Do You Agree With Lakoff That There's Only 6 Types of Progressives?

[ulTRAX]

On http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org/research/rockridge/valuesmovement
is a list of the types of Progressives. This seems to be the same list in Lakoff's book Don't Think of an Elephant:

"From sociological or political perspectives, there seem to be dozens, if not hundreds, of types of liberals and progressives. But from a cognitive perspective, defined by modes of thought, there are just six:
Socio-economic: All issues are a matter of money and class.
Identity Politics: Our group deserves its share now.
Environmentalists: Respect for the earth and a healthy future.
Civil Libertarians: Freedoms are threatened and have to be protected.
Spiritual progressives: Religion and spirituality nurture us and are central to a fulfilling life.
Anti-authoritarians: We have to fight the illegitimate use of authority."

I believe this framework to be arbitrary and accepting it limits thought rather than enlightens.

I certainly am a Progressive yet much of what motivates me most doesn't seem to fall into any of the above categories. First what does. There's a libertarian streak that believes we have the right to do anything that does not harm others.... I just define harm rather liberally from pollution to second hand smoke. I believe it's an abuse of government power to deprive citizens of rights without legitimate intent. I see this in blanket prohibition laws which don't take individual responsibility into account.

As for what doesn't fir the list... topping the list of what motivates me is my belief most human problems rooted in self-justifying, self-perpetuating belief systems. They may be religious or secular. Such belief systems stand in contrast to self-correcting ideologies. Rationality has to be the foundation for a Progressive movement... not political compromise with dysfunctional belief systems.

I'm motivated by issues involving the moral legitimacy of government (ie democracy) which puts me in conflict with most Progressives who confuse tweaking our anti-democratic system with democracy itself.

I'm motivated by an abhorrence of waste therefore want to see more efficiency in the economy such as government imposed standardization.

I also want to see more democratic control over the economy. The above list has nothing to say about Progressives who want to tame a market system beyond class and money. Or are they outside the Progressive spectrum and should be considered Leftists?

[KittyWampus]

1. Boiling things down, yes it seems okay. That's what he's doing- boiling

things down to 6 basic catagories.

In Chemistry, you have a table of basic elements which co-mingle with one another.

[ulTRAX]

5. Lakoff's Categories Imply Capitulation on Some Major Issues

Last I heard trying to institute democratic reforms and tame the market system to have more democratic control of the economy were Progressive issues.

What bothers me is by taking these MAJOR issues off the list, Lakoff artificially LIMITS the definition of Progressive implying capitulation on some traditional Progressive issues.

[ulTRAX]

7. you confuse the clear-cut periodic table with arbitrary use of concepts

The periodic table is clear-cut because the atomic numbers/weights are clear-cut concepts. This is not the case in working with political concepts where there may be numerous built-in assumptions that a taxonomy hides.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

2. I 'm with Clint Eastwood

"The less you mess around with people the better off they are."

[brainshrub]

3. I think he has it about right.

I don't anyone should be dogmatic about it, but I think Lakoff has it right.

It's helpful to think of it this way.

[crispini]

4. I think focussing on the content of Lakoff's list misses the main point

which Lakoff repeatedly makes over and over again: how much we as progressives have IN COMMON.

What is needed is a focus on creating a progressive values movement that recognizes the shared values that define who progressives are, and that encompasses the work done by groups working on many different issue areas and programs. Recognizing the importance of higher-level values, principles, and policy directions can help progressives overcome common differences about policy details and tactics so that more enduring progressive goals can be achieved.

Lakoff's taxonomy is, IMO, simply to show us that we mostly differ in the priority we put on our issues.

Focus on the VALUES that Lakoff talks about -- I think that a lot of what you mention are really values more than they are types of progressives.

[ulTRAX]

9. Lakoff is describing Democrats not Progressives

crispini wrote: "Lakoff's taxonomy is, IMO, simply to show us that we mostly differ in the priority we put on our issues. Focus on the VALUES that Lakoff talks about -- I think that a lot of what you mention are really values more than they are types of progressives."

