If more people were capable of this, we might be able to have a more collective conversation about integration, ways in which we can take an unbiased view drawing on many perspectives relative to what our current issues are, and find balanced solutions that incorporate and meld values in a way that benefits the majority of people.

Something like race, cultural identity etc.. where in certain parts of society today you must be incredibly closed lipped about, lest someone labels you as a racist, or a bigot, have much broader connotations and are far more metaphysically nuanced than what we currently understand from the perspective of progressivism. It's also far, far more nuanced than the way that typical conservatism views these topics, because the progressive view is a higher perspective, that does not mean it should not be scrutinized, and those scrutinizing it are not all regressive conservatives.

Quote

Curious to hear perspectives from those who’ve studied Spiral Dynamics more deeply. Is the “higher consciousness move” to lean progressive, to lean centrist, or to transcend both?

In a sense, I feel to transcend both is the only way forward if we are going to let go of biases in favour of higher consciousness politics. There is boundless corruption in the minds of many in positions of power, and my generation and those that come after will not be able to justly root it out if we are all too busy being divided, bickering like children over who did and said what, who's fault it is.

Maturity would be realizing that there are worthwhile values on the left, and worthwhile values on the right, bipartisan consensus could be the standard method in which policies are formed. Unfortunately, western politics subsists off of domestic/foreign lobbying, and perpetuates dualistic struggles for power between uncompromising beliefs. I hope to see this change in the next 25-50 years.

[Bjorn K Holmstrom]

This is a fascinating thread, thanks to @Hardkill for the great question and to everyone for the thoughtful replies.

@psychedelaholic, your post really resonated with me, especially this point:

2 hours ago, psychedelaholic said:

In a sense, I feel to transcend both is the only way forward if we are going to let go of biases in favour of higher consciousness politics.

This gets to the core of it. The question isn't really 'which side is more evolved?' but 'how do we create a politics that is itself more evolved?' A politics capable of holding multiple truths and focusing on long-term systems rather than short-term tribal victories.

@Basman's point about system incentives is crucial. The current structure (first-past-the-post, constant election cycles) practically guarantees the outcomes we see: polarization, short-termism, and a failure to address big problems. It’s not necessarily that people are incapable of higher-level thinking, but that the system actively punishes it.

So, if the goal is to encourage the kind of integrative, Yellow-level thinking that Hardkill and psychedelaholic describe, where could we start? A few ideas that seem promising:

1. Structural Reform: Pushing for things like ranked-choice voting seems essential. It reduces the 'lesser of two evils' dilemma and lets people vote for integrative third options without fear, which would slowly change the kind of candidates that run and win.
2. A "Coalition of the Uncomfortable": It wouldn't be a traditional third party, but a network of people from across the spectrum who are tired of the duopoly and share a commitment to evidence, nuance, and practical problem-solving over ideological purity.
3. Start Local, Cultural, and Concrete: National politics is a polarized abstraction. Change could start at the local level, where problems and solutions are tangible.

This leads to a question I’ve been pondering from my perspective as an observer from Sweden:

What would actual, on-the-ground experiments in "integrative governance" look like in your communities?

Instead of theorizing about left vs. right, what if we deliberately started testing approaches that try to combine strengths from different perspectives? Honoring both conservative wisdom AND progressive insights?

The goal wouldn't be to win a culture war, but to demonstrate a better way of working together that produces tangible results. Success would be measured in greater community cohesion, resilience, and well-being, outcomes that appeal to everyone, regardless of ideology.

This feels like a practical path forward: work on changing the destructive rules of the national game while also building local models of what a healthier political culture could actually look like.

I'm curious what others think, especially those of you living in the US. What might a pragmatic, integrative local initiative look like in your town?

All of this reminds me of something I started working on a while back - 'The Butterfly Movement' - exploring what a movement grounded in systemic, integrative thinking might look like. I got as far as building a prototype website but never took it further. You can check it out [here] if you're curious - would be interested in thoughts on whether this kind of approach resonates with what we're discussing.

