Of course, this appeal has both its rational, intelligent side, as well as its emotional, irrational side.

It was the observation of George Washington—and the resulting design of the founding document from which we today have inherited the social contract of our government “for the people, by the people”—that governance through reason tempered by experience could lead to the highest possible outcome and happiness in a society. This result came about having studied the long, bloody history of monarchical succession in its colonial parent that had preceded the American experiment of republican government for more than a thousand years.

Surely the human nature of emotionalism and irrationality (and creativity and intuition) play an important role in the fabric of the American society. The design of the government, with its checks and balances, was meant to take this into account, steering the governing process towards rational decisions based on compromise and an understanding that there exists a superordinate goal desired by all participants.

If we are to follow in the footsteps of what has worked for this country until now, I think Sarah Palin, if she wishes to be a contender in national politics, should be brought into the realm of rational public debate, because until now, her public appearances seem to be engineered to emphasize the emotional side. This means, for instance, that she should be part of round-table discussions on the Sunday morning talk shows. Interviews with her should be actively pursued to gain and assess her opinions and the well thought out reasoning behind them.

Perhaps it estranges Liberal sensibilities to “elevate” her to that level by seating her with a Colin Powell or a Madeleine Albright on a Sunday morning talk show. However, without such proactive efforts to bring to light more than just her emotional appeal, the rational side remains unscrutinized by supporter and detractor alike.

If her rational appeal is as strong as her emotional appeal, then more power to her. As an American, I would also feel the pull to root for underdog policies paired with underdog emotions.

However, if the rational side is not fully examined, I believe many will be swayed by the emotional side who would think twice if they saw both sides. Without the exposure to the rational appeal (or lack of appeal), I think a lot of voters will project their own assumption onto her: that the rational appeal—her intelligence and policies and ideas and ability to find compromise solutions—will be as attractive as the emotional appeal.

If they need to be disappointed, I’d rather it be before than after the election.

My offering as an integralist (a critical integralist, that is), is to stay close at ground with the nuances of an integral analysis of any situation, especially consciousness and culture. With that note, and in the spirit of the Spiral (liberation), I suggest a missing nuance in Spiral Dynamics Theory (and most of functionalist integral theory) is the theorizing of the nature and role of fear, across evolution, across memes, etc. Included, dialectically, is the forms in which the spirit of fearlessness arises immediately to challenge the fear. My new transdisciplinary book on this topic is essential fodder for understanding conflict and better managing, resolving, and transforming the violence that breeds in conflict not handled well. Book title: “The World’s Fearlessness Teachings: A Critical Integral Approach to Fear Management/Education for the 21st Century” (University Press of America, 2010). The book is also an indictment of the growing and insidious “culture of fear” dynamic on the planet, and how better to undermine it.

If you’d like more info. on the book and my work, send me an email (rmichaelfisher@gmail.com) and I’ll send you a book flyer (pdf) and/or go to my blog (http://fearlessnessteach.blogspot.com) for updated discussion of themes in the book. And/or visit booksellers online.

in the spirit of fearlessness,
-Michael