It's a chicken and egg situation. You can't say SOME types of Progressives are shaped by the values Lakoff mentions yet say other Progressive values such as favoring a more democratic America and democratic controls over the economy are not the basis for a 7th or 8th type of Progressive. What bothers me most about Lakoff's taxomony is that it seems to contain a hidden assumption that Progressives merely want to tinker with our political and economic systems but don't have deeper moral objections about either.

[crispini]

10. I guess you've lost me, because

I don't see the hidden assumption, but I also don't understand what the "deeper moral objections" that you're referring to are?

[ulTRAX]

13. the hidden assumption is to ignore some traditional Progressive themes

I brought up two major themes... one about the difference between tinkering with our anti-democratic system and true democratic reforms... here's some thoughts on the latter: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1316860

Second, true Progressives still believe that there should be more democratic control over an economy. They question the wisdom of a market system... and favor placing more controls on corporations by revoking charters and questioning the concept of corporate personhood. Lakoff ignores this theme.

My objection is that Lakoff ignores these traditional Progressive issues and only includes what I consider rather anemic Progressive cognitive modes which are more in keeping with the left in the Democratic Party not the broader spectrum of Progressive thought.

[crispini]

15. I still think we're talking past each other....

You seem to be looking through Lakoff's taxonomy with an eye to, "How is my way about being a progressive left out?" I think the taxonomy is almost unimportant. Lakoff's whole point is to emphasize the VALUES that make us all progressive.

We, ALL of us, every single Democrat and our progressive, need to be able to speak from our core values. What you're talking about here is a VALUE -- individuals are important, more important than corporations. The market is good, but in moderation.

I guess my point is just that the core message of Lakoff is, Let's look for what unites us.

[ulTRAX]

18. The taxonomy is what make Progressives different

Maybe elsewhere Lakoff deals with common values... but this exercise is clearly about the differences in what motivates Progressives. Below is my first attempt to revamp it. In doing so I've managed to include those traditional values that Lakoff, for some reason, chooses to ignore. Is any of this important? I think so... not because this taxonomy is of any use... but because we all must be aware of the ideological blinders we Progressives wear. They are both thick and insidious.... insidious because they encourage a limiting of ideas to some acceptable spectrum of thought... maybe defined by the compromises made to a dysfunctional political system. The blinders deprive us of the ideas needed to build a Progressive vision of where we want to take this nation.


Socio-economic: Do not believe in infallibility or fairness of market outcomes and see a legitimate government role in promoting efficiency, more equitable wealth distribution, and a social safety net.
Identity Politics: Our group deserves its share now.
Environmentalists: Respect for the earth and a healthy future.
Civil Libertarians: Want to expand freedoms and oppose illegitimate use of authority.
Pro-democracy: Concerned with the moral legitimacy of governance both public and private and seek democratic reforms to government and corporations.

[crispini]

21. Well, our *values* are what make us different

from the Republicans. The taxonomy is what makes us different from each other. I think your revision of the taxonomy is fine, FWIW, but what I'm trying to say is, let's not get hung up on the taxonomy. It's even in the same essay you cite (at least I think it's the same) but further up the page:

Conservatives, through their think tanks, have worked out a common set of values that divergent conservative groups share and that form the basis for cooperation. Progressives, on the other hand, are still largely unaware of the set of values that unite them. Once progressives understand the moral system that they share, it will be possible to articulate and sustain a movement based on values, principles and policy directions that is needed to win elections and support progressive organizations.