[Emerald]

Centrists usually are just politically disengaged people who are trying to seem like "the adults in the room" by being in the middle.

But Centrist is highly dependent on what others are doing in society.

A Centrist in America is pro-Capitalist and economically right wing with some mildly liberal social values. 

A Centrist in 1940s Nazi Germany is a Nazi. 

So, I would rate Centrists the least likely among anyone to be engaging in conscious politics because they usually just try to choose the least controversial positions that are the most in the middle relative to the context they exist in... because they see the middle as wiser than the extremes in all cases. 

But because there is no absolute middle and no absolute extremes as both of those concepts are socially constructed and vary from culture to culture, their political beliefs are phoned in and rooted in a foundation of sand. They stand for nothing and fall for everything.

And if extremists of any stripe take over the government and the extreme positions become normalized, the Centrists will be the first ones to entertain and further normalize those extremes.... as they are committed to the identity associated with being in the mathematical center of the Overton Window. 

So, if we were in a society where being kind to everyone was considered extreme and being cruel to everyone was considered normal... Centrists would be constantly criticizing the radical kind people for being extreme AND praising the normal cruel people for taking the reasonable moderate position.

Luckily that would never happen in real life! Oh wait...

Edited Monday at 08:12 PM by Emerald

[Hardkill]

These are all really good responses.

@Kid A Yeah, it's messed up in a way.

@psychedelaholic @Bjorn K Holmstrom @Basman So, it depends on what kind of centrism we're talking about. If it's just splitting both of the issues down the middle for the sake of centrism without any advanced reasoning for it, then that centrism is less evolved than healthy liberalism/progressivism/left-wing ideology. However, if it is integrative centrism involving highly sophisticated, nuanced thinking that's liberal-leaning, but in a more clear-headed and more intelligent manner involves moderate views and conservative views at times for the bigger picture of achieving effective long-term progress in a society.

@Emerald What about centrist politicians like Manchin who aren't politically disengaged, but are trying to seem like "the adults in the room" by being in the middle?

Edited Monday at 08:26 PM by Hardkill

[Daniel Balan]

Centrists are by far the most developed political group. 

I'm a liberal leaning centrist and I can't phantom how backward the nationalist/right wingers are and how dangerous and downright out of their minds the leftists are. 

The right is ignorant, selfish and corrupt for holding on for dear life to defend the status quo. However, the left is extremely dangerous! The idealism of the left, their childish understanding of politics is what leads to fascists taking power. The left is so out of touch with what the masses need, that they are dangerous. The reason I'm not further left than centre is because of how much dangerous idealism is. Idealism and pie-in-the-sky politics is what destroys democracies. 

Leftists have a grave misunderstanding of how selfish and corrupt the average humans are! Humans are much, much less developed that the leftists might want to acknowledge! If the citizenry would be 60% at stage green, I'd be a leftist myself, but reality shows that people would rather vote a stage red authoritarian than a woman. A reality check for leftists is to realise that they are an insignificant minority that only servers as fuel for the ones that want to dismantle democracies. I have so much criticism for the left because I have high standards for them. i don't expect the right to be less backward than they are but I do expect from the left some maturity because the left is pushing for the betterment of society. But their idealism spectacularly backfires in their face because society is functioning in very barbaric ways that cannot be changed unless the development levels of the masses goes at least to Green. 

Also the left is proposing some very bad and downright stupid policies such as: unchecked immigration, extreme climate change policies that leave many workers unemployed, excessive lgbtq and trans propaganda, race hiring quotas, gender hiring quotas, excessive and demonic bureaucracy and regulation, a movement that promotes extreme secularism, high AF taxes etc. 

This backfires spectacularly because most of mankind cannot comprehend such policies. Their level of development is too low to even acknowledge that same sex marriage should exist. 

