By Kevin Rollins
Everyday we confront new ideas and opinions that are different from our own. How we choose to deal with them matters. As Richard Weaver said, “Ideas have consequences.” To extend this, I would argue that “Methods of thinking about ideas have consequences.” That is, to be Greek: Methods of thinking lead to certain ideas, and ideas have consequences, therefore methods of thinking have consequences.
We turn to our previous experiences, our friends, our philosophies, and our heroes for answers. We might even look at the general opinion to gauge our position. Even the government might have an answer. All of these are reasonable if we seriously answer our questions and if we do not commit the errors of teamism or hiding behind a granfalloon.
The philosopher Bokonon, from Kurt Vonnegut’s Cat’s Cradle, defines “granfalloon” as a meaningless association or bond between two people. Examples of this are nationality, race, political party, or a major league sports franchise. I call it teamism. Whose “team” are you on?
Like being born an American, wearing gang colors or a Baltimore Orioles hat, many of these actions are not based on a philosophy, just a circumstance. If you live in Baltimore, you are an Orioles fan. If you were born an American you think America is the greatest country in the world. I think America is a pretty great place to live, but is that only because I live here? Or you might have joined the team for one reason, but find yourself defending people and ideas that don’t appeal to you, as many people find with their chosen political parties. Why still defend it? Does being open to criticism make you disloyal?
Your team or granfalloon will make you do things that you wouldn’t do if you were on another team. Think of the gang members killing each other of the color of a bandana. If you had grown up in another neighborhood, or gone to a different high school, you’d want to “start a rumble” with an entirely different group of “others.” Republicans and Democrats have gang colors too, red and blue. If you are a red-stater, you are supposed to hate the blue-staters.
Examples of other teams are “traditionalism” and “progressivism.” You are in favor of upholding the past or you are in favor of progress. G.K. Chesterton observed:
“The whole modern world has divided itself into conservatives and progressives. The business of progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected. Even when the revolutionist might himself repent of his revolution, the traditionalist is already defending it as part of his tradition. Thus we have two great types -- the advanced person who rushes us into ruin, and the retrospective person who admires the ruins."
On our masthead, Henry George commands us to recognize and stand for the truth, “without asking who is for it or who is against it.” Here at the Free Liberal, we prize being open-minded in our search for the truth. As the editor, I try to pick articles that stand up to dogma of all varieties. Fortunately, Free Liberal writers like to write these types of articles. Throughout this issue we have great examples of this transpartisan outlook – examples of thinking that ignores meaningless boundaries and sides and go for the heart of the matter.
In his review of The Empire Has No Clothes, Robert Cheeks notices that both Republicans and Democrats are apologists for the war when the president is on their team and opponents of it when he is not. They do not offer principled stands on the issues, just vacuous noise-making when their team is at bat.
Ali Massoud shows the danger of being in a granfalloon with your government. “My country, right or wrong.” is an idea that allows you to hide from wrongness by succumbing to groupthink and authority rather than exercising your independent judgment.
Carl Milsted and Paul Gessing set aside the supposed divide between liberals and tax reform. Conservatives are for tax reform, liberals are against it, the conventional wisdom goes. Shouldn’t we all be for what’s right and good – regardless of who proposes it?
Bob Capozzi challenges orthodox paradigms on Martha Stewart. He offers a new synthesis. I have used his argument in a number of conversations with capitalists, pointing out that if we are in favor of a free-market we should not lionize those who treat others with disrespect.
“But, the government was wrong to prosecute her and send her to jail” goes the battle cry. Reason magazine even put her on their cover with the headline “St. Martha.” Free Liberals might question her canonization. Certain folks have gotten riled about this. But this is the very difference. We aren’t choosing between defending the government and defending Martha. We can dislike both, very easily.
Paul Gessing discusses the possibility that Jon Stewart is a better newsman than those employed by “serious” news sources. Why not? A comedian puts people at ease, so that they are in the frame of mind to accept new truths and to laugh at their so-called heroes.
And Too Much Coffee Man shows us how we trap ourselves into mindsets where we cannot see alternatives to suffering. All must fall into one of two categories: Bad and bad.
We have much better choices available than bad and bad, nationalism and statism, progressivism and traditionalism, and dogmatic capitalism and unreformed socialism. But first we’ve got to escape the prison of the granfalloon.
Kevin D. Rollins is the editor of the Free Liberal and president of the Center for Liberty and Community. He was formerly the publisher of a short-lived publication known as the Beltway Free-Marketeer. He has served in a number of positions in the Libertarian Party including as chairman of the Libertarian Party of Buncombe County, and as ballot access coordinator for the Libertarian Party of North Carolina.