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.”

At the recent national conference on dialogue and deliberation, I was introduced to the concept of “Transpartisanship.” One definition of transpartisanship, found on wikipedia, looks like this:

“Transpartisanship recognizes the existence and validity of many points of view, and advocates a constructive dialogue aimed at arriving at creative, integrated, and therefore, breakthrough solutions that meet the needs of all present.”

The issue of transpartisanship came up at NCDD during a sub-plenary panel discussion about “Walking our Talk: What the D&D Community Can Learn from Conservatives.” One of the panelists, Joseph McCormick,
was introduced “a pioneer of the transpartisan movement, teaching people how to increase their political empowerment by constructively engaging across political divides.” At the end of the session, Mr. McCormick plugged an upcoming event being organized by the Transpartisan Alliance, timed to coincide with the bicentennial anniversary of Abraham Lincoln’s birth, dubbed the “American Citizens’ Summit.”

The American Citizens’ Summit, is described as an opportunity for:

“citizens, leaders and experts from all sides will come together in search of effective strategies for empowering a unified political voice that can restore a healthy balance of power in America. We will engage in a new type of political dialogue that respects and values all points of view. Together we will utilize dialogue, deliberation and conflict resolution tools that enable conservatives, liberals, independents and unaffiliated citizens to communicate respectfully and effectively, and to re-build trust. We will demonstrate that Americans can work together and cooperate for the good of us all.”

Personally, I’m still not entirely sure what to think about this movement or this “citizens’ summit,” however I’ve noted a number of friendly names associated with the project and the goals and values very much reflect my own. I’m not quite ready to register for the summit, but I think I’ll put a placeholder on my calendar and give it some serious thought over the next week or two.