Talk:Modern liberalism in the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Modern liberalism in the United States article.
Article policies
Socrates
Philosophy Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Issues with article name, 'Modern American liberalism'

This article is the beginning of an attempt to split the overlong American liberalism article. As such, it is a work in progress, and has only been revised down to the "History of modern American liberalism" section. Much more work remains to be done.

The list of important issues defining American liberalism is taken from the 2000 platform of the Democratic party.

I think the article needs to address the issue of how American liberalism differs from European liberalism, but I know much more about the former than the latter. Help! Electionworld? Rick Norwood 00:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

That definitely needs more development. RJII 00:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I think "liberalism" in Europe reflects economic liberalism, so that European "liberals" would actually correspond with American "conservatives." The term "Modern American liberalism" is there to distinguish both against classical liberalism in the United States and "liberalism" as the term is used in Europe. 147.9.203.102 (talk) 20:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Classical liberalism, libertarianism, and modern american liberalism

I think this article should be called "American modern liberalism" instead of "Modern American liberalism" --the title seems awkward. Eventually there will be an "American classical liberalism" --"Classical American liberalism" would also be awkward.RJII 00:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Several alternate names have been proposed, but there is no consensus, so let's leave it the way it is for now. Meanwhile, I would appreciate an explanation of how what you call "Classical Americal liberalism" differs from "Libertarianism". Oh, and by the way, can some of the "totally disputed" tags go now? Rick Norwood 01:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, libertarianism includes anarchism --such as the individualist anarchists and anarcho-capitalists. Classical liberalism may think government is an evil, but a necessary one. Also, Alan Ryan, professor of Politics at Princeton, says the claim from "contemporary libertarians...that they are classical liberals...is not wholly true. There is at least one strain of libertarian through represented by Robert Nozick's Anarchy, State and Utopia that advocates the decriminalization of 'victimless crimes' such as prostitution, drug-taking and unorthodox sexual activities. There is nothing of that in John Locke or Adam Smith." But, then many say libertarianism is a form or subset of classical liberalism, with classical liberalism being the broader more encompassing form of individualist philosophy. At any rate, I think everyone agrees that the terms aren't identical in meaning. One thing that is certain is that they're both individualist philosophies. Modern liberalism was the introduction of collectivism and positive liberty into the American ideosphere. RJII 01:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't like to make too many edits in one day, so I'm going to watch The X-Files. The truth is out there. Rick Norwood 01:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
As best I can tell, you are using these terms in non-standard ways. Certainly, your usage differs from the way the terms are used in the article liberalism, and we should be consistent. For example, what the article calls "economic liberalism", you identify with "classical liberalism", what you call "social liberalism", the article calls "cultural liberalism", reserving "social liberalism" for welfare and other programs to aid the poor. Also, you use the phrase "laissez faire" in an unusual way. It usually refers to government interference in business, in the form of tarrifs and restraint of trade, but you seem to use it to include welfare. Finally, you often use the terms "positive rights" and "negative rights", which are libertarian jargon, and are never, as far as I know, used outside libertarian circles. Certainly, I have never encountered these phrases outside libertarian literature. This article needs to address a general audience, and should avoid specialized jargon and non-standard use of languge. Rick Norwood 14:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
It's not true that I think "economic liberalism" is synonymous with "classical liberalism." Economic liberalism is just the economic philosophy of classical liberalism. And, I'm not using "laissez-faire" in an unusual way --laissez-faire means that government does not intervene other than to maintain peace and property rights --naturally this precludes having a welfare state. Next, "negative and poisitive rights" are not "libertarian jargon" at all. They're common terminology is philosophy about rights that everyone learns in Political Philosophy 101. But, aside from that, that's not even the terminology I used. I talked of "positive liberty," not "positive rights" --they are two different thigns. I'm not using any "specialized jargon" than wthe "jargon" that is standard terminology in political philosophy. RJII 17:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I am leaning toward the idea that in america classical liberalism is libertarianism.Mrdthree 16:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] jargon

Whether the jargon is purely libertarian or is taught in some schools of political science, it is still jargon. Why not say "freedom without government intervention" and "freedom protected by the government"?

