Anthony’s response appears to be based upon related to a set of fears/concerns that were also raised at the recent National Conference on Dialogue and Deliberation (NCDD), in regards to “Attracting Conservatives to Dialogue Events.” During this workshop, Jacob Hess identified three fears that conservatives bring to the table, when considering the possibility of participating in a dialogue on a “hot” political topic. I list them here, replacing the word “dialogue” with “transpartisanship.”

1. Doesn’t transpartisanship assume that all truth is relative? (Fear of having to give up the truth).
2. Is transpartisanship part of a larger effort to convince me of something? (Fear of hidden agenda)
3. Does transpartisanship mean I’m going to have to compromise my beliefs? (Fear of being changed)

I believe that one of the problems that we have in encouraging real face to face dialogue on the “hot button” issues in our society, is that potential participants are threatened by the prospect of having to abandon a core belief and/or value in the name of some abstract common good. I think that the concept of “transpartisanship” might trigger some of the same fears.

In the NCDD workshop, the Rev. Greg Johnson suggested the key to bringing conservatives into dialogues might be in stressing dialogue as an opportunity for “conviction with civility.”

From my brief readings, it seems that the term transpartisan was developed as an alternative to non-partisan or bi-partisan. Non-partisan seems to indicate the kind of “centrism” that Anthony is concerned about, while bi-partisan appears limited to the two majority points of view. It seems that the value of talking about transpartisanship might be:

1. indicating that on any given issue, individuals bring a multitude of (partisan) positions to the table.
2. that is it possible to dialogue with political opponents on issues, without giving up ones own position or values
3. that the goal is not to “get everyone to agree,” but rather to find a generally acceptable solution to a problem – GIVEN the fact that folks with very different ideas and viewpoints are sitting at the table

In short, I don’t agree with Anthony that transpartisanship is about centrism or that it is about getting everyone to agree on the issues. Rather, I think its a new word being attached to a very old concept, which is simply – “how do we get folks with very different ideas to work together respectfully, towards practical policy decisions.”

During the subsequent conferences that I’ve attended, the faces representing “online” deliberation have changed, as more folks are gradually moving into this sphere, bringing new ideas and a fresh perspectives.This year, most of the “online” folks at the conference were attending NCDD for the first time. Over the next few days, I hope to write more about the “online” folks that I met at NCDD and the work that they are doing.

Here is a short video that introduces three of the “online” projects represented at this years conference.

On Sunday evening, after the end of NCDD 2008, a group of us met at the Congress Avenue bridge in downtown Austin, to see the bats emerge from under the bridge. In theory, the bridge is home to 750,000 or more Mexican Free-tailed Bats. Every evening, tourists gather on and around the Congress Avenue bridge to watch the bats come out to eat. The night before, some of our colleagues watched the spectacle. However, we weren’t so lucky. After waiting for over an hour and a half, we only saw a few hundred bats emerge alone or in small groups. We’re not sure what we did to scare them away.

Joining me on the bridge, from left to right: Lou Klepner, Tim Erickson (me), Tom Murray, Sandra Zagon, Martin Rutte, Miriam Wyman.

One of the great things about the NCDD is the interesting mix of individuals and methods of dialogue that are part of the conference. You can get anything from “The Inquiry Process: Zen Meditation and Dialogues as Liberating Intimacy in a Social Context” to “Findings About Public Participation from the New National Academy of Sciences Report” (including powerpoint presentation).

For most participants, a NCDD conference will engage both their head and their heart in meaningful ways. Last night at dinner, someone asked if I had attended the workshop in which participants were asked to “stare each other in the eyes and hold hands.” In fact, I had been a part of the workshop on “Compassionate Listening.” The workshop began with a guided a mediation, which lead to an exercise in which we were asked to partner with the person next to us and spend 3 minutes each, looking into the eyes of our partner and speaking uninterrupted about anything that was on our mind or in our heart.

Looking a relative stranger in the eye, while they listen to you speak  without any interruption, for  3 entire minutes – is more challenging that it might seem. I found it a challenge to speak and/or listen for that long, without either being interrupted or interrupting the other speaker, even if only to ask a question. Yet, it did feel good and I think I learned something about what it means to REALLY listen to someone and to REALLY be heard. Some participants reported that they were physically unable to look their partner in the eye for that long, without turning away or closing their eyes.

