Jump to content

Talk:Liberalism in the United States/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

References should actually support the claim that they reference.

The following references are offered to support the claim that from the first American Liberals supported libertarianism.

Here is the first reference: Barbara A. Bardes, Mack C. Shelley, Steffen W. Schmidt. Government and Politics Today. Cengage Learning, 2008. p. 16.

This references describes libertarianism as a far-right political belief, giving the spectrum of American politics, from far-left to far-right, as socialsim-liberalism-conservatism-libertarianism. Page 16 says nothing to support the claim.

The next reference is: William J. Novak, "The Not-So-Strange Birth of the Modern American State: A Comment on James A. Henretta's 'Charles Evans Hughes and the Strange Death of Liberal America'", Law and History Review 24, no. 1 (2006)

This reference says "The tale begins with a portrait of the old regime—nineteenth-century laissez-faire liberalism. "Beginning with the Jacksonian constitution of 1846," Henretta argues, New York's "political tradition embodied ... a laissez-faire liberal ethos.... Indeed, in New York 'negative' government had support across the political and social spectrum.... celebrat[ing] the primacy of the marketplace and the legal doctrines upon which it depended, particularly 'freedom of contract.'" In other words, so called "classical liberalism" did not begin in the 17th or 18th centuries, but in the 19th century. This reference contradicts the claim.

The third reference is: James L. Richardson, Contending Liberalisms in World Politics: Ideology and Power (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2001), 52

This book is about world liberalism, by an Australian professor, and discusses modern social liberalism.

I've spent more than an hour now, trying to undo changes to this article "supported" by references that do not, in fact, support the claims made. I think future references in the same vein should be supported by quotations.

Turning to the next set of references.

The next reference is to the Encyclopedia Brittanica Online article "liberalism". The claim is that "the New Deal programs of in the 1930's with a vast expansion in the scope of government activities and increased regulation of business."

The reference supports the claim. I will expand the paragraph with more material from the same source.

The next reference is: Mayne, Alan. From Politics Part to Politics Future. Greenwood Publishing Group, 1999. p. 123.

I've pointed out the problems with this reference, including the misspelling of the name, several times, and even fixed the spelling, only to have it reverted to the old spelling. Page 123 is about nationalism, and says nothing to support the sentence it references. We do find this on page 71 we do find a comment that economic liberalism (meaning free-market liberalism) has resulted in considerable poverty. Should that go into the article? I don't think so. But the book should not be cited to support a view that is the very opposite of what the author says. I'm removing the reference.

The next reference is "Insider Ronald Reagan: A Reason Interview", Reason, July 1975.

This reference (the last I'm going to look at today!) tries to support what Reagan did as president with an interview given before his election, but I trust the interview accurately reflects his views.

The reference is used to support this sentence "The intellectual foundations of this conservative resurgence were mostly the the works of Friedrich von Hayek and Milton Friedman, arguing against central economic planning and Keynesian economics." The reference does not contain the phrases "central" or "Keynesian". I'm moving the reference to the sentence on Reagan.

I think some of what I've added to the article should be in the body of the article rather than the lede, but at least the article now represents what the references say, instead of the opposite of what the references say.

Rick Norwood (talk) 14:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Gun control

More on REAL liberalism vs. modern Liberalism: I see that the page includes a reference to individual rights being an ideal held by both groups. That seems laughable in context to the 2nd amendment rights that modern Liberals want to trample all over. It should be clarified, therefor, that those individual rights are not held equal across all classes of rights, nor across all types of "liberals."

204.69.132.129 (talk) 19:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)a libertarian.