On a personal level I abhor religion with all my being, I have no problem with immigrants as long as they are not violent, I have no problem with gays, I love fair and necessary bureaucracy, I love healthy regulations, I do support moderate taxation etc. 

The thing with the leftists is that they are well ahead of the current times. Their policies will work in 200 years, but right now leftist policies can't work because of how backward the citizenry is.

Edited Monday at 09:40 PM by Daniel Balan

[Daniel Balan]

1 hour ago, Emerald said:

 

A Centrist in 1940s Nazi Germany is a Nazi. 

 

Have you seen the movie Schindler's List?

The factory owner, Oskar Schindler, who saved the lives of a thousand jew was exactly what a centrist could look like in Nazi Germany. Had that man have the today's leftist paradigm, he would have been killed alongside all the jews he would have tried to save.

If you can't read the room, if you are too idealistic in your worldview you get hurt. 

Reality isn't the lovey dovey fairy tale the leftists imagine. 

Edited Monday at 10:03 PM by Daniel Balan

[Hardkill]

1 hour ago, Daniel Balan said:

Centrists are by far the most developed political group. 

I'm a liberal leaning centrist and I can't phantom how backward the nationalist/right wingers are and how dangerous and downright out of their minds the leftists are. 

The right is ignorant, selfish and corrupt for holding on for dear life to defend the status quo. However, the left is extremely dangerous! The idealism of the left, their childish understanding of politics is what leads to fascists taking power. The left is so out of touch with what the masses need, that they are dangerous. The reason I'm not further left than centre is because of how much dangerous idealism is. Idealism and pie-in-the-sky politics is what destroys democracies. 

Leftists have a grave misunderstanding of how selfish and corrupt the average humans are! Humans are much, much less developed that the leftists might want to acknowledge! If the citizenry would be 60% at stage green, I'd be a leftist myself, but reality shows that people would rather vote a stage red authoritarian than a woman. A reality check for leftists is to realise that they are an insignificant minority that only servers as fuel for the ones that want to dismantle democracies. I have so much criticism for the left because I have high standards for them. i don't expect the right to be less backward than they are but I do expect from the left some maturity because the left is pushing for the betterment of society. But their idealism spectacularly backfires in their face because society is functioning in very barbaric ways that cannot be changed unless the development levels of the masses goes at least to Green. 

Also the left is proposing some very bad and downright stupid policies such as: unchecked immigration, extreme climate change policies that leave many workers unemployed, excessive lgbtq and trans propaganda, race hiring quotas, gender hiring quotas, excessive and demonic bureaucracy and regulation, a movement that promotes extreme secularism, high AF taxes etc. 

This backfires spectacularly because most of mankind cannot comprehend such policies. Their level of development is too low to even acknowledge that same sex marriage should exist. 

On a personal level I abhor religion with all my being, I have no problem with immigrants as long as they are not violent, I have no problem with gays, I love fair and necessary bureaucracy, I love healthy regulations, I do support moderate taxation etc. 

The thing with the leftists is that they are well ahead of the current times. Their policies will work in 200 years, but right now leftist policies can't work because of how backward the citizenry is.

You know that virtually every progressive politician out there doesn’t support any "downright stupid policies" such as the ones you're talking about. I used to believe that when I first heard about progressivism and Bernie Sanders. 

However, the vast majority of the left, especially today, is for bringing back the Democratic party fully to it's New Deal roots.

Even Cenk, whom I can't really stand anymore, had just said this today on his X account:

"Brother, you're years behind. The far left attacks me more than anyone else these days. I'm in the economically populist wing of the left. The establishment left is ruled by the donor class and the far left is too obsessed with culture wars (and so is the far right)."

Edited Monday at 10:43 PM by Hardkill

[Daniel Balan]

@Hardkill I wasn't refering to the democratic party specifically! I don't even know much about American politics, I am talking in general, with my focus generally on European politics. And all the unrest in Europe today is because of the damage done by unchecked migration and overly liberal policies from the Merkel era. 