As for "laissez faire", the first dictionary to hand says...well, actually the first dictionary to hand says (in its entirity) "Lack of restraint", which is clearly wrong. (That's the New Merriam Webster paperback dictionary.) We need an older dictionary, one that actually defines words. How about, "a doctrine opposing government interference in economic affairs beyond the minimum necessary for the maintenance of peace and property rights." That doesn't seem to say anything about government assistance for the poor or about disaster relief, though it clearly would be opposed to a minimum wage or prohibition of monopoly. Rick Norwood 17:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it's well established that classical liberals oppose welfare. "Classical liberalism is associated with John Locke ([1690] 1967), Adam Smith ([1775] 1976), Alexis de Tocqueveille ([1835] 1964) and Friedrich von Hayek (1073-9). It focuses on the idea of limited government, the maintainance of the rule of law, the avoidance of arbitrary and discretionary power, the sanctity of private property and free made contracts, and the responsibility of individuals in their own fates. It is not necessarily a democratic doctrine, for there is nothing in the bare idea of majority rule to show that majorities will respect the rights of property or maintain the rule of law...It is hostile to the welfare state; welfare states violate the principle that each individual ought to look to their own welfare." (Ryan, Alan. Liberalism. A Companion to Contemporary Political Philosophy, editors Goodin, Robert E. and Pettit, Philip. Blackwell Publishing, 1995, p.293.) RJII 18:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
"What explains the dramatic transformation in liberal ideology and governance between 1877 and 1937 that carried the United States from laissez-faire constitutionalism to New Deal statism, from classical liberalism to democratic social-welfarism?" [1] RJII 18:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
About "monopoly," it's not that they oppose "prohibiting monopoly" but that they think that government intervention is the cause of monopoly. By having a laissez-faire system, the possibility of coercive monopoly is reduced or eliminated. There is nothing that can truly prevent competition other than goverment force. RJII 19:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] economic liberalism

It is not the purpose of this article to argue the case for economic liberalism.

Since every group of people on earth larger than a family has some form of government, arguments that begin "If there were no government, then..." are as speculative as arguments that begin "If there were no gravity, then..." I am aware the libertarians, and economic liberals generally, have written countless books that prove, to their own satisfaction, that if there were no government everything would be better. But since that blessed state has never existed and is unlikely ever to exist, these arguments have no more weight than arguments about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

As for socialism, economic liberals often talk and write about "the failure of socialism", and have theoretically proved, to their own satisfaction, that things would be ever so much better without socialism. But since every democratic government on earth, and many non-democratic governments, have adopted socialism to a greater or lesser extent, and are experiencing unprecidented levels of freedom, longevity, peace, and prosperity, all arguments about the failure of socialism have to be relative to an imaginary state in which things would no doubt be even better than they are now, but which has never been put to the test.

If economic liberalism were not a minority point of view, some government somewhere would have tried it, don't you think? Rick Norwood 20:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Economic liberalism, otherwise known as laissez-faire, has been tried. Look at Hong Kong, for example. Anyway, I don't know why you're bringing this up. It is not my position that I want this article to "argue the case for economic liberalism." This ariticle is about social liberalism in America. RJII 00:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I keep bringing this up because you keep putting into the various articles on liberalism statements that support your own ideosyncratic point of view, and that are contradicted by numerous examples. Classical liberals wrote extensively about the conflicting values of freedom and equality. Some were on one side and some on the other. You keep implying that all classical liberals were economic liberals and it just ain't so. Even Adam Smith wasn't an economic liberal as you define the term -- he opposed tarrifs and restraint of trade, but favored a tax structure that put the larger tax burden on those best able to pay.

Modern liberals, just like everyone else, dislike the welfare system, and see better education and affirmative action as a way out of the welfare trap. But, come election time, liberal and conservative politicians alike buy votes by giving away free stuff to rich and poor alike, resulting in insupportable debt. You keep implying that the main thrust of modern liberalism is the welfare state, when in fact it is freedom and equality.