Liberals in America support the right to bear arms and there is no movement to repeal the Second Amendment. However there is disagreement over the interpretation of this right. See District of Columbia v. Heller. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
They disagree over what rights themselves are. A modern liberal sees healthcare, for example, to be a right. A classical liberal sees rights as negative rights, the right to be left alone by the government. The modern liberal sees rights as positive, the right to be provided with things by the government (i.e. to tax others to provide them). As far as gun rights, a classical liberal is a strict Constitutionalist, because the Constitution is a document that puts restrictions on what government can do, whereas a modern liberal isn't because he wants to expand government control. Introman (talk) 20:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Except that the Heller ruling CONFIRMED that it IS an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT, which was the point of my post. Modern liberals have adopted that it is NOT an individual right, and therefor do not support that individual right. Modern liberalism (in contradiction to every historical document from the revolution) contends that it is a right of the militia, based (very) loosely on the 1939 Miller decision - only on the fact that the ruling limited the type of weapon to be those in use by the Military (incorrectly linked to the militia). So you've made the argument for me. Modern liberals do NOT support the individual right of gun ownership. Therefor, the idea of liberals respecting individual rights needs to be split along the lines of gun control, where they clearly do not respect the rights (as written in the constitution, and as confirmed by Heller) of the individual to own firearms.

To that point, what is the harm in marking the obvious difference within the page, other than in defense of modern liberalism's (incorrect) presumption that they stand up for individual (all) liberties...?

By the way, do a quick search of "repeal the 2nd amendment" and tell me again that there is not a Liberal (that's "big-L" modern liberal) movement to repeal the amendment... from MULTIPLE popular Liberal pulps and papers... 204.69.132.129 (talk) 21:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)a libertarian

DC's argument in DC v Heller was that individuals in a state militia had the right to bear arms and that Congress could not restrict that right. They saw it as an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT, not a collective right. In ruling against DC, the court said Congress could not deny everyone the right to own a handgun, but were allowed to establish a registration system that presumably would limit the types of arms that could be owned, and deny some citizens the right to own any arms. Furthermore state governments have the constitutional power to restrict arms ownership. Incidentally the current president commented on the ruling by saying, I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms....[1]
So there has never been a dispute about an individual's right to bear arms, merely differences in the interpretation. There is also no disagreement that a state government can infringe that right.
The second amendment by the way was taken from the English Bill of Rights that prevented the King from taking guns away from Protestants except when authorized by law enacted by Parliament.
The Four Deuces (talk) 22:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
There may be people who wish to repeal the second amendment, but it is not a mainstream American liberal view. Can you name any prominent liberals who propose this? The Four Deuces (talk) 22:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Then again, DC isn't a state, and therefor wouldn't hold the ability to limit that right at all. The assumption that there is a "concensus" that states have the ability to limit that right constitutionally is severely flawed, as marked by the numerous suits across the country that currently bring that very question to light. (coming from a state's rights guy here). I'll assume that your argument is based on a 10th amendment position by the state. However, by that logic, liberals then are ok with states enforcing a religion for the state? I think not. The right to bear arms is as clearly spelled out as freedom of religion. Let's not cherry-pick here. - - I'm not really sure why any comment made by the current President has any value to this conversation...??? Though, since you brought it up, an evaluation of policy enacted and supported by him in his own state seems to contradict the very core of that statement. (though this has nothing to do with any point I made, and seems only to be inserted for purposes of trying to make the argument political, rather than focusing on facts) - - I'll partially agree with your assesment of the source of the 2nd amendment, though adoption and adaptation of it in the U.S. Constitution is vastly different, so your comparison of the two in order to show likeness is inaccurate. There is no exception to the 2nd amendment as you've illustrated was in the English law, nor any statement within the constitution allowing an exception be made... which is why it supercedes the 10th amendment. - 204.69.132.129 (talk) 22:57, 14 August 2009 (UTC)a libertarian

So prominence of an individual now confirms or dispels the realities of fact? (which I'm assuming you didn't search to find) Does it only count if they're considered "prominent" by the list in the article???? It is ridiculous to create a qualifier like that, when you can see for yourself. Not only that, but a present and "mainstream" movement to create an amendment to repeal the 2nd amendment hardly dispels the idea of modern liberals not defending individual gun rights, which is the original point that is now being undermined by those attempting to steer the conversation away. I suppose political affiliation is more important to the editors here than reality? That's ok, it's a free enterprise, but this is why wikipedia is not used as a real source for acedemic purposes. You can report fact, or you can sweep it under the rug.204.69.132.129 (talk) 23:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)a libertarian

