I have found of interest the cross-blog conversation about tagging Integral as Conservative or liberal, recently.  So I though I would comment on this. This started with Matthew Dallman's initial post, with both Joe Perez and also CJ responding.

First off, a prologue:

Matthew attempts to make a distinction between "social conservatism" and "specific party conservatism" - ala the Republicans - and from that claim that integralism is conservatism.

CJ and Joe Perez both respond, using actual instances of conservatism in actuality, or at least wondering if one can use a form of "social" conservatism, without reference to an ACTUAL conservatism in practice.  And Joe points out that these terms can be used in different ways.

First off, a reflection, in sympathy with Matthew's point.

Due to various spiritual practices that I have done, and explanations for each, I had developed my own "amusing pet theory" for types of thought, specifically religious. 

My two types - and here, more archetypal types -  were Apollonian, and Dionysian. 

Apollo is the giver of ORDER.  The Sun-God, the giver of predetermined natural cycles, where patterns are ordained by the Divine Spirit. 

Dionysus - he of cult of the Bacchanalia - was much more of an increase in divine Chaos.  God made manifest in energy, freeing, rapturous, frightening.

As the Wikipedia article says in the Apollo article, "Apollo popularly (e.g., in literary criticism) represents harmony, order, and reason - characteristics contrasted by those of Dionysus, god of wine, who popularly represents emotion and chaos. The contrast between the roles of these gods is reflected in the adjectives Apollonian and Dionysian. "

Ken Wilber's Integralism is an archetypal manifestation of Apollo - of ORDER, gradations, larger patterns. 

In this sense - conservatism DOES mesh fairly well with Integralism, as it is fairly easy for a lover of order, familiarity, and conventionality - to leap from straight Conservative thought to Integral thought.  Both are based on recognizing an ORDER to life - with Integralism being a brilliant story of a deeper, subtle, more complex ordering of life.

However, my own thought is, that there is very little acceptance of chaos anymore - drumming on the beaches, the best creative artists, chaos theory, or chaos magic, or Charles Fort's anomalies.

So, in THIS sense, I completely agree with Matthew.

However, as is pointed out by Chris (CJ), in order for even the sociological argument to be more effective - since conservative is a POLITICAL term, you must also look at the instantiations of actual political movements, otherwise you are just lost in abstractions.

Now, as it happens, there ARE fairly integral examples of conservatism - "crunchy conservatism" being one, and the European German party Christian Democratic Union, it could be argued, has in some ways, an integral platform, although not very "progressive".  Honoring of Christian tradition, a belief in man as the "steward" of the environment, some commitment to economic justice (because of the wide acceptance/demand in the populace for the European welfare state - the CDU has more of a commitment than the the American liberal Democratic party), a commitment to progress, etc, etc.

Now, in this framework, I would say that pragmatic and classic liberals in the United States are the more "integral" party (such as Carter, or Clinton, Gore - all deeply religious)- and that the current Republican party is captured in the grip of an ideology that is neither conservative or liberal - but that's me. (As a moderate Conservative who switched his affiliation to independent told me recently - "I didn't leave the Republican party - it left me".)

Matthew makes a point - " Taken logically, that means you can think of "conservative" as a personality type; and types, according to Wilber (which I agree with) apply no matter the level of worldview."  I would say that this isn't sociology anymore, but is actually referencing psychology now - notice the reference to psychological types.  (And then this would bring one into a WHOLE conversation of what is sociology, what is psychology, etc,etc...)

Since conservative is a political phrase, in this context -it would be interesting to examine the parties in practice, and then extract whether the whole system of practices - actions of the state recommended by a party - are "more" or "less" integral.

But really, to adequately answer this question, with any authority, I believe the person must be intimately acquainted with both classical political theory - from Plato on - to the beginnings of modern political theory, ala Locke, Rousseau, the early move from British monarchy to power delegated and encoded into Common Law, to more recent tracts of political theory.

As such, I'm just ruminating with an opinion here, and holding a cross-blog conversation, ans I'm not familiar enough with the political theory.

Lastly - because of the "fuzziness" and complexity of integralism, to a degree, there is danger of rorschach blotism - seeing in the model a reflection of one's own pre-existing ideas - which of course are only, to use the well-worn phrase, "partial"!