Also allow me to counter your narative when you say that the progressives are the ones that push for a return to the roots of the new deal era... Actually in my eyes, the centrist moderates are the ones that push for a return to the new deal paradigm. The centrist moderates like Gavin Newsom. 

[Emerald]

1 hour ago, Hardkill said:

 

@Emerald What about centrist politicians like Manchin who aren't politically disengaged, but are trying to seem like "the adults in the room" by being in the middle?

Manchin identifies himself as a centrist because people are uninformed and will assume him to actually be in the center in terms of his political opinions relative to the general populace.

But he's really a center right corporatist who is nowhere near the center of public opinion. He's a Centrist based in the center position of establishment politics.

But he's a different bird than what I'm talking about. Joe Manchin has actual viewpoints of his own, at least.

Centrists are usually people who believe that it's always wise to take the dead-center position on every issue... as they see the center as the most moderate and sensible position by default.

So, if one side is pro-slavery and one side is anti-slavery and those are both normalized positions within the Overton Window, someone who identifies strongly with Centrism would be pro-slavery with better conditions for slaves.

Or in Nazi Germany, the Centrist might be someone who might advocate for work camps rather than death camps.

Centrism in the way that most self-described Centrists think about it is that the dead-center is always the most wise position. And it's a way to phone in one's political opinions by defaulting the more normalized opinions in society... even if the most normalized options cause a lot of harm.

So, if it's normalized and taken-for-granted in the society to see dogs as vermin and murder them and the fringe position is not to murder dogs.... then Centrists will be pro-dog-murder and will see anti-dog-murderers as crazy radicals that want to save the vermin.

Being a Centrist is to lack a perspective of one's own.

[Daniel Balan]

@Hardkill Also what drives me crazy in politics is demagoguery and populism. Populism is in my eyes the most dangerous and deadly political position one can have. The worst being economic populism. Economic populism is what drives the deficit spending though the roof. 

Economic populism is what ruins a nation and puts in grave danger two or three generations that will now carry the burden of gigantic public debts. 

Economy should be treated with extreme caution and pragmatism. Being overly liberal with how you spend money from the public budget might cause the whole economy to collapse like how it happened in Greece more than a decade ago.

Economy is the single political aspect of a country that shouldn't have a political color. Economy shouldn't be treated as progressive or libera or conservative, economy should be treated with extreme pragmatism and caution.

 

[MightyMind]

I think this is an error to see any group (liberal, conservative, centrist, progressive) as being more conscious than the other. It all depends on the context and build up. I mean, there are some examples where conserving (conservative) some aspects of a culture would be a good idea and so in those moments a conservative perspective may be more conscious than those that may want things to progress (progressive) in the current direction when that may make matters worse. But, if a conservative who tries to conserve but does so in an unconscious way, this may then be very destructive and hence forth not conscious. 

In theory classifying political leans in a hierarchical way might be useful, but my point is, I think there's more complexity to it all. And so in viewing reality in this way, I see this theory/world view does not properly over lay to reality and in turn it could impede our ability to see the nuances of life. 

Thoughts? 

Edited Monday at 10:33 PM by MightyMind

[psychedelaholic]

Quote

What would actual, on-the-ground experiments in "integrative governance" look like in your communities?

@Bjorn K Holmstrom

This is where it gets muddy, because to incite political change in a community, we would either need to become involved in politics personally, or have high consciousness people whom are in politics willing to campaign on entirely new integrative solutions to societal issues.

The other issue is that largely, getting a substantial amount of people behind a political movement that advocates for highly nuanced solutions is going to be difficult for many people to latch onto and support. It's a far cry from populous rhetoric, and seeing the appeal of integrative approaches requires at minimum a certain level of open mindedness, flexibility, being able to tolerate and or entertain many perspectives.

