In the DSR news department we are still entering festivals. The producer's rep I had hoped would be interested was not. He liked the film, but thought it was too hard a sell. There's another agency that wants to see the film. Maybe they'll like it. Actually I think that with a second term of the Bush administration the film is going to be more relevant than ever. A discussion of what's going on in the world and in the nation doesn't make sense without an understanding of the different worldviews that are being played out.

This is something that has been bugging me the last two days since the election. All this talk of a divided nation and an election based on "values" is driving me nuts. Commentators are using a completely inadequate paradigm to examine the situation. As I wrote last time, we are not a nation divided between Left and Right, Conservative and Liberal, Republican and Democrat, we are instead a nation of Traditional, Modern, and Postmodern worldviews, each struggling for expression and locked in a two party system.

The only advantage I can see of another four years of an administration with a predominantly Traditional worldview is that it will be very clear by 2008 that a Traditional worldview isn't up to the job of dealing with an integral world. Of course, neither are Modern and Postmodern worldviews, which is the real problem, because even if the Democrats take charge again in 2008, they won't have the perspectives necessary to solve the problems of the nation or the world. The challenge in the next four years will be finding people with Integral worldviews who can push Integral ideas and solutions and convince politicians to implement them. Not an easy proposition.

I sincerely wish the Green party would get off its ass and get serious. By get serious I mean find some wealthy business people with Postmodern worldviews and convince them to run for the house and senate. The Greens aren't likely to get money from the usual sources, so they will have to find people who can fund their own campaigns. Technically I'm against people using their own fortunes to fund their campaigns. I think if you can't find some people to believe in your campaign, you probably shouldn't be running. But with the system we have, it may be the only way the Greens have a chance. Maybe the Greens can use the Internet to raise money for campaigns, but not until they can clearly define themselves for the American people, which means having several successful candidates who can represent the party in the media. It would also help if they had a few new ideas and their platform didn't resemble the left wing leftovers of the Democratic party.

What sort of ideas? Well, there is at least one I really like (there are bunch in the Third Turn of the Chrysalis Age). I call it the nonprofit fix. The idea is simple. Corporations in sectors of the economy that make money from other people's suffering, or that make money from a government sponsored monopoly, should be required to be nonprofit entities. This applies to drug companies, hospitals, healthcare providers, insurance companies of all kinds, tobacco companies, gun manufacturers, utility companies, cable companies, and the entire defense industry. The logic is simple: it is ethically unsound to make a profit from another person's suffering or potential suffering. It's morally wrong for hospitals and drug companies to make a profit from someone with cancer or some other illness, just as it is wrong for insurance companies to make a profit by denying people coverage for their illness, which is how they stay in business (besides insuring people who are healthy). And it is wrong to make a profit from producing and selling a product that kills people or that is intended to kill people, whether it is cigarettes, handguns, or bombs. So any company engaged is these activities should be required to be a nonprofit corporation. Doctors and nurses should still be paid well for their very necessary services, but hospitals should not be making a profit off the sick. Drug companies could focus on what they really want to do, which is create drugs to save lives. People could still sell cigarettes and handguns, they just wouldn't be able to do so at a profit. And monopoly utility companies that benefit from the absence of competition would finally be able to focus on serving the public. Where market dynamics and competition might benefit the entire process, such as with drug companies, nonprofit hybrids could be created that allow the company to add a small percentage of profit (say 5%) to be shared with those who would benefit most directly from market forces; the researchers who create the drugs in the first place.

So that's one suggestion. It deals with the problems of gun control, healthcare, and the military industrial complex all in one. It frames the issues first in terms of morals and values, which appeals to the Traditionals, then focuses on the benefits of market dynamics which appeals to the Moderns, and finally integrates the two in order to achieve social benefits, which appeals to the Postmoderns.

I know, it's crazy. But these are the things I think of in my spare time.

Back to Top