Progressive Logic, A Book Review Part 1

I was approached by Dr William J. Kelleher about a gratis copy his new book Progressive Logic: Framing A Unified Theory of Values For Progressives. I figured if he wanted me to read it, it is likely that he wants me to tell you about it. I am going to do this a little different than most 'reviews' in that I want to tell you about the book and my thoughts as I read it.

The introduction gives us a fair idea about the intentions of the book. Essentially, the right have been very successful in recent years not because of the validity of their arguments but the manner in which they are framed. Instead of arguing the merits of their arguments, they have simply put them into attractive frames and progressive arguments into negative frames. The goal of the book is summed as

It is about putting forth an explanation as to why progressive values are intellectually far superior to their political rivals on the right. Our aim here is to provide a "frame" for progressive values that will command widespread respect

.

OK. This intrigues me. I agree with the idea that the right has done well in the 'framing' area. In a topical sense, we have allowed them to frame us as weak. When we do fight back, we allow them frame us as wild-eyed nut cases. We saw it with Howard Dean, where we started with a strong, outspoken candidate and ended up with soft spoken over-nuanced John Kerry. Now we see it in the way that Jon Tester's supporters are being painted because of their energy.

Chapter 1: What is Progressive Logic

Here we have Kelleher making the claim that the apparent lack of unity and consistency in American progressives stems from a failure to focus on the values that they do share. Without a common cause of paramount proportions, progressives have focused on diverging values. The power of a unified progressive movement has been displayed many times throughout history by the likes of abolitionists, civil rights movement and so on. However, for the most part that have operated under fragmented notions of just government. Kelleher feels progressive movements can only be successful by drawing together a unified framework under which to operate.

OK, I can buy this so far. Certainly, this notion of a 'unified platform' has been successful for the right so far. We can note from their impending disintegration that it is based on the divergence from their central framework. For instance, a long time staple of the right is fiscal responsibility. It is easy to see that the current lot in Washington have all but abandoned that idea and it is making a lot of republicans very nervous. Additionally, the recent addition of evangelical fundamentalist principals has concerned those that have traditionally favored separation of church and state. For the most part they have managed to maintain some levels of 'unity' despite the diverging values. Why is that? Perhaps by focussing on the unifying values? OK, back to the book.

Kelleher sets out to build this framework by stating his view of the basic progressive premise.

All persons always deserve positive regard.

He makes the claims that four value axioms ( half positive and half negative ) can be deduced from this single premise. Wait here while I read ahead... Ooh, these are good.

1. Idealogical Fallacy: In short, the false concept that ideas are more important than people. He uses the concept of 'race' and gender bias to illustrate this and sums it up as

...entails subordinating the regard given a real person in favor of some idea, conception, system, or other kind of cognitive concept. If all persons always deserve positive regard, then logically no mere concept can be used as an excuse to diminish another persons positive value.

.

Does this sound familiar to anyone? Gay marriage ban anyone? Is this not an 'ideal' being placed above real people? The ideal here being the institution concept of 'marriage', the people being folks that we see and talk to, blog with and work with everyday.

2. Instrumental Fallacy. This one is simple: using a person as an solely as an instrument to achieve some goal or achieve some end. He makes the claim (and rightly so) that to 'use' a person in the manner that we use a tool or a thing reduces that person in value as though they were no better than a 'thing'.

OK, this seems right too, we know this in principal. A business that does not value their employees as 'people' but only as the tools of business will have demoralized employees. The same can be applied to any sort of policy.

3. Ideological Enhancement. Here Kelleher begins talking in the positives and they are essentially extensions to the basic premise. By giving positive regard to all people then we increase their value. Kelleher gives the example that Martin Luther King Jr believed that even the racist he protested against deserved respect as humans.

I will have to think about this in depth. While it is a value that I struggle applying, I agree with it 100%. I tend to devalue people based on their positions at times, I think that we all do to an extent.

4. Instrumental Enhancement. Another positive axiom for progressive values. Think public education. Think inner city renewal. Think rural electrification. Think civil rights and the abolishing of slavery. These are central to progressive politics.

The remainder of the chapter is a discussion on exactly what 'values' are. Here Kelleher proposes that

It entails intellectual judgments about how various ideas, things, and actions relate to the basic premises. Progressives and conservatives value differently becuase they start from different premises

.

Now, he goes on to say that the basic principal of conservatives is that "some people deserve our positive regard sometimes, and some people deserve our negative regard sometimes, and we are free to say who and when". This seems a little harsh doesn't it? Not something that they would want to admit to? If not, then I think that it is because we have actually done a pretty good job of framing our basic premise as the most humane approach.

However, I think that there is plenty of evidence pointing to the truth of this as the 'conservative view'. I think that you can see it in the regard that is often display towards Arabic Muslims, as though all were terrorist. Consider the approach taken to 'racial profiling' of Arabic peoples in airport. I can point to plenty of blog posts and actual articles where all Arabic persons are devalued to the level of 'terrorist'.

OK, this wraps up part 1. As there are four chapters, I imagine there will be a total of four parts. So far, I am intrigued. Kelleher is still setting up his argument, so I am interested to see where he takes it.

Buy the Book. It is worth it.