As for Hong Kong, of all states on this planet it is the closest to your ideal, but the government does not allow the Hong Kong dollar to be traded freely, and it does tax to provide government services, so it is not really the example you are looking for. Rick Norwood 13:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I can't figure out where you're coming from. We're not speaking the same language. "Economic liberalism" does not mean no taxes. A liberal economy doesn't have to be absolutely 100% zero government intervention --we're not talking anarchism here. Adam Smith was a certainly a liberal, but he defintely did not support a welfare state. He believed those with more money should pay more taxes, of course, but not for a welfare system, but for essential public goods that the market is not able to provide, such as police, fire protection, maybe some utilities, etc. It's not MY call that classical liberals oppose a welfare state --it's the position of credible sources. It's well known that classical liberalism is opposed to a welfare state and modern liberalism supports it to promote positive liberty. And, that's an essential distinguishing feature of the philosophy that can't be ignored. There's nothing "idiosyncratic" about that view. It's widely known and accepted. And, yes, both classical and modern liberals are for "freedom and equality," but freedom and equality have different meanings. For classical liberals, freedom means freedom from restraint --for modern liberals, freedom includes positive liberty (according to modern liberals themselves) --which refers to the capability of exercising negative liberty, which requires welfare for poor people. And, for classical liberals "equality" means equal rights, but modern liberals are looking at other things, such as wealth inequality. There are definite differences between classical and modern liberals. Classical liberalism is much much more laissez-faire and individualist. Social/Modern liberals, on the other hand, are PRO-government intervention --thinking it is going acheive their social goals. RJII 17:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RJII's edit

Good quote, RJII. Rick Norwood 14:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I was lucky to come across it. Being from such a mainstream widely-read source, it should hold. RJII 03:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Philosophy Redo

The previous chunk on the philosophy of modern american liberalism was halariously slanted. I don't want to throw out the previous stuff- I think it has gems hidden in there- but I added a second chunk that I believe is much more balanced, and is backed by a written (nonbiased) source. I don't have time now, but if someone could attempt to merge those two chunks together, we might be on to something.Minidoxigirli 17:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

No doubt you have accurately described Lakeoff's view, but it should be identified as Lakeoff's view. - Jmabel | Talk 01:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Ah! You're right. Thanks.Minidoxigirli 02:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Borderline OR

This article contains a lot of words that imply synthesis of thought ("because" "therefore" "it is obvious that...") without appropriate citations. SectOR tag applied. /Blaxthos 14:18, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

You need to focus your objection more narrowly. Certainly there are many subsections in this section that are totally unobjectionable. Which sections in particular do you find to be OR, and what could be done to improve them? Rick Norwood 12:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, first off, immediately removing a template and calling it bogus is not the best way to handle the situation -- just because you think it isn't applicable does not mean it's okay to call it bogus and immediately remove it. Also, it was applied to the section to which I was referring, not the whole article. Let me highlight a few phrases that seem to constitute original research (especially without citations). If, after reviewing the Original Research Policy, you still don't understand why this probably constitutes original research let me know and I'll explain each phrase I've highlighted (which by no means is an inclusive list):

  • ... however, despite the New Deal programs, which met with mixed success in solving the nation's economic problems. Economic progress for minorities was hindered by discrimination, an issue often avoided by Roosevelt's administration. (The New Deal)
  • Reform was based on the assumption that the depression was caused by the inherent instability of the market and that government intervention was necessary to rationalize and stabilize the economy, and to balance the interests of farmers, business and labor. (The New Deal)
  • U.S. liberalism of the Cold War era was the immediate heir to Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal and the slightly more distant heir to the Progressives of the early 20th century. (American liberalism during the Cold War)
  • In the late 1940s, liberals generally did not see Harry S. Truman as one of their own, viewing him as a Democratic Party hack. (American liberalism during the Cold War)
  • Nonetheless, liberals opposed McCarthyism and were central to McCarthy's downfall. (American liberalism during the Cold War)
  • President Johnson could not understand why the rather impressive civil rights laws passed under his leadership had failed to immunize Northern and Western cities from rioting. (Liberals and civil rights)
  • While the differences between Nixon and the liberals are obvious ..." (Nixon and the liberal consensus)