(snip)
What is needed is a focus on creating a progressive values movement that recognizes the shared values that define who progressives are, and that encompasses the work done by groups working on many different issue areas and programs. Recognizing the importance of higher-level values, principles, and policy directions can help progressives overcome common differences about policy details and tactics so that more enduring progressive goals can be achieved. The key insight for progressives is that all groups express an aspect of nurturant morality. The movement can be organized around nurturant moral values because these are progressive values. Once this is recognized, supported, and extended, progressives can be on their way to greater unity and achieve a broad-based and lasting progressive values movement to counter conservative efforts to force Strict Father morality into our society and institutions of government. Learning how each issue and program relates to first-order values and how to talk about those values is critical. Enacting broad-based strategic initiatives is one of the best ways to get individuals and organizations to work together to achieve progressive goals based on shared values.

http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org/research/rockridge/valuesmovement

It's the whole focus on the nurturant-parent model, what it is, and how to articulate it and activate it that's important IMO....

[rock]

6. I agree with you

It's somewhat arbitrary.

[ulTRAX]

8. it's not just arbitrary....

What bothers me most is not that it's arbitrary but that it reflects the anemic brand of Progressive thought in the US. It lacks recognition that traditionally many Progressives still want to bring democratic reforms to our anti-democratic political system... and they do not believe in the wisdom (or fairness) of the market.

[Colorado Blue]

11. I'm beginning to think there's a different type of...

Progressive for every Progressive:)

Seriously - just reading through posts here there are so many different individual points of view and so many different types of people - trying to put us into six basic categories is kind of futile.

And many of combine some or all of the listed categories into our philosophies.

But it's an interesting exercise.

I agree though that some of these concepts are pretty mainstream Democratic Party staples although the Dems have gone too far right; trying to appease the business classes we've lost some of our teeth.

[ulTRAX]

14. some of the categories could be expanded

Such taxonomies often are constructed in ways that contain hidden assumptions and are thus arbitrary. But there are some general themes here and with the expansion of some... it would make this taxonomy more inclusive... for example

Instead of "Socio-economic: All issues are a matter of money and class."

make it

Socio-economic: Do not believe in market outcomes and see a legitimate government role in reducing inefficiency, promoting wealth redistribution and democratizing the economy

Instead of "Civil Libertarians: Freedoms are threatened and have to be protected."

change to:

Civil Libertarians: Want to expand freedoms and oppose illegitimate use of authority.

Instead of "Anti-authoritarians: We have to fight the illegitimate use of authority."

Change to

Pro-democracy: want to bring common sense democratic reforms to government and corporations.

[Az]

12. I don't find my criteria in there

I strive towards building a better society with the notion that economics does not play the definitive measure of what is succesful as far as society is concerned. Its not spiritual in the sense he puts forward as I am definately an atheist and advocate no particular dogmatic religion.

I suspect he is caching the argument in terms that he can defend. Creating his own strawman which he can then prune and twist as he sees fit. I have no particular reason to adhere to his definitions.

[ICantBelieve]

16. I don't like any labels... n/t

[ulTRAX]

17. not sure it was about labels

I think Lakoff was trying to find the root values which motivated all Progressives. It might be a useful exercise if done properly. For it to work the categories should cover the FULL spectrum of Progressive thought and be mutually exclusive. Lakoff's taxonomy fails in both these area. It contains some hidden assumptions which remove some traditionally Progressive issues and leaves us with a categorization scheme that seems to describe the left-wing of the Democratic Party... not the Progressive movement generally. Here's my first stab at revamping his list:

Socio-economic: Do not believe in infallibility or fairness of market outcomes and see a legitimate government role in promoting efficiency, more equitable wealth distribution, and a social safety net.

Identity Politics: Our group deserves its share now.

Environmentalists: Respect for the earth and a healthy future.

Civil Libertarians: Want to expand freedoms and oppose illegitimate use of authority.

Pro-democracy: Concerned with the moral legitimacy of governance both public and private and seek democratic reforms to government and corporations.

[rucky]

19. It's all social justice. n/t

[ulTRAX]

20. Lakoff seems to discount social justice

Lakoff has little to say in his taxonomy about two traditional Progressive issues... a distrust of the unregulated market... and bringing true democratic reforms to the US.

It's hard to imagine any true social justice without including those issues.