It's not my argument, it's how the second amendment is currently interpreted by the courts. I have no opinion on whether they are correct and acknowedge that future judgments may change that interpretation. However, the mainstream conservative view is not that anyone anywhere has the right to own any kind of weapon at all. And the mainstream liberal view is not that the second amendment should be repealed. I did not chose Barack Obama to make the argument political, but to illustrate that liberals do not oppose 2nd amendment rights.
I mentioned the Bill of Rights (1689) which is in force in the UK and other Commonwealth nations to illustrate that the right protects people against the government. The Founding Fathers decided that people needed protection from Congress as well. However it is not obvious that they intended to protect people from state governments. It is normal when considering legislation like the second amendment to consider antecedent legislation to determine its intent. Whether a comparison would be helpful in this case is something the American courts would decide.
Although DC is not a state it remains unclear what powers Congress has to limit the right to bear arms. All that is certain is that Congress cannot impose a total handgun ban. BTW did you read the judgment?
I mentioned the prominence of individuals opposing the second amendment because you were making sweeping generalizations about what liberals believe based on what some liberals say on blogsites, while ignoring the man liberals nominated to be president.
The Four Deuces (talk) 23:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Here are a few quotes from www.factcheck.org that may explain why so many people think liberals want to take away their guns:

"A National Rifle Association advertising campaign distorts Obama's position on gun control beyond recognition."

Q: Would Senate bill 2099 put a yearly $50 tax on each privately owned firearm?

A: There is no such bill. A chain e-mail containing bogus claims refers to a bill that died more than eight years ago."

'A widely circulated e-mail quoting Obama is baseless and almost certainly fabricated. He does support reinstatement of the expired "assault weapons ban" but isn't calling for a wider ban on all semi-automatic weapons. He said repeatedly during the campaign, "I am not going to take your guns away.'"

In short, there are many lies about liberals which are produced by conservatives to win elections, but Wikipedia is not the place to publish and promote those lies.Rick Norwood (talk) 12:42, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

As a supporter of Gun rights, I don't know that that is the argument being used 4D. That argument is defeated by the existence of Article I Section 8: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress. More reasoning on the gun control page. However, getting back to the topic at hand, I think it bears repeating the nuclear missile argument. Everyone supports gun control to some degree, unless you want nukes being sold like breathmints, it is just how far you wish them to go. You need the balance between security and liberty, and owning gun is not as crucial as it used to be. Soxwon (talk) 14:56, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

DC contended in the pleadings: The District does not contend that individuals may not "keep" their "Arms," but that they may keep them only if they have a militia-related reason for doing so. The point is that they state that there is an individual right to bear arms (p. 38).[2] Their point of disagreement is how that individual right is defined. They are not arguing that no individual right exists or that the "right to bear Arms" is a collective right. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

You must have missed HR45 (with cosponsors) wich does include many of the provisions of the alleged senate bill 2099. And while I agree with your opinion (which clearly shows your bias) that "there are many lies about liberals which are produced by conservatives to win elections" (as if Liberals don't?????), a misrepresentation or lie as to the SOURCE, does not discount the reality (ie, even though S2099 is not real, the propositions within HR45 are). The reality is HR45. Please search Thomas if you wish to verify. And I thought we were to be using primary sources for evidence here, not "factcheck.org"...??? Silly me.

No, not everybody is for some kind of gun control. A gross generalization, no better than that alleged of me with regard to Liberals being gun-grabbers. By the way, while we're on the "conservative lie to win elections" should it not be brought up that the "evidence" as to the individual that Liberals elected (Obama) not wanting to take away guns is nothing more than a quote from a campaign??? And a willful disregard of his entire service as senator within his own state's legislature? Just saying.. lies go around to win elections... from both parties. Using that as evidence against one side, but disregarding to the credit of another is CLEARLY biased... and yet again, why this site continues to be disregarded as an academic source... too many political OPINIONS skewing the realities of fact that might otherwise be readily viewable here. 204.69.132.129 (talk) 16:49, 28 August 2009 (UTC)a libertarian

What this or that politician believes is beside the point. Liberalism, as a philosophy, favors freedom, and that includes the freedom to own guns. I think what happens is that liberals tend to feel empathy/sympathy ("bleeding heart liberals") and so feel sorry for the people who are killed or wounded by guns. Since most people killed by guns are black (as are most of the people doing the killing) it would be natural if Obama had some reservations on the question of gun ownership. On the other hand, faced with such huge problems as global warming and health care, he wisely avoids getting bogged down on lesser issues, such as gun control and gay rights.
I like guns. But, since guns, like cars, can be deadly, it seems reasonable to me that the government should license both. But that's not a liberal argument. Rather, it is a willingness to give up some liberal ideals (not shout "fire!" in a crowded theater) for utilitarian reasons.