These are traits that are flat out rare in most people. However, I think the way you bridge a lack of understanding is by demonstration, and persuasion.

Ideally you go out and grassroots organize within a community, and attempt to convey your ideas in ways that aren't complex to understand, that speak effectively to a greater vision and evolution of the current system of governance. Change starts at an individual level, and to make a movement you have to appeal to enough people to the point where your ideas become a force that can exert political pressure through the people that align with your vision for future change.

There is a pathway if you can get into local governance > provincial/state governance > all the way to the higher levels of government, depending on the amount of support you have. 

Quote

Structural Reform: Pushing for things like ranked-choice voting seems essential. It reduces the 'lesser of two evils' dilemma and lets people vote for integrative third options without fear, which would slowly change the kind of candidates that run and win.

I live in Canada for the record, slightly different parliamentary system, similar results to the U.S. in practice though. I'd agree that the current way of electing candidates is far too binary and it perpetuates an unsatisfactory cycle that leaves people feeling as though there is no real solid choice.

The concept of ranked-choice voting is interesting, and would contribute to reducing the feeling of being pigeon holed into voting for whichever talking head sucks the least. It's a more dynamic way to structure an electoral process, in that you are allowing multiple rounds of voting, higher levels of nuance in allowing preferential voting over a binary "yes/no", and it would ensure that whoever wins the election, does so with a majority vote.

There's certainly more complexity in how the vote is counted, and it requires people to be invested enough to vote multiple times, but if we want nuanced elections, do the work I guess. Even with all this said, my feeling with the current political system is that it's likely so rotted from the inside that once someone with high consciousness ideals gets into a position of power, they'd get dragged by the ankle and told to fall in line, because god only knows the true extent of influence foreign/domestic lobbying, the world economic forum, central banks have over western political outcomes.

My hope is that as the years progress, old decrepit people holding government positions die off, and key positions of power are slowly handed off to younger and younger generations. With that it's reasonable to think we will see a willingness to restructure these systems, as it's obvious to any of my generation that is capable of critical thought that these systems are not harbingers of prosperity as much as they are heralds of self-interest.

Quote

So, it depends on what kind of centrism we're talking about. If it's just splitting both of the issues down the middle for the sake of centrism without any advanced reasoning for it, then that centrism is less evolved than healthy liberalism/progressivism/left-wing ideology. However, if it is integrative centrism involving highly sophisticated, nuanced thinking that's liberal-leaning, but in a more clear-headed and more intelligent manner involves moderate views and conservative views at times for the bigger picture of achieving effective long-term progress in a society.

@Hardkill

Eloquently put.

I believe so yeah, I feel like we are currently reaching the excesses of the current values championed by progressivism as a society. There's conflict and backlash, and I think this sort of nuanced integration of opposing values is a higher level of thinking that has potential to bring about a gradual shift towards a more conscious, balanced approach to solving political and societal issues. As to how long it will take people to get to a level of consciousness where these ideas can be successfully platformed, remains to be seen.

Edited Monday at 10:48 PM by psychedelaholic
formatting

[Emerald]

3 minutes ago, MightyMind said:

I think this is an error to see any group (liberal, conservative, centrist, progressive) as being more conscious than the other. It all depends on the context and build up. I mean, there are some examples where conserving (conservative) some aspects of a culture would be a good idea and so in those moments a conservative perspective may be more conscious than those that may want things to progress (progressive) in the current direction when that may make matters worse. But, if a conservative who tries to conserve but does so in an unconscious way, this may then be very destructive and hence forth not conscious. 

In theory classifying political leans in a hierarchical way might be useful, but my point is, I think there's more complexity to it all. And so in viewing reality in this way this theory does not properly over lay to reality and in turn it could impede our ability to see the nuances of life. 

Thoughts? 

What makes something more or less conscious is its proximity or distance to Christ Consciousness and the Golden Rule in both practice and intention. 

