• home
• about
• new
• essays
• AI
• book

Frank Visser, graduated as a psychologist of culture and religion, founded IntegralWorld in 1997. He worked as production manager for various publishing houses and as service manager for various internet companies and lives in Amsterdam. Books: Ken Wilber: Thought as Passion (SUNY, 2003), and The Corona Conspiracy: Combatting Disinformation about the Coronavirus (Kindle, 2020).

When Eros Backs Trump

A Critique of Ken Wilber's Political Metaphysics

Frank Visser / ChatGPT

Ken Wilber's foray into political commentary during the Trump era marked a striking extension of his Integral framework into the domain of contemporary culture wars. In his book Trump and a Post-Truth World (2017), Wilber does not merely analyze the rise of Trump as a political event. Instead, he embeds it within a sweeping metaphysical narrative of cosmic evolution, framing Trumpism as an inevitable, even necessary, "self-corrective" regression in the face of postmodern dysfunction. This essay critiques the assumptions underlying that narrative and questions whether Wilber's metaphysical approach ultimately obscures more than it reveals.

Evolution as Teleology: Spirit-in-Action Rebranded

Wilber repeatedly asserts that evolution, understood in the largest possible sense, occasionally takes a step back in order to realign itself with a more functional trajectory. Cultural collapses or regressions are thus reimagined as part of a larger process of cosmic self-correction:

"Evolution itself has to adjust course... by making various moves that are, in effect, self-correcting evolutionary realignments."[1]

This is not merely metaphor. In Wilber's lexicon, evolution is infused with purpose, direction, and even agency. It is not random or indifferent but is the manifestation of a cosmic Eros, a Spirit-in-action, that nudges humanity along a developmental staircase toward higher complexity, consciousness, and care.

By personifying evolution as a quasi-divine agent capable of pausing, regrouping, and reconstituting itself, Wilber imports teleology into historical analysis through the back door. The spiritual underpinnings of this view are clear:

"In the deepest parts of our own being, each of us is directly one with this evolutionary current, this Eros, this Spirit-in-action."

Such statements leave little doubt that Wilber's theory is not simply developmental but metaphysically redemptive. Evolution is not just a process; it is a spiritual drama.

Trump as Evolutionary Instrument

The most controversial consequence of Wilber's framework is his suggestion that Trump—and the global resurgence of reactionary populism—is not merely a political aberration but an instrument of evolutionary necessity. As the postmodern "Green meme" collapses under the weight of its own contradictions, evolution itself must retrace its steps:

"Green, as a leading-edge, had collapsed; and evolution itself had no choice but to take up a broadly ‘anti-green’ atmosphere as it tried to self-correct the damage."

Here Wilber positions Trump-like figures as part of evolution's self-regulation. While he refers to Trump as a "disaster," he nevertheless frames this disaster as Spirit-guided:

"To the extent that this first step is not taken, then the self-corrective drive of evolution will continue to push... driving more Trump-like ‘disasters’ as evolution redoubles its efforts."

This is a metaphysical theodicy: cultural regression is not failure, but a prelude to renewal. The historical trauma of authoritarian backlash is repackaged as spiritual necessity.

The Pathologization of Postmodernism

Wilber's polemic depends on an aggressively negative portrayal of the postmodern worldview, or Green meme. He accuses it of fostering "aperspectival madness," performative contradiction, and cultural narcissism:

"Nihilism and narcissism bring evolution to a traffic-jam halt."

Green is described as being so allergic to hierarchy and so obsessed with equality that it collapses into incoherence:

"No stance is recognized as superior to any other... even to suggest such is totally anathema."

In this telling, postmodernism does not merely err; it derails evolution itself. The result is a stark moral binary: Integral consciousness saves, while Green relativism destroys.

Yet this depiction of Green is a caricature. While certain strains of postmodernism do challenge grand narratives and celebrate perspectivism, the broad-brush portrayal of all postmodern thought as nihilistic and narcissistic collapses a diverse intellectual field into a cartoon villain. It serves a rhetorical function: to elevate Integral as the only viable way forward.

Ideological Closure and Unfalsifiability

Wilber's metaphysical framing renders his theory impervious to critique. Any resistance to Integralism is cast as evidence of lower-level development or Green pathology. This creates an ideological closed loop:

• If you agree with Integral, you're evolved.
• If you disagree, you're stuck in aperspectival madness.

Such framing immunizes Integral Theory from genuine engagement. It becomes a spiritual pyramid in which only those who accept its axioms are granted legitimacy. In this sense, Wilber's system mirrors the very dogmatisms he criticizes.

Missed Opportunity: What Sober Framing Could Have Achieved

What is most regrettable about Wilber's metaphysical dramatization of the culture wars is that it squanders the chance to offer a more persuasive, integrative analysis of our political moment. There is much in the Integral framework that could contribute meaningfully to debates about polarization, value conflicts, and developmental diversity in political reasoning.

But rather than articulating these ideas in sociological or psychological terms accessible to a broader audience, Wilber casts them in mythic-cosmic language that alienates even sympathetic readers. By invoking Eros and morphic fields, by describing Trump as a divine correction to postmodern errors, Wilber forfeits intellectual credibility in secular, academic, or policy-making circles.

A more sober Integral analysis might have argued:

• That cultural evolution includes advances and regressions.
• That postmodernism brought valuable critiques but also excesses.
• That Trumpism reflects a backlash against perceived postmodern overreach.
• That the task is to integrate premodern, modern, and postmodern values in a more inclusive synthesis.

Such a framing would preserve Integral insights without invoking cosmic necessity. It would present development as a hypothesis, not a sacred story.

Supporting Democrats Instead of Attacking Green

Another path Wilber might have taken is to recognize that, in the American political context, the Democratic Party is the main carrier of postmodern and modern values—values that, despite their excesses, are aligned with the protection of civil liberties, the rule of law, scientific rationality, and pluralism. By relentlessly attacking the Green meme in abstract developmental terms, Wilber implicitly undermines the coalition resisting regressive authoritarianism. He rarely extends support to Democratic efforts to preserve democratic norms, expand healthcare, tackle climate change, or uphold diversity and inclusion—all of which could be viewed as necessary expressions of healthy Green and modern values.

Had Wilber used his platform to promote an Integral synthesis within the Democratic coalition—encouraging Green to mature rather than portraying it as inherently broken—he might have played a constructive role in deepening and evolving the progressive political project. Instead, his rhetorical posture fosters alienation, suggesting that the left's failures are spiritual collapses rather than political challenges. The result is an unintentional boost to the forces of regression that Wilber claims to lament.

Integral Theory, when applied skillfully, could have helped differentiate between healthy and unhealthy expressions of Green, modern, and traditional values. It could have offered guidance for coalition-building across worldviews. But this would have required a tone of engagement, not condemnation—and a willingness to back the flawed but vital project of liberal democracy in its current political form.

Conclusion: From Diagnosis to Dogma

Wilber's diagnosis of cultural fragmentation is not without merit. His call for a more integrated, developmental view of political and cultural conflict is needed. But when this diagnosis is elevated into metaphysical dogma—where even Trump becomes an agent of Spirit—the analysis tips into ideological excess.

In Trump and a Post-Truth World, Wilber does not merely interpret cultural regression; he redeems it. In doing so, he turns political analysis into spiritual theodicy, and loses the chance to bring Integral Theory into meaningful conversation with a world in crisis.

By backing Trump—even as a disaster necessary for evolution’s correction—Wilber backs himself into a metaphysical corner. A more grounded approach might yet reclaim the value in his vision. But only if it trades cosmic certainty for developmental humility.

Afterword: Trump's Second Term and the Narrative Vacuum

As a second Trump presidency unfolds, many of the authoritarian tendencies previously dismissed as rhetorical excess have come into full display: the erosion of democratic norms, consolidation of executive power, aggressive attacks on the press, and a continued culture war waged through executive fiat and social media spectacle. The spectacle has now solidified into structure. With a judiciary reshaped in his image and a GOP largely submissive to his will, Trumpism has graduated from insurgent populism to institutional force.

And yet, in the face of this alarming consolidation, the Democratic response remains fragmented, reactive, and narratively incoherent. Appeals to procedural norms and fact-checking fall flat against the visceral appeal of Trump's Manichaean theater. Calls for pluralism and inclusion—while ethically commendable—fail to galvanize a coherent moral vision capable of inspiring a broad coalition.

In this vacuum, Wilber's metaphysical framing—had it not veered into theodicy—might have helped articulate a compelling counter-narrative. Integral Theory could have supplied a scaffolding for understanding the regression not as divine necessity but as an urgent warning: a call to integrate values across worldviews, to forge coalitions that transcend the culture wars rather than escalate them.

Instead, Wilber aligned his interpretive framework with the very forces now subverting democratic structures. By recasting Trump as a necessary evolutionary spasm rather than a political and moral emergency, he inadvertently disarmed the urgency of opposition. The cost of this framing is now evident. When spiritual narratives sanctify regression, they risk normalizing it. And when metaphysics replaces activism, those most in need of vision are left with abstraction.

What is needed now is not cosmic reassurance, but civic resolve—anchored in a story that affirms progress without sanctifying it, and confronts regression without deifying it.

NOTES

[1] Wilber quotes are taken from my review of Trump and a Post-Truth World (2017): Frank Visser, "A Self-Help Guide for Democrats, Review of Ken Wilber's "Trump and a Post-Truth World", www.integralworld.net, February 2017.