At the close of the workshop, we did in fact form a circle and hold hands, while the facilitator brought the workshop to its conclusion.

Not everyone at NCDD is there for that kind of experience and over the years, I’ve spoken to some folks who are really uncomfortable with this aspect of the conference. While, I could have attended the “Social Media” workshop that was taking place at the same time, I accepted the challenge of conference organizers, who in the opening session of the conference suggested that we try to “step out of our comfort zone.”

I’m thankful that I did.

(FYI – Touchy-Feely).

Yesterday, I attended a workshop called “Attracting Conservative Citizens to Dialogue Events: Liberal-Conservative Campus Dialogue & Mormon-Evangelical Interfaith Initiatives.” The workshop was lead by Jacob Hess (Ph.D. Candidate at the University of Illinois) and Rev. Greg Johnson (Pastor and Director of Standing Together).

The Rev. Greg Johnson gave a very personal and inspirational account of his personal relationship with a Mormon professor, Robert Millet. This video captures much of his story.

Jacob Hess talked about his experiences facilitating a class that brings together a specially selected group of students with both liberal and conservative viewpoints, for a series of discussions about “hot” political topics.  He provided a very interesting outline of three “fears” that conservatives bring to the table.

1. Doesn’t Dialogue Assume that all truth is relative? (Fear of having to give up the truth).
2. Is dialogue part of a larger effort to convince me of something? (Fear of hidden agenda)
3. Does dialogue mean I’m going to have to compromise my beliefs? (Fear of being changed)

He suggests, that facilitators or organizers wishing to engage conservatives in their dialogue or deliberation events, need to carefully frame and organize their events, taking these fears in mind.

I found this photo among the photos showing up on flickr from NCDD 2008. This is me (on the right), hanging out with Dave Witzel. I’m not sure what the squinting was about, I only had one beer.

This photo was taken at a pre-conference technology session, during which we talked about how conference participants might use the web to interact and share the wisdom coming out of the conference, with folks who could not make.

In addition to the flickr photos, the best real-time means of checking in on the progress of the conference is through Twitter.

All of this work, was being done out of my basement without any real training or idea of how my work fit into the context of what others were doing around the country. I had previously had limited contact with a couple of folks engaged in similar online democracy projects, via the phone and email, but had not met any of them and felt quite isolated and out of touch with what others were doing, with the exception of the work I was doing with Steve Clift, who lived nearby.

Over the course of those four years, I had developed my own style and approach to online dialogue, but was feeling the limitations of how far I would be able to take my work, without the opportunity to meet and learn from others with similar interests and more advanced training and skills. In fact, I wasn’t sure if I had stumbled across a possible career path or had simply created a very time-consuming hobby.

I remember arriving at the first NCDD conference in Arlington, VA, quite shy and unsure of myself. Yet, I also remember a very strong and immediate sense that I had somehow come home and had been reconnected with “my people.” Over the course of several days, I met a number of people with who I have since developed very long and lasting friendships, people that I look forward to meeting at various conferences at least once or twice a year. That first NCDD conference  challenged me both intellectually and emotionally. I went home inspired, but more importantly, I went home feeling as I was a part of something much larger than myself.

Based upon the connections I made at the first NCDD conference, I found myself part of a national network of folks experimenting with online dialogue and deliberation. I became an active member of the Online Working Group of the Deliberative Democracy Consortium and eventually had the opportunity to organize and host an international meeting, in my home state of Minnesota, on the theme of “Deepening Online Deliberation.” At various times over the last six years, I have come to see myself as a leader in this emerging field of online deliberation. At other times, I’ve sought the advice and leadership of friends I’ve made along the way.

This year, I’m so very thankful to be attending my fourth conference on Dialogue and Deliberation, three NCDD conferences and one in Canada (C2D2). I look forward to the 4th National Conference on Dialogue and Deliberation as an opportunity to connect with old friends, but more importantly, I’m looking forward to the next few days as an opportunity to challenge myself and grow on both a personal and a professional level.