These are just a very few examples of what appears to be original research within just one section of the article. WP:WEASEL, WP:OR, and WP:CITE should be reviewed before you go shouting that the claims are bogus. Tag re-added until all the OR is either removed or properly cited. /Blaxthos 22:18, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Blaxthos, political articles de facto belong to those with the greatest axe to grind and/or the greatest time on their hands. Weasel words and bad (or no) citations are like chisel and mallet in the hands of these artists as they carve their POV into an article. I respect your boldness in tagging the obvious, but know this: your "bogus" instigation has just placed you toe to toe with a veritable Wiki-Bernini. Tread carefully.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.120.14 (talk)

I have neither the time to nor interest in spending any significant amount of time "battling the bloggers." I stumbled across this article while browsing, and noticed some problems in the article. Personally, I would categorize myself as a "modern american liberal" -- my only point in mentioning that is that I fear the criticism I level at the article is being misinterpreted as an attack on the political viewpoint. Wikipedia is NOT a forum, a blog, or a soapbox, and any intent I have is simply to improve the encyclopaedic content of the wikipedia. If anyone wants to collaborate to try and clean it up, just let me know. /Blaxthos 04:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

My point was that instead of putting the OR tag on the entire section, it would be better to put the OR tag on those subsections you object to, apparently sections 2, 3, 4, and 8. That will allow people to work on the specific objections, which you have now provided, instead of wondering what in the article seemed like OR to you. I am sorry if I removed the OR tag too hastily, and I thank you for pointing out the sections you think need work. Rick Norwood 12:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Those are good starting points. My time is very limited (but may change sometime soon). If you would like assistance let me know. /Blaxthos 09:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Assistance in working on wiki articles is always welcome. Rick Norwood 12:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

While none of this is well-cited, it is certainly not original research. There is a big difference between presenting mainstream historians' views without adequate citation and making it all up as you go along, and the former is clearly what is going on here. I think you'd have a hard time finding a mainstream historian who would disagree with any of the statements that you have given as examples; I'd be very interested in seeing citations to the contrary. Yes, the burden is on the person who wrote this to provide citations, but pretty much all of this text predates when that was made clear policy, and while I would welcome someone filling this in, this is about par for the course in older Wikipedia articles, maybe above par because it is all essentially right. - Jmabel | Talk 23:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] American versus European use of the term "liberalism"

The section currently has "freedom of speech" and "freedom of religion" listed as those ideas that are supported by modern liberalism. While this is true, they are listed alongside ideas that are exclusive to modern liberalism, which (intentionally or not) suggests that freedom of speech and religion are exclusive to modern liberalism. The two should either be removed or the article should indicate that they are not exclusive ideas. - FitzTheMariner 20:59, 15 December 2006 (EST)

Anyone who believes in the Four Freedoms holds liberal beliefs. It is true that some people who are not liberals in other respects hold these liberal beliefs, but these are the core beliefs that define liberalism.
Further, most attacks on liberalism in America today are attacks on these beliefs. In particular, note how the ACLU is attacked every time it tries to uphold these constitutional rights, or how judges who rule according to the Bill of Rights are called "activist judges". Note attacks on the freedom of parents to raise their children to follow their own religious beliefs instead of the beliefs of their children's schoolteachers, attempts to use the public schools to promote one religious belief over others, attacks on people who say, "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas", attacks on people who sing the national anthem in Spanish, attacks on The Dixie Chicks for exercising their freedom of speech. I could go on, but you get the idea. Rick Norwood 13:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there's any evidence that "liberals" are stronger on free speach than "conservatives". There's even some reverse indications that freedom of speach is being attacked by leftists. Free speach is more restricted in countries where that which is denoted "liberalism" on this page is the norm in politics, eg. Canada, the U.K., Germany. Currently, students are in trouble at Cambridge Univ. for mocking Islam. There were more "liberals" apologizing for the fatwa against Salamon Rushdie. Students got in trouble, to some extent, in San F. for desecrating a Hezbolah flag. These are example where some authority is going after someone. Your examples of the "Dixie Chicks", "Happy Holidays" silliness are examples of people being attacked by free speach. One can't escape from that possibility without censorship. Nevertheless, I agree that valuing free speach is liberalism. But "conservatives" are perhaps slightly better at defending it. For example, Geo. Bush didn't go to Bahrain and criticize cartoonist, who are facing death threats. That was Bill Clinton.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 18.87.1.114 (talk • contribs) 22 March 2007.

Notice I said that freedom of speech and freedom of religion ARE modern American liberal beliefs. The problem is that they are listed alongside ideas that are exlusive to modern American liberalism, which could give the impression that they too are also exclusive. This is about what could be seen as presentation of exclusivity. So it should be noted they are not exclusive to modern American liberalism. FitzTheMariner 01:55, 19 December 2006 (UCT)
I get absolutely no impression from that paragraph that the ideas are meant to be unique to modern American liberalism. Nobody who reads it could draw from it the conclusion that every other political philosophy opposes these freedoms. And none of the other beliefs in the paragraph are exclusive to MAL, either. In fact, the paragraph, in its last sentence, makes it clear that they are not exclusive to MAL. Andrew Levine 11:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Mainly, the "exception" reads awkwardly. It is as if a reference to Paris, France felt it necessary to mention that there was a Paris, Texas. It's non-encyclopedic. I agree with Andrew Levine, and am reverting to the earlier version. Rick Norwood 13:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Instead of repeatedly reverting it, why don't you propose how to write it in a non-awkward manner? And Andrew Levine is correct in noting that the ideas aren't exclusive to MAL, but this article examines one facet of modern American politics on a very large and broad scale. This aricle could be contrasted with modern American conservatism and libertarianism, neither of which support the ideas presented (or at least in the same manner) beyond freedom of speech and religion. I'm not trying to get a revert war going here, but you're unwillingness to address a comprimise in this is certainly leading it that way. The fact that you've said that you mainly (your words) reverted because of awkward wording certainly means you can propose another way to word it while still getting the same idea across. FitzTheMariner 14:58, 19 December 2006 (UCT)
The point is that these ideas are the cornerstone of liberalism as a movement and of Modern American Liberalism in particular. To the extent that Libertarians and some Conservatives believe in freedom of speech and religion, they believe in principles which, historically, have been the definition of liberalism. See any history book, or, for that matter, any dictionary. To say that people believe in freedom of speech but not in liberal principles is to say that people believe in liberalism but don't believe in liberalism. The modern political issues on the list that follows are consequences of a belief in freedom, and are secondary and probably transient. In the Nineteenth Century, a big liberal issue was Votes for Women -- you don't see that on the list today. Rick Norwood 13:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I just read the link that was provided by a source to a statement, that "liberals believed in free market economies that were mixtures of socialism and capitalism." I removed the sentence because the evidence had little to do with the claim. Furthermore, it contrasted with statements made earlier in the article.Don't know if that's the right thing to do, feels right. 71.107.254.215 (talk) 06:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nunberg

Does the following sentence really add anything to the article? "The full title of linguist Geoffrey Nunberg's 2006 book on the use of slogans by conservatives to reshape the image of liberalism, Talking Right: How Conservatives Turned Liberalism into a Tax-Raising, Latte-Drinking, Sushi-Eating, Volvo-Driving, New York Times-Reading, Body-Piercing, Hollywood-Loving, Left-Wing Freak Show is as an extended list of liberal slurs." I'm inclined to remove it… - Jmabel | Talk 22:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Move to Modern liberalism in the United States

There is currently a discussion at Talk:American liberalism to move the page to Liberalism in the United States. Since the change would also apply to this article, please join in the discussion. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 19:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the new title of this article is a mess. The article is about what is simply, in the United States called "liberalism". When discussed by Europeans, but with reference to the United States (or when discussed by American academics who expect an international readership) it is usually called "American liberalism". The present title "Modern liberalism in the United States" borders on being a neologism: it is using a mainly European term for a similar European political philosophy, and applying it incongruously to the United States. I notice, especially, that as people have inserted the new name in articles that point to this, they are changing clear, comprehensible sentences into new-gibberish. - Jmabel | Talk 01:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
The move was already made, and there was overwhemling support for it. A neologism is something like "wikiality." "Modern liberalism in the United States" is a phrase, and while it may not be as widely used as "Modern American liberalism," it is still the more politically correct of the two. I'm not going to spend anymore time debating this, however; you can see the archived debate here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cielomobile (talk • contribs) 04:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Philosophy of modern liberalism

This entire section seems highly dubious. Most modern American liberals are in support of a universal health care system (for instance), and I am not aware of empirical issues ever being addressed in this dialogue. Thsi is a highly socialist policy that is being proposed. To all appearances, liberals blindly believe government stepping in and taking hold of the entire health care system will be beneficial. They oppose free markets based on priniciple alone. Empirical considerations are generally ignored. Salvor Hardin 08:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The question, Salvor Hardin, is this. Do liberals believe what they say the believe, that is in free markets, or do they believe what conservatives say they believe, and have a secret, hidden opposition to free markets "based on principle alone". If the latter, it is up to you to discover the headquarters of this secret liberal cabal and support your view. Otherwise, you should assume good faith. Liberals support free markets. Who was it who wrote into the drug benefits for seniors a requirement preventing the government from negotiating the price of perscription drugs? Who threatens to veto a liberal bill to allow the government to negotiate the price of drugs on a free market? Who tried to prevent Americans from buying drugs from Canada? Rick Norwood 13:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Liberals *don't* say they believe in free markets, that's my point. Whoever it was in congress advocating those policies (I admit I have no idea who it was), if they were a Democrat then they were stepping WAY outside their party's ideology. Salvor Hardin 15:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Please, like Rick said, show us this hidden liberal opposition to the free market, because I'm not aware of any Democrats who steadfastly oppose the concept. I think you may just be confusing liberals with communists here... -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 06:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Liberals are frequently indistinguishable from communists. That's my point. How is "the government must be the sole provider of health care" not a communistic policy? Salvor Hardin 15:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm a liberal, and I believe in free markets. If you don't recognize George W. Bush as the person who opposes free markets for prescription drugs, you need to get up to speed on the news. I recommend The Week. Rick Norwood 13:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
If you believe in free markets and you consider yourself a liberal, then you are definitely in the minority. As for George W. Bush, what has he got to do with what we're discussing? Are you trying to use him as an example of the opposite of liberalism? That would be a mistake. Salvor Hardin 15:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

We are in danger of getting off topic here. The point is that this article should primarily report what self-identified liberals say, and only secondarily, if at all, what conservatives claim liberals believe. Rick Norwood 13:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Second Rick. Just because some people may claim that conservatives are fascists does not make it true. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 04:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

This particular example is problematical, because the Fascist party self-identified themselves as conservative, but the non-Fascist conservatives do not identify with the Fascists. In any case, today Fascist is nothing but name-calling, and should be avoided unless the subject under discussion is Italian politics leading up to and during World War II. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rorty reference

Richard Rorty's book, which is cited in the following quote, is about the American left, not American liberalism. You may want to add material from the Rorty book to Left-wing politics. If you do, note spelling below: "beleive" should be "belief".

"It holds a beleive that the government is to ensure the provision of positive rights and societal practices ought to undergo continous change as society evolves. Since the 1960s the focus of the American left has shifted more from economic to social issues, such as same-sex marriage and stem cell research.[1]

Also note that the first sentence above just repeats what the Schlessinger quote says, while the second sentence singles out two of the many goals of modern American liberalism, goals which are discussed later in the article. Thus, the purpose of adding this to the introduction is not clear. Rick Norwood 13:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

American liberalism is part of the American left. Modern American liberalism is a form of social liberalism, not classic liberalism. His book talks about liberalism as well. The Schlessinger quote does not mention the focus of American liberals having shifted from economic to, mainly social issues. It completely omits the social agenda of liberals, and almost exclusively focuses on the economic aspects of liberalism. Furthermore, the Schlessinger quote is quite dated. I have replaced it with this quote by Paul Starr, a contemporary sociologist: "Liberalism wagers that a state... can be strong but constrained – strong because constrained... Rights to education and other requirements for human development and security aim to advance equal opportunity and personal dignity and to promote a creative and productive society. To guarantee those rights, liberals have supported a wider social and economic role for the state, counterbalanced by more robust guarantees of civil liberties and a wider social system of checks and balances anchored in an independent press and pluralistic society." Regards, Signaturebrendel 18:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

First, as to the relationship between American liberalism and the American left, Americans who support the dictatorship of Fidel Castro are clearly leftist but anti-liberal. Americans who support the Bill of Rights are clearly liberal but anti-leftist. To pretend that they are the same is to confuse the issue. Second, as to the two quotes, they seem to me to say much the same thing, but Schlessinger is a more well known source and says it both more briefly and more clearly. I see no advantage to the Starr quote. In the Starr quote, I do not understand the use of the word "constrained". Maybe the meaning is hidden in the ellipses. Constrained by whom, and to what purpose? In any case, your unilateral replacement of one quote by another is unacceptable. Rick Norwood 14:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Of course there is a difference between the "far left" and liberals, but liberals are to the left of the center - they are part of "the left," though not the far-left. Not every member of "the left" is far-left, most are liberals. As for the quote, they do not say the same thing. The Starr is quote is considerably more comprehensive and up-to-date:
  1. It was formulated after the cultural revolution of the 1960s which had a profound impact on liberalism
  2. Schlessinger focuses almost exclusively on market regulation, liberalism has a social agenda as well which the quote completely omits
  3. Starr mentions civil liberties, a word that doesn't even appear in the Schlessinger quote but is essential to modern liberalism
  4. Starr mentions cultural pluralism, a core principle of modern day liberalism that must be covered in the introduction but isn't found in the Schlessinger quote.
  5. Starr mentions egalitarian principles, "equal opportunity." Egalitarian ideals are one of the cornerstones of modern American liberalism, which the Schlessinger quote completely omits.
  6. Starr is very clear that a free press, a wider system of checks and balances and robust gurantees of civil liberties ought to contrain the state, again something the Schlessinger quote omits.
  7. The two controversial issues in the introduction serve as an example of what constitutes a social issue as opposed to an economic issues. This way the statement that American liberals have shifted their focuses largely to social issues (which the Schlessinger quote omits) is more meaningful to our readers.
The Starr quote is far more comprehensive, largely because it describes both, the social and economic agenda, of modern American liberals. The Schlessinger quote is too dated (pre-sexual & civil rights revoultion) and only focuses on economic aspects of liberalism, making it deficient. Also, "unilateral replacement of one quote." By the same token I could argue that your "unilateral revert" is unacceptable - in case you haven't noticed you're the only other party in this discussion. Wikipedia grows through bold editing decisions, like replacing a clearly deficient and out-dated quote. Regards, Signaturebrendel 18:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

PS. I am going to be on vacation next week and am leaving this afternoon. Remember there is no deadline. Mahalo, Signaturebrendel 21:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for a reasoned response. I agree with some of your points, but disagree with others. I plan to modify what you wrote, but not revert it. We can discuss this further when you return from your vacation. Rick Norwood 17:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Liberal Concensus?

This is borderline, if not obviously POV, although it does cite statistics, the person who wrote it seems to be very excited about the idea and they do not have a section criticizing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackbird88 (talk • contribs) 07:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

It is a valid opinion relevant to the article and section, and does not violate POV in any way. Signaturebrendel 04:18, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't you add a section containing statistics that go counter to the idea of a new liberal concensus? This would at least balance it out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackbird88 (talk • contribs) 04:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Not neccessarily. There is nothing wrong with describing the idea that there might be another liberal consensus coming. If you have reputable source stating that there is virtually no chance for a new liberal consensus or that politics will likely move more to the right, by all means add it. But using statistics ourselves to counter points made in our sources is OR. Regards, Signaturebrendel 23:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Citing Arthur Brooks' research isn't "Original Research"

Text I added to bring in Arthur Brooks' research on the correlation between charitable giving patterns and political affiliation was reverted as "OR". I'm not sure why, unless the use of the words "however," "some" and "suggests" was taken to mean that I was extrapolating beyond the sources to draw a conclusion. Frankly, I was just trying to soften the statement a bit - the sources footnoted say exactly what the reverted text said: liberals give less money to charitable causes, are less likely to give blood, and volunteer less time. The sources also say that this may be attributable to their view of government responsibility versus individual responsibility and to differences in religious affiliation (because the strongest predictor of charitable giving is religious belief). Nothing in my edit was intended to draw any conclusions beyond that (and I apologize if I did so - I assure everyone that it was inadvertent). However they may best be characterized to stay NPOV, I do think these results are relevant in this section, which states that liberal philosophy is based in part on helping people who can't help themselves and a nurturing spirit. I believe that's true - but the way that philosophy is played out in practice in people's lives is relevant also. If someone can suggest a better way to summarize and characterize this research, I'd appreciate the help. If there's other relevant research or sources on this topic, I'd love to see them brought in as well. I just don't think it's correct to exclude a summary of Brooks' conclusions as OR.EastTN (talk) 13:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes it is. Patterns of charitable giving have absolutely nothing to do with modern liberal philosophy. There is no reason to include them in that section unless you wanted to show that modern liberals arn't as compassionate as they're made out to be - that is OR. Including this research in that section (George Will btw doesn't count as research) is OR, since it does not pertain to the modern liberal phislosophy itself but is used in order to make the point that modern liberal philosophy does not life up to its self-professed objectives. Signaturebrendel 04:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. We're not talking about whether or not liberals are "compassionate," but rather what kind of compassion modern liberalism entails. Take the time to dig a little deeper. Liberals are deeply committed to compassion that's played out through public policy and delivered through government programs. None of the text under discussion said (or intended to imply) that this public compassion isn't real or isn't important. But it is completely relevant to a discussion of liberal philosophy to point out that it calls for or produces a compassion played out through political activism and the public policy process, rather than a compassion played out through private charity and volunteerism. The distinction is particularly critical because it is a key distinction between liberalism on the one hand and libertarian and classical conservative world views on the other hand, which call for private rather than public compassion. If you aren't happy with George Will, that's fine with me - he's not the primary source here, but rather a secondary source I picked up because he summarized the Brooks book (I always like to include a published summary of a book when possible, for people who don't own it). There are other reviews of the book out there that we can pick up. On a simpler note, this isn't "original research" when we're not making any arguments or drawing any conclusions that are not in the source. It may be research that we find startling or don't like, but it isn't coming from me. I'm fine with editing the text ruthlessly to make sure it clearly and correctly characterizes what the source says, and nothing but what the source says. I'm happy adding any additional material needed to set the context a reader may need to appropriately evaluate it, and I'm happy moving it to some other place in the article where it may fit in better. I'm not at all comfortable with dropping it because we don't like what it says, or think it's somehow too negative. Is there another place in the article that you'd suggest for discussing Brooks' work? EastTN (talk) 14:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] An additional source, possibly?

Recently, I came across a book by Eric Alterman, Why We're Liberals: A Political Handbook for Post-Bush America. The book is divided into two parts, the first of which deals with the philosophy of American Liberalism. Alterman does bash conservatives a fair bit in the book, but he offers a fairly comprehensive history of the Liberalism movement in America, and includes the reasons why he thinks identification with the world "Liberal" is declining (for example, a decline in the power of unions). He also uses a chapter to compare American Liberalism to European ideas of Social Democracy.

In short, I was thinking that this might be a worthwhile source for the editors of this article, as it deals very closely with the state of modern-day American Liberalism. Also, I apologize for making you all read through the above paragraph. I didn't want to sound like an ad, but I thought it would be best to specify why I thought the book would be useful as a source. An excerpt from the book's introduction can be found here. -Darksidevoid (talk) 15:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)