And while political perspectives in general will ALWAYS deviate from Christ Consciousness as politics are about symptoms rather than root causes (and Christ Consciousness is way down deep into understanding the roots, such that no judgment is possible), we can objectively say that (in intention) perspectives on the progressive Left are higher consciousness in intention as (out of all the choices mentioned) they are the most oriented towards Christ's perennial teachings of mercy for the highest number of sentient beings.

But in terms of outcomes, none of them are effectively able to practice the Golden Rule because attempting to put the Golden Rule into policy will get tons of pushback because most people aren't conscious enough yet. You can't have a conscious politics in a mostly unconscious society.

So, you get more "Law of the Jungle" policy passing instead... as that is where we're at as a species. 

And if one tries to impose Golden Rule ideals onto a society that's not ready, they must do so by top-down authoritarian means... which would make the laws cease to be rooted in Christ Consciousness and the Golden Rule.

The Golden Rule can currently only be applied from the bottom up.... and politics is always top-down.

So, while I advocate for people to continue to strive for policy reforms that are reflective of the Golden Rule, as that's important to at least fight the good fight... politics is only ever trying to manipulate pre-existing symptoms. So, you can trade out all sorts of laws and political systems and you will end up with the same sorts of problems in slightly different forms.

The way to really fight for progressive change is to help people heal from generational trauma and enable them to feel interconnected with other beings, nature, and the universe at large. 

The root cause of all of our problems politically is that we feel disconnected from others and from nature. So, we can act in ways that play zero sum games with animals, other people, and with the Earth itself.

That is why Christ Consciousness is the only true center... and the Golden Rule is the only ideology one ever needs. Once you know that, you will be able to easily discern which perspectives are more or less conscious.

[Hardkill]

57 minutes ago, Daniel Balan said:

@Hardkill I wasn't refering to the democratic party specifically! I don't even know much about American politics, I am talking in general, with my focus generally on European politics. And all the unrest in Europe today is because of the damage done by unchecked migration and overly liberal policies from the Merkel era. 

Also allow me to counter your narative when you say that the progressives are the ones that push for a return to the roots of the new deal era... Actually in my eyes, the centrist moderates are the ones that push for a return to the new deal paradigm. The centrist moderates like Gavin Newsom. 

Do you know how progressive and economically populist FDR was?

Yeah, he ran as more of a moderate when he ran and won the presidency for first time in 1932. However, he was arguably the most economically progressive and the most economically populist US president of all time! It saved our economy from the worst economic crisis ever in American history! Thanks to his entire New Deal philosophy we’ve never had another economic Depression for almost a century and our country has greatly benefitted from all kinds of social safety nets and protections for 90+% of Americans in this country.

His fifth cousin, TR, who was president in the 1900s decade, was extremely progressive and economically populist. His Square Deal agenda saved our country from the horrific abuses and extreme economic inequality of the late 1800s Gilded age. His policies didn’t go nearly as far as FDR did. However, when he was still alive he was for so many more progressive and economic populist ideas that he wasn’t able to get done but were eventually enacted in later years during the presidencies of Taft, Wilson, FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, combined presidencies of JFK and LBJ, Nixon, Carter, Clinton, Obama, and Biden.

New Deal Democratic presidents including FDR, Truman, JFK, and LBJ were always more to the left economically than moderates like Clinton, Obama, and Newsom.

Biden was a center-left Democratic president that was more to the left economically than Obama, who was more to left economically than Clinton was. Biden really turned out to be a New Deal 2.0 Democrat.

Newsom has yet to prove that he can be as economically populist or as progressive as Biden was.

Edited Monday at 11:10 PM by Hardkill

[Hardkill]

1 hour ago, Daniel Balan said:

@Hardkill Also what drives me crazy in politics is demagoguery and populism. Populism is in my eyes the most dangerous and deadly political position one can have. The worst being economic populism. Economic populism is what drives the deficit spending though the roof. 

