Talk:Liberalism in the United States/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

Non-NPOV section

The section Contemporary use of "liberal" by political opponents sounds very non-NPOV to me. Does anybody else agree? Reading it I get a very clear idea of which side the writer thinks is right, namely the liberal side. I'm a liberal myself but this is not cool with me. Hajenso 8:30pm, October 10 2005 (PST)

I agree with you about that section, but I'd go further and say that the whole thing needs to be looked over by someone less POV-invested than the author. I got a pretty heavy POV feel reading it--though certainly the "contemporary use of liberal by opponents" section is the worst of it. This really ought to be cleaned up . . . Greg (Talk) 20:17, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. --Elliskev 00:57, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

What's going on with this page? The POV issues are still here. This entire article smacks of it, particularly the section previously complained about above. For example:

"The latest anti-liberal campaign is to paint all mainstream media as guilty of having a "liberal bias", thus providing an all-purpose excuse for any report of conservative wrong doing."

I'm new to this wikipedia thing, so how does this get fixed if the author of the page won't fix it? Do I submit an edit (like deleting that garbage section) or is there some way to report this page as being POV? Greg (Talk) 04:03, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

One wiki tradition that I did not know when I started here is that new talk should be added at the bottom of the page rather than the top. To do that, click on the + sign next to "edit this page", then type the subject heading and then your comments.

If you think the article is POV now, you should have seen in six months ago! We're working on it. That said, I do think that the Republican Party in the United States has made a concerted effort to smear the word "liberal" for purely political purposes, to the point where a large number of people hate "liberals" without having any real notion of what the word means. Rick Norwood 14:10, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I think its much more convenient to believe that a large number of people hate "liberals" without having any real notion of what the word and that their hated is created by a Republican smear campaign than what I think; that they really do hate what liberals have come to stand for and the almost constant personal attacks originating from them. But can you explain how the word "liberal" has been smeared? -- Lawyer2b 03:31, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

It seems that there's definitely a stronger dislike in the United States for the word "conservative" than for the word "liberal." The word "conservative" is frequently used as a slur against the far right to imply corruption of ethical standards, unilateral, aggressive, and incompetent foreign policies, regressive civil rights policies, and insufficient regard for working families. Many Republicans have been distancing themselves from Bush, hence his low approval ratings, because his incompetence is making "conservative" a bad word. This encyclopedia article, however, doesn't seem the place to debate linguistics. Let's stick to history and political philosophy. luketh 03:47, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I would have to disagree with you strongly here. The reason for Bush's low poll numbers is not because of Republicans disliking the term "conservative", and "liberal" is much more deragatory in today's society. Wherever you get the idea that it is the other way around, I have no idea. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 17:12, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Honestly, I think it must depend on which state you're in. In New York what I said is indisputable. Maybe if you're from a VERY red state and listen to FoxNews you could argue the other way. luketh 17:19, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'm not from a "VERY red state" at all and I try to watch ALL the news, and maybe in New York you could argue your way, but I think that's because you are stuck in the NY state of mind. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 17:25, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

move abortion out of the civil rights category

The previous editor of this page changed "civil rights" to "(supposed) civil rights" on the grounds that abortion is not a civil right. I tend to agree that abortion does not clearly belong under the heading "civil rights", but is rather a question of competing rights, the rights of women vs. the rights of fetuses. Therefore, I've moved "support for abortion" onto a line of its own and removed the word "supposed" from the heading. This is not done to support one position or the other, but in the spirit of compromise. Rick Norwood 12:52, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I have also rewritten the heading on this section slightly, to make it clear that not all liberals support all of the positions on the list. Rick Norwood 13:01, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

"Knee-jerk"