Rick Norwood (talk) 20:17, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

A clarifying edit (with source) was deleted. Why? The mention of decriminalization of Marijuana includes clarification... A PROMINENT Modern Liberal (well, more than one, but I've only cited one, Biden has mentioned favoring a total ban as well) has claimed a want of BANNING firearms and confiscating them. Seems like a bit more than "more strict gun control" and therefor deserves mention. Somebody here letting politics cloud reality again? 204.69.132.129 (talk) 22:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)a libertarian

POV in Intro Tag

Introman has inserted the following tag:

However there is no discussion on the talk page. Therefore I am removing the tag. Please provide valid reasons for your contention that the lead is not neutral. Also, please provide sources for any assertions.

The Four Deuces (talk) 16:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

There is indeed discussion. Look above in the section "To those trying to stop or minimize discussion of classical liberalism in the intro." as well as under "Biased an extremist edits." There's the dispute. Removing the tag when a dispute is going on is disruptive. Introman (talk) 16:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
There has been no recent discussion under To those trying to stop or minimize discussion of classical liberalism in the intro and the lead has been significantly edited since that time. The issues brought up under the next discussion Biased an (sic) extremist edits has been resolved by Rick Norwood removing the bias and inaccuracy in the lead. So there is no dispute.
If you dispute the neutrality of the lead then please state your reasons. If you have no reasons for believing that the Intro is POV, then remove the tag. Otherwise I will remove it for you.
The Four Deuces (talk) 16:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
If you'll look above, I was the last to reply. It's not my problem if those I was having a dispute with haven't replied. My arguments still stand. I don't have to repeat them for you, as they're all just above. Introman (talk) 16:31, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

(out) Could you kindly summarize them briefly here. The lead has changed signicantly since your comments, and therefore may no longer be valid. Read the lead and see if you have any remaining concerns.

Your last reply btw was: I didn't put them in the article and they're not mentioned in the intro. I don't work on anything but intros so it's not my job, not my problem. Do some research yourself. Just search ""Thomas Jefferson" "classical liberal"" in Google Books and you'll find lots of mainstream sources. You'll find ..SURPRISE ...he was a liberal in the classical era! A classical liberal! Introman (talk) 17:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I really don't know what kind of reply you were expecting.

The Four Deuces (talk) 16:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Since it's changed since then, let me just start with one glaring problem. All mention of classical liberalism has been deleted. The intro no longer notes that there are two main strands of liberalism, classical and modern, which differ in their economic views. Let's start with that, then once that's resolved we can move on to the other numerous problems. Introman (talk) 16:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

It says, Some American liberals, who call themselves classical liberals, neoliberals, or libertarians, support the liberal ideals of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and separation of church and state, but also believe that economic freedom is important, and that for the government to provide social welfare provision exceeds the legitimate role of government. Classical liberalism is mentioned. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:01, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Ok one mention, but classical liberalism has a MUCH longer history that modern liberalism. It should be at LEAST half of the content of the introduction. Also it makes it look like it's merely some contemporary phenomenon. Introman (talk) 17:04, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The importance of an article is not measured by the length of its lede. In every case, the lede should be short enough that the top of the ToC is visible in most browsers. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Paul Starr quote

Please explain objections to the Paul Starr quote. He is a Princeton sociologist. Why are his views on liberalism inappropriate for this article?

That said, obviously the article needs a lot of work. I've been going through articles on political topics trying to get everything referenced by standard sources, but it is a big job, and help is always appreciated. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

It's the additional commentary that goes along with it. It's extremely POV and unreferenced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soxwon (talk • contribs) 01:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I see your point. Somehow that sentence got lumped in with the Starr quote, which is clearly not something all liberals agree about.

I assume you do agree that all liberals believe in "individual rights, representative democracy, and the rule of law".

Rick Norwood (talk) 12:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Louis Hartz reference.

I included the material from Louis Hartz The Liberal Tradition in America because I thought the article needed to say in the lede how and why American liberalism was different from liberalism in the rest of the world. Maybe you could better explain your reason for removing that sentence? Rick Norwood (talk) 15:21, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Could you put it somewhere in the article rather than in the lede? The lede should be brief and give an overview of the article, rather than its substance. That's my concern with this whole lede. I have little time to work on it, but see the need. Make more sense? In any case, I'm switching the order of the sentence. It needs to be clear that Hartz is making this claim, rather than sneaking his name into the middle of the sentence. Reads more honestly that way. Anthony Krupp (talk) 12:57, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Good. It reads much better that way. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:33, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Differences

Why on earth does this describe "Classical Liberalism" and "Modern/Social Liberalism" as the same thing? They are fundamentally opposite each other, and they should not be in the same article. To put quotes from the Founding Fathers at the end of the article is not only ironic, but also intellectually dishonest. Welfare statism is not "Liberalism." Pick one definition and stick to it. Do not link modern "liberals" to this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.107.87.66 (talk) 20:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Evidently you believe the lies told by the conservative media. Modern liberals have fought long and hard for greater freedom for Blacks, women, gays, Hispanics, and more generally for all Americans. The idea that liberals are people who take away from the hardworking and give to the good-for-nothing is a lie, told by Republicans to win votes. Rick Norwood (talk) 21:31, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
A couple editors here, Rick Norwood and The Four Deuces, have not even been willing to allow it to be stated that there such a thing as classical liberalism. I've tried to add statements in the intro noting that there is classical liberalism and modern liberalism, and they delete it. Introman (talk) 21:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Introman, it is not helpful to criticise other editors. If you have a suggestion to make, please do so. My view of the lead is that it has too much information, not too little. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
I'll help by deleting some information from it then. There's plenty of original research there to choose from. Introman (talk) 21:46, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

(out) You have to be careful though not to delete information that is not contained elsewhere in the article. It should be but the lead is not properly constructed. It should provide a short summary. It would be helpful if we could discuss changes first to avoid content disputes. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Original research is original research. It would be helpful if YOU did not revert back IN obviously unsourced information and not revert OUT obviously sourced information just because someone hasn't consulted with you. See WP:OWN Introman (talk) 21:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Could you please be less mysterious. I have not reverted anything in or out. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:09, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
YET. I know from experience how you operate. If you've changed, great. Introman (talk) 22:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
My suggestion is that you assume good faith and avoid personal attacks. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:21, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Been there done that. It's kind of hard to assume good faith after you just tried to get me blocked, unsuccessfully, trying to portray me as edit warring when you were the one doing the reverts rather than me. Introman (talk) 22:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

(out) That is not an accurate description and it does not further the discussion here. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:18, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

It is an accurate description. It's all there to see on my talk page. And it's relevant to this topic because those here who want the intro to note that classical liberalism exists need to know what have been the obstacles to that. Introman (talk) 23:30, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

A Wikipedian's personal talk pages is not considered a standard academic source. Rick Norwood (talk) 19:56, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Laissez-faire

I'd be prepared to dispute that any of the ills listed were caused by laissez-faire capitalism as opposed to other factors and am supported by economists like Murray Rothbard. I think one of the biggest changes in Liberalism in Modern times (which is only mentioned as something that was rejected, rather than explained) was a switch to a Keynesian style of thinking with regards to economics. Soxwon (talk) 22:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

September 2009 (UTC)

Certainly, Keynsian economics was a major change in economic theory, should be mentioned in the article, and is. However, the Encyclopedia Britannica is a major, respected source. It represents the mainstream of economic thought. I am aware that some economists dispute that laissez-faire economics leads to a boom and bust cycle and a concentration of wealth, but this is a minority view, and should be discussed in an article on economics.
As for Liberalism in the United States, the major thrust of liberalism has been toward greater freedom, especially in Civil Rights. In the area of economics, the party out of power always calls for reduced government spending, and then spends like a madman as soon as it gets back into power. The only president in recent times to balance the budget was the relatively liberal Bill Clinton, the first president to propose a trillion dollar budget was George W. Bush, a relatively conservative president.
Rick Norwood (talk) 18:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Where does it say in the Britannica article that laissez-faire capitalism caused the things you mentioned in the intro? Introman (talk) 18:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Always glad to supply a quote:

"By the end of the 19th century, some unforeseen but serious consequences of the Industrial Revolution in Europe and North America had produced a deepening disenchantment with the principal economic basis of classical liberalism—the ideal of a market economy. The main problem was that the profit system had concentrated vast wealth in the hands of a relatively small number of industrialists and financiers, with several adverse consequences. First, great masses of people failed to benefit from the wealth flowing from factories and lived in poverty in vast slums. Second, because the greatly expanded system of production created many goods and services that people often could not afford to buy, markets became glutted and the system periodically came to a near halt in periods of stagnation that came to be called depressions. Finally, those who owned or managed the means of production had acquired enormous economic power that they used to influence and control government, to manipulate an inchoate electorate, to limit competition, and to obstruct substantive social reform. In short, some of the same forces that had once released the productive energies of Western society now restrained them; some of the very energies that had demolished the power of despots now nourished a new despotism." Encyclopedia Britannica online, "Liberalism".

Rick Norwood (talk) 18:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see "laissez-faire" in there anywhere. Introman (talk) 19:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Nor do I see anything about the "Jackson era" Introman (talk) 19:13, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

But it uses the phrase "classical liberalism" and it uses the phrase "market economy". You want an article that uses your jargon, but your jargon is non-standard. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

You're the one using jargon. I'm using what's in YOUR source. Your source doesn't say laissez-faire is responsible for these things. Introman (talk) 17:16, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
And wikipedia's not supposed to rely on tertiary sources (we had this sort of argument over the definition of capitalism). You need scholarly sources, and a major POV (Rothbard, Friedman etc.) all claim that these things weren't directly related, but mere by-products of unique social conditions. Soxwon (talk) 17:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
WP:RS says "Tertiary sources such as compendia, encyclopedias, textbooks, and other summarizing sources may be used to give OVERVIEWS OR SUMMARIES, but should not be used in place of secondary sources for detailed discussion." So, actually tertiary sources are appropriate for intros. Norwood is just skewing what the source says. Introman (talk) 17:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
If you look at Rick Norwood's quote, from the source, above it says that these things are the "consequences of the Industrial Revolution," not the consequences of laissez-faire. Introman (talk) 19:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Here, once again, is the relevant quote: "deepening disenchantment with the principal economic basis of classical liberalism—the ideal of a market economy." This is not the place to debate what professional economists heatedly debate to this day: whether a market economy leads to greater freedom or reduced freedom. Obviously, we are not going to settle that question here. The Britannica is a respected tertiary source. The lede is an overview or summary of the article. It is appropriate to use it as guidence in the lede, especially in the question of what is of major interest, and what is fringe. Rick Norwood (talk) 20:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Let's the quote the WHOLE sentence: "By the end of the 19th century, some unforeseen but serious consequences of the Industrial Revolution in Europe and North America had produced a deepening disenchantment with the principal economic basis of classical liberalism—the ideal of a market economy." It doesn't say that the following things are the consequences of laissez-faire (never mind that it doesn't even use the term). It says that the are the "consequences of the Industrial Revolution." The statement that you keep putting in the article, "Modern liberalism in the United States started to develop in the late 19th Century in response to three major problems with the Laissez-faire capitalism of the Jacksonian era," is not what the source says. Introman (talk) 21:45, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
This is the paragraph under dispute:
Modern liberalism in the United States started to develop in the late 19th Century in response to three major problems with the Laissez-faire capitalism of the Jacksonian era. First, there was a boom and bust cycle, resulting in periodic depressions. Second, wealth became increasingly concentrated in the hands of a few, while the great majority of Americans lived in extreme poverty. Third, upper class used their wealth to control government, limit competition, and create a new despotism based on social class. To counteract these trends, modern liberals supported a vast increase in the power of the federal government, especially to control monopolies and to protect the rights of organized labor.
I question whether that statement is accurate. The political movements that were generated were populism and progressivism. Did they believe that laissez-faire was the problem or did they believe that government and business had destroyed it? There is also a question whether they developed into modern American liberalism. William Jennings Bryan and Teddy Roosevelt were not modern liberