Wednesday, 05 January 2011 | liberal vision · transpartisan

"Transpartisan" as a Meme

by Kevin Rollins , Editor in Chief , Free Liberal

…as a free liberal person, I actually want to see less activity in the body-politic and more activity in the social space. That’s where I think the cutting edge is.

So says Michael Ostrolenk in his ongoing dialogue with me about transpartisanship and free liberalism. In this clip, Ostrolenk tells the story of the emergence of the transpartisan meme over the last decade and how “transpartisan” now has the opportunity to create more space for free conversation:

…more space in the social realm for these really innovative ideas to emerge, for conversations to occur, and trying out new social institutions, new cultural forms, new ways of thinking about the world, [and] new ways of being in the world.

The next installment is, “New Institutions as the Bulwark Against the Corporate-Political State”.

The last installment was, “Lizard Tails and Perverse Effects: Social Change without Social Destruction.”

Earlier in the series: “Intro to Transpartisan Thinking and Practice”, “Transpartisanship is Greater than Bipartisanship”, and “Opening Your Philosophy: Transpartisan Thinking and Free Liberalism”.

About Kevin Rollins

Kevin Rollins is the founder and editor of Free Liberal and principal of Kevin Rollins Consulting. He was formerly the managing editor of Econ Journal Watch. He holds a master’s in economics from George Mason University.

Comments

I think his points about the relative backwardness of the state are not only good comments, but obvious ones.

I wish, though, people would not draw such a stark position between “the state” and “society” and recognize that the state really is an emergent institution like many other social institutions. It has its own vices to be cognizant of, but the world is not as sharply dichotomized as I think he makes it.

How to solve the problem? Bolster federalism for one thing – we have a variety of constitutional amendments on the table to do this. States need to take on a greater role and drop the balanced budget requirement nonsense so people can be involved in a more meaningful, more local dialogue in their institutions of self-government. If we scoff at the idea of self-governance through the state we’re really forfeiting the opportunity for self-government, which does not bode well for social dynamism.

This is what concerns me most about what I see as the false identification of “libertarianism” with “classical liberalism” (I don’t know where “free liberalism” falls on this spectrum – I’m still getting a grasp of how you use that term).

But to restrict my discussion to libertarianism and classical liberalism, I see classical liberalism as the philosophical posture favoring three things: (1.) liberty, (2.) equality, and (3.) democratic self-governance. Recently I’ve felt like I should add two more to my usual list: (4.) intellectual enlightenment and (5.) material prosperity.

My concern with libertarianism is that it largely expels democratic self-government from the classical liberal tradition, or at least is highly suspicious towards it. That, I think, unnecessarily constrains the “space in the social realm” for “innovative ideas to emerge” that Ostrolenk talks about. If we see institutions for democratic self-government as inherently a problem we don’t simply lay waste to a very wide swath of classical liberalism – we also constrain our own scope for action.

Instead of juxtaposing innovative social space with government by definition, we need to think about what institutional forms need to be in place to guarantee government is an innovative social space consistent with classical liberalism.

Anyway – for all this talk of leaving government behind, I was personally surprised to see how many campaign staffers, legislative staffers, and Capitol Hill advocates were at that meet-up in the Mercatus Center! I think you discount the extent to which your free liberal group is invested in the government!

Daniel,

I very much appreciate your comments. I think the representative paragraph is this one:

Instead of juxtaposing innovative social space with government by definition, we need to think about what institutional forms need to be in place to guarantee government is an innovative social space consistent with classical liberalism.

I wholeheartedly agree that free liberals should not reject all democratic institutions. The reform of these institutions, and the narrowing of their power is a free liberal goal, since alternative institutions that are more able to evolve and meet the needs of individuals must be given space to operate.

The five second version of what it means to be free liberal is that there is no fixed hierarchy when it comes to showing the way ahead — neither in our paradigms nor in our social processes. We each take turns as we are able to point out part of the path, and we leave for others to help us too. These rules apply to our intellectual programs just as they do for people or organizations.

To be transpartisan means getting out of politics and more closely representing the systems of meaning the fuel human growth, and by that I mean those spiritual and social aspects that no bureaucracy could ever properly be a part.

Finally, if someone demands of me that I tell what it means to be free liberal, then I will give my best answer: “Why don’t you tell me?” :-)