The Intellectual Shallowness of Post or Transpartisanship
    Robert J. Brem College of Alameda August 2009
    
    Post or Transpartisanship is an attempt to acknowledge the validity of both the notion there are a plurality of truths and the truths themselves array across a range of perspectives on various contentious socio-political issues. That these are “contentious” is the core of what it means that there is “honest” disagreement -- on propositions as to what is to be done -- by members of shared attitude groups; thus: “partisans. “Propositions:” meaning “proposed positions.” These pertain to what it is that is posited as the best solution set to a problmatique from a partisan world view. The goal of “a postpartisanship” is to find a middle pragmatic ground synthesizing differing views on issues into an inclusive, pragmatic whole beyond typical political dualities. That is, the goal is to arrive at a proposition that is not “partisan” in nature. This, admirable as it sounds, as it is framed here, is not possible. It is a critical thinking error and as such, is a threat to potentially more effective means by which we might arrive at optimal policy choices as to what it is that we would propose to be done regarding a contentious issue. The optimal choice is most often partisan. The question is from whose party does the solution emerge? In practice, “trans-partisan solutions” are said to emerge out of public conversation that move beyond polarization (ergo: “partisan solutions”) by applying methods that have been demonstrated as more effective in the facilitation of “dialogue” (as opposed to point counterpoint debate…), deliberation and conflict resolution. It is claimed that this “dialogue” enables decision making that is congruent with democratic republican ideals. Oops. I am completely “for” this proposition… but, Never mind for the moment this is a partisan positioning in and of itself! And culturally ethnocentric: Western Civilizational liberal democracy all of it. If the goal was to be transpartisan, then, we have failed completely just now… However, moving along; this desired goal of arriving at a “transpartisan solution” occurs as a result of the “facilitated integration” of parts or wholes of various different positions from differing view points, each of which may emphasize one or more of the classic democratic values of freedom, equality, and order (i.e. classic: republican values of regard for the common good, order, responsibility and security). These of course are the core partisan perspectives in philosophy:  classical liberal liberty,  classical radical equality, and  classical conservative order. It is here we might pause and focus upon that notion of “facilitated dialogue.” Facilitated by whom? Unless we argue there is a capacity on the part of some
    
    enlightened being to be, well, objective, then what of this facilitator’s, subjectivity? Dare I say it: partisan biased proclivities? Yes, there are professional standards of ethical practice, yet, too, there is the fact that the idea of facilitation itself is a partisan left proposed means of arriving at decisions as opposed to, say, arbitration, mediation, technocracy, and rule of law? At any rate, t’was just a thought; back to the critique. There are behaviors -- of the participants in facilitated dialogue -- that comprise “warrants for discourse” for any kind of democratic dialogue to occur. If participants do not agree to these then dialogue fails. This is a pillar of understanding among professionals in the field of practice in public participation facilitation. These “warrants” include: o showing respect for other points of view, o acknowledging the value in other points of view, o working at being open-minded to others, o practicing active listening skills with others, o working at suspending judgment of others, (e.g. attribution of illintent), o seeking to build bridges with others, o default to give others the benefit of doubt, and o show an active valuation of cooperation. Again, this set of warrants is something either they arrive with at the discussion already in possession of, or into which set of skills sets they are to be trained before dialogue can proceed. So, who trained them? With what biases, subtle or not, did such training proceed? Or, is it the facilitator, once again, who enforces the rules as an umpire? And it is well understood that in this function, even umpires are notoriously, well, biased and here, partisan. At any rate, just a thought… but a pattern is something to which tis important to attend. Systematic biases are where subtle partisanship creeps into any process. The belief is that "we" can motivate and inspire Americans to work together across divides, “working at the grassroots” -- one conversation at a time, practicing and teaching the principles of trans-partisanship. Now we have a myriad of facilitators with different styles and proclivities all teaching people hailing from different back grounds in a patchwork nation to dialogue. However, say one has a room full of self understood lefties – or right wingers for that matter – granting different geopolitical locales; what is transpartisan with one group on an issue is not the same as transpartisan on the same issue in a different locale with different facilitators and geo-cultural sensitivities. Again, subtle partisan biases are rampant. Yes. Seeking “a truth” grounded in a commonality is paramount in building community. It is essential, William Kuntlser and Clarence Darrow would argue, in the pursuit of civil human rights over the objectification of human beings found in property rights focus. So too critical thought important then... to arrive at, well, truth.... But, well,
    
    What I find seems to be ignored in the idea of trans or post partisanship is that the very notion itself emerges out of the liberal to radical idea there are multiple truths. Therefore it is defacto left wing in ideological bent being a rejection of the conservative orientation regarding the existence of certain immutable truths that cannot ethically nor morally be compromised... This is what it means to be left and right: the degree of adherence to or rejection of singular truths and equalibria. While I am ardently predisposed to multiple "truths" in an infinite variety of combinatorial diverse manifestations -- emerging out of the multiples of three plus dimensional interplay dynamics between classical liberal, radical, and conservative voices; I note, paradoxically, that this "tendency to exist" of "polidiversity of truths" is perchance itself "a singular truth." Fun that. Its called “pluralism:” the heart and soul of “liberal democracy that. …”liberal”… Also, and just for fun too; tis a Pagan concept! So now, not only are “we” partisan politically, but religiously too. We can argue it is pragmatic to find a "radical middle ground" where we can seek to transcend polarities in debate -- got it! Agree, I do. Yet this too is rooted in Enlightenment Era thought as translated through the ideas of American political philosophy upon which Alexis de Tocqueville commented so admiringly. But that is itself a rejection of the classical Conservativism of European pre-enlightenment thought. It is a major hallmark of what the French Revolutionary thinkers were to identify as the core of what it means to be, well, “right” and “left”... That is to say: post and trans partisanship is never-the-less a "left of center" proposition and therefore it is problematic to believe there is no partisanship involved. Tis a leftist proposition… and that be partisan by definition. C’est la vie. What “we” who might find a kind of “transpartisanship” attractive really oppose is: dogmatic attachment towards polarity in debate. What we actually find attractive is: a willingness to find a way to synthesize ideas dynamically. But when all is said and done, the final result of civil discourse emergent.... the net clustering of propositions will in fact shift that result either “more to the left” or “more to the right”... and the fact "we" all can live with the decision at which we have arrived, does not change that defacto meaning. What is called post-partisanship or trans-partisanship may be better described as a predisposition (partisan that) and a method of discourse to arrive at important decisions about contentious issues. However, tis not "trans-partisan;" not if that means it is somehow “beyond right and left.” Maybe beyond “political parties”.... but I think you would find it is then very close to the core of the Green party "pillars" of green discourse.... definitely NOT post-partisan that... at least not to all the other… “parties.” I'm just saying: the whole moniker of post or trans partisan is misleading and perhaps a bit of less than disciplined thought and therein, me thinks, lay potential danger for competent democratic discourse.
    
    We are in fact talking about a “Green” Predisposition (not as in the “Green Party” per se, but rather, “green eco-philosophy”), which is posited by many thinkers as the best hope for a future that retains humans in the cosmos…. I say, embrace it! For if we play intellectual games with meanings, when we are really in trouble at some point, when it matters we are clear headed rather than addled with inanities, we may regret being, well, stupid! Stupid being: not thinking about the things we think about… …Clarence Darrow once asked: do you think about the things you think about? If you cannot say what you mean, you cannot mean what you say. Think about that. :-)

Add Comment

To add a comment, you need to login or signup (you can signup without leaving this page)