Economic populism is what ruins a nation and puts in grave danger two or three generations that will now carry the burden of gigantic public debts. 

Economy should be treated with extreme caution and pragmatism. Being overly liberal with how you spend money from the public budget might cause the whole economy to collapse like how it happened in Greece more than a decade ago.

Economy is the single political aspect of a country that shouldn't have a political color. Economy shouldn't be treated as progressive or libera or conservative, economy should be treated with extreme pragmatism and caution.

 

Yeah, anything taken too far won’t work. Far left economics such as true authoritarian Socialism/Communism like in Cuba, in the old days of the Soviet Union, or during Mao’s regime in China does more way harm than good.
 

Also, we can also pay for higher spending programs for the everyday people by taxing more of the rich and big corporations, especially during economic boom periods. 
 

Btw, conservatives and Republicans since the late 1900s, starting with Reagan have really been the ones who have worsened the deficit and debt much more so than moderates, liberals, and Democrats have. The GOP and the Right have ballooned the deficit and debt for decades with their insane major tax cuts, the recessions they’ve caused, and the crazy amount of money they’ve spent on wars.

Edited Monday at 11:23 PM by Hardkill

[Hardkill]

1 hour ago, Emerald said:

Manchin identifies himself as a centrist because people are uninformed and will assume him to actually be in the center in terms of his political opinions relative to the general populace.

But he's really a center right corporatist who is nowhere near the center of public opinion. He's a Centrist based in the center position of establishment politics.

But he's a different bird than what I'm talking about. Joe Manchin has actual viewpoints of his own, at least.

Centrists are usually people who believe that it's always wise to take the dead-center position on every issue... as they see the center as the most moderate and sensible position by default.

So, if one side is pro-slavery and one side is anti-slavery and those are both normalized positions within the Overton Window, someone who identifies strongly with Centrism would be pro-slavery with better conditions for slaves.

Or in Nazi Germany, the Centrist might be someone who might advocate for work camps rather than death camps.

Centrism in the way that most self-described Centrists think about it is that the dead-center is always the most wise position. And it's a way to phone in one's political opinions by defaulting the more normalized opinions in society... even if the most normalized options cause a lot of harm.

So, if it's normalized and taken-for-granted in the society to see dogs as vermin and murder them and the fringe position is not to murder dogs.... then Centrists will be pro-dog-murder and will see anti-dog-murderers as crazy radicals that want to save the vermin.

Being a Centrist is to lack a perspective of one's own.

Yeah, I get what you’re saying and that’s what Leo said a while back. 
 

Though no great leader or president in US history was ever truly a hard left-winger. Not even Washington, Lincoln, or FDR. Even though they were historic forward looking figures they were all relatively moderate for their time.

Do you think that’s because those leaders governed during times when certain crises and/or certain mass movements were able to push progressive revolutionary ideas move into the center of political spectrum?

Edited Tuesday at 12:16 AM by Hardkill

[Emerald]

6 minutes ago, Hardkill said:

Yeah, I get what you’re saying and that’s what Leo said a while back. 
 

Though no great leader or president in US history was ever truly a hard left-winger. Not even Washington, Lincoln, or FDR. Even though they were historic forward looking figures they were all relatively moderate for their time.

No one radical will ever be in power, except if that power is taken through top-down authoritarian force.

That will never change. It will always be the case that moderates and centrists will be in power in a democracy. Radicals do not get elected.

And if a person gets elected, they are not radical in the eyes of society.

But what is radical and what is moderate are purely socially constructed and plastic... and public opinion can shift quickly.

So, Nazism was moderate in Nazi Germany. 

Likewise, that which we now consider progressive can also be considered moderate in a future era.

The most important thing is to insist that kindness is normal and moderate... and that cruelty is radical and extreme.

People struggle with that though... even though it's very simple to insist on. People over-complicate things in a way that normalizes needless suffering and hatred... and treats basic human decency and common sense as radical and extreme.