"Knee-jerk" liberal is not a particularly 1980s phrase. It was certainly already current in the 1960s, and I didn't have a sense then of its being a new phrase. Someone may want to revisit that passage and look for citations on when this phrase, and other phrases, each actually became common. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:59, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I did a google search and discovered that there is some controversy about when the phrase "knee-jerk liberal" was first used. Nobody seems to have pinned it down to a specific sourse -- it was just there one day, like the smiley face. I'll remove the reference to a specific decade. Rick Norwood 13:51, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Look at the levels to which we've stooped when we're digging in the trash bin for slurs to publish. luketh 02:28, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

liberal = libertine

I've heard political liberalism equated with "liberal spender", but never with "libertine", even when Bill Clinton was providing a horrible example. I think that entire paragraph should go. Rick Norwood 18:57, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree. A "libertine," according to Merriam Websters Collegiate Dictionary, is "person who is unrestrained by convention or morality." Let's change this. Griot 20:52, 12 October 2005 (UTC)Griot

I can't belive I'm saying this, but I disagree - a little. I am a conservative and I know that many, not all, conservatives do equate 'liberal' with 'libertine.' Example: Last night, or the night before, O'Reilly expressed that he couldn't understand why a liberal place like Seattle would outlaw lap-dancing. Is it a question of how conservatives paint liberals or is it a question of how liberals paint themselves by the causes they take up? I don't know the answer, but the perception of equivalance is a reality. --Elliskev 01:06, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Liberals definitely tend to be in favor of greater social liberty but I don't even think an extremist like O'Reilly would equate "liberal" and "libertine. In this case, O'Reilly was probably making a hasty generalization from the fact that most liberal strongholds have greater social liberties. The reason Seattle considered the lapdance ban was to curb prostitution which was becoming a safety hazard. Safety of the community is one of the highest liberal priorities. I think if anything most Americans have the impression that liberals are against libertine behavior and want to regulate their lives. This would also be untrue. Watch carefully and you will see extremists like O'Reilly try to play both sides in their attacks on liberals. luketh 01:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Discrepancies?

A liberal in the United States is likely to favor institutions and political procedures that encourage economic liberty, protection and empowerment of the weak against aggression by the strong, and freedom from restrictive social norms.

. . .

The following views are associated with American liberalism, though many people who consider themselves liberal would accept some of these views and reject others:

• Support for government social programs such as welfare, medical care, unemployment benefits, and retirement programs.

. . .

• Regulation of business - OSHA, against child labor, monopolistic practices, etc.

. . .

• Support for minimum wage requirements.

Can we really say they "encourage economic liberty"? If I have misunderstood, the phrase needs to be clearer. - ElAmericano | talk 19:57, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

As the article notes, the conflict between freedom on the one hand and equality on the other is a problem for liberals. The article mentions several times the split between economic liberals and social liberals. That is a conflict the article observes, not a conflict the article should try to resolve. Rick Norwood 22:46, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

The intro also says that American liberalism is a "political current [that] generally rejects the laissez faire economics of classical liberalism in favor of institutions that promote social and economic equity." I don't believe you can say "generally" and "likely" in contradicting statements only a few sentences away. Maybe change it to "many liberals favor..." or something. Regarding economic and social liberals, if that is the case, say so in the intro so as to avoid confusion from the get-go. We're supposed to be writing in the "upside pyramid" style of writing, assuming that most people won't bother to get all of the details from the entirety of the article. - ElAmericano | talk 23:10, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

The first paragraph has one "generally" too many, but what does it say that liberals "generally" believe? In social equity above economic liberty.

The sentence, then, needs a rewrite because it uses the word "rejects," and I don't immediately get the sense that social equity is a higher priority than economic liberty. On reading the sentence, I'm left with the impression that liberals reject the free market and promote social equity. Perhaps the confusion lies therein. (I'm not quite sure why I can't write casually tonight.) - ElAmericano | talk 00:02, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

And what does it say liberals are "likely" to believe? "economic liberty, protection and empowerment of the weak against aggression by the strong, and freedom from restrictive social norms."

I don't see a contradiction. You can have private ownership of buisness, as we have, and a great deal of economic liberty, as we have, without the excesses of "laissez faire" economics, which would disallow all government intervention. Anti-trust legislation is a good example of liberal legislation that is not "laissez faire" but still allows a great deal of economic liberty. One could argue that, in not allowing the large corporations to drive out the small, anti-trust laws protect economic freedom, in much the say way that not allowing the majority to take away the rights of minorities protects individual freedom. (How's that for one of those parallel constructions you like so much?) Rick Norwood 23:34, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that "not allowing the large corporations to drive out the small" protects economic freedom. It restricts the free market, not allowing for the most efficient or effective use of resources. The thing is, if liberals tried to do away with laissez faire immediately, they would fail. That isn't a valid tenet for people that want to win elections today. So we have to use a relative scale, and relatively, Liberals favor the restriction of the economy. (Generally, of course.) I must admit, it was a good parallel, though. A+. - ElAmericano | talk 00:02, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

POV essay cut from article

POV essay cut from article: -- Jmabel | Talk 02:07, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

[begin cut material]

Whilst these positions have become largely synoymous with the term Liberal in American political debate, to the extent that the more one believes in the above the more Liberal they are said to be, it is periodically questioned whether the term is appropriate. Certainly there is a gulf between these views and those of Liberals such as Bastiat. In fact the following quote with the word Liberal substituted for Socialist could be levelled as a charge against American Liberalism by those on the American Right.

"Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain." -- from The Law

A good illustration of this problem is the the use of the term Liberal in Britain and France. In the former the Liberal Democrats can be said to broadly follow the American template, wheras in the the latter Liberal is used most often as a term of abuse by the left against those considered to advocate excessively Free Market policies.

[end cut material]

I enjoyed reading this, but you are right. The quote is about socialism, not about liberalism, and the cut was appropriate. Rick Norwood 13:34, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

The point of including the quote, surely, is to illustrate how American Liberalism more closely resembles Socialism of Bastiat's time than his Liberalism. This would seem to me to be a crucial issue in assessing the development of American Liberalism and so some sort of treatment of this issue should be included. Certainly it is of more use than the 'Conservatives hate Liberals' section and this article is not complete withut it. The quote s interesting in another respect as regards . American politics 'Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all' could apply to Pat Robertson. The point I am trying to make is that some discussion of what section of American politics most resembles 19th and early 20th century Liberalism should be included. Given that the Thom Paine bit is in there I think it should be extended.

I think the quote makes a good point, but it still makes that point about socialism. If you can find a source that makes the same point about liberalism, then I agree it should be in the article. Maybe something by William F. Buckley? I seem to recall his making that point from time to time, but I can't quote chapter and verse, which is what you need to get it into the article. PS: Sign your posts with four tildes. Rick Norwood 01:24, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

How about if I find a quote sasying the same thing about American liberalism and then use the two to demonstrate that American liberalism has more in common with 19th century socialism than liberalism - warm beer (and what's a tild)

U.S. conservatives in recent years, often those of the Republican Party, sometimes use liberal to describe anyone who is a member of or supports any policy of the Democratic Party. Being a Democrat does not guarantee one is a liberal, as there are many within the party who are centrist and even a few who could be considered right-wing.

I move that this be deleted. It is simply not cohesive: Republicans are generalized, while Democrats are qualified. It says: Conservative = republican, but liberal ≠ democrat. We get upset about the latter but revel in the former. As to the issue's importance, I'm still pondering. - ElAmericano | talk 20:06, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

While I favor keeping some information about the use of "liberal" as a perjorative, I agree that the "U.S. conservatives..." paragraph quoted above doesn't add much to the article.

Let me explain what I think is the important point to keep, and that will help us to document this point and improve the section without omitting it entirely. I have no objection to John Doe saying, "My opponent is a liberal; he believes in abortion." What I object to is John Doe (or Ann C) saying, "My opponent is a liberal; he hates America." There is a well documented, well funded disinformation campaign by the Republican party to convince the American public that "liberal" means "liar", "loves criminals", "wants special rights for homosexuals", "hates America", "is a traitor", "wants to destroy the American family" and so on and on. This disinformation campaign is so pervasive that it is probably the first thing most Americans think of when they hear the word "liberal". As an example, a friend of mine, in a friendly discussion of evolution vs creationism, said, "You're like a liberal who gets mugged." In other words, the idea that liberals like criminals, rather than wanting fair trials, is so entrenched in the mind of the public that that can be the assumption behind a joke that makes no point unless you've absorbed the "liberals love criminals" propaganda. Now, I agree that in the front of the article we should just put forward the common beliefs that unite liberals. But, toward the end of the article, the political disinformation about liberals should be mentioned, and documented. Rick Norwood 22:39, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I see what you mean, but I don't think the one line quote fits what you're trying to say. It talks about some event or action, unnamed even in the source, that is associated with a liberal point of view. That he repeats the term is to make the point that the position is not conservative, not anything he agrees with. I don't see slander there specifically. However, I believe the paragraph has its place, but so does the view that the media is generally biased. I'm of the opinion (having thought about it for a second) that the two should be given equal "time" in the article. If one gets a subsection, the other should, too. - ElAmericano | talk 23:24, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

again, you are countering one straw man argument with another. When people say "liberals love criminals" they know what they mean and so do you. They are talking about the support of the rights of criminals, certainly a very liberal and noble thing. It's obtuse to call it a lie when its clearly just a hyperbole. keith 01:28, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

After reading the section yet again, I propose cutting the last two paragraph, but keeping the rest. Rick Norwood 22:43, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree, but see my comments above. - ElAmericano | talk 23:24, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I also think the last two paragraphs are worthless, you cuold replace them with a single sentence about overgeneralizations or something like that, rather than the pov and weasely insinuation that conservatives who criticize "liberals" are stupid. On the other hand I'm sure you would have no trouble finding a source making your claim for you. keith 01:28, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

removal of section

I still think that the Republican attacks on liberalism are important information about American liberalism. If this section does not convey that information clearly, the please write a section that does. Rick Norwood 01:46, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with those that have said the article needs a section on its criticisms from opponents, as the American conservatism article has. --ElAmericano 05:21, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to revert Revolución's edits, mainly because, while I agree that the section on conservative political attacks on liberalism needs improvement, I do not think it should be deleted entirely. Also, whether to call a group of people "homosexual" or "gay" is a controversial topic, but I would rather err on the side of being too "Latin" than too informal.

I've invited a good conservative and a good writer to add a section on criticism of liberalism, but so far he has not taken me up on the suggestion. Rick Norwood 21:43, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Rick, for the most part, I agreed with your changes (as far as parallelism among article headings, etc.), but one thing, I believe, should be changed: You put homosexuals under the category of minorities, but I'm fairly sure they are not defined as such by US law. I've read a paper about this before, but don't know where it is. I mention it now so I remember to look for the it and post back after rereading it. You can leave the designation for now.

By the way, do you think we should slap an NPOV tag on that last section, since you say it needs some POV-related fixing up? --ElAmericano 23:00, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I was not using "minority" in any legal sense, but just in the sense of a group that is less than fifty percent of a population.

No, I don't think we need a NPOV tag, at least, not while we are still working to strike the right balance. Rick Norwood 00:18, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Elleskev's edit is an improvement, but I do not think the last paragraph, while reasonable in itself, belongs under this heading. Rick Norwood 21:44, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Liberalism (this definition) vs. Liberalism (the other one)

Internationally, liberalism (especially the word "neo-liberalism") has a very different meaning in most other countries, so it would be good if the difference could be clarified a bit more in the intro. --Revolución (talk) 18:05, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Why don't you try something out here and see if it flies? Rick Norwood 22:39, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Consensus-building liberalism opposed to the use of force?

and what about WW2, Korea and Vietnam? This seems like a thinly-veiled swipe at Bush and Iraq, and a pretty controversial/hypocritical claim for the intro. Everyone is for "peace" when their own agenda isn't at stake. keith 19:46, 8 November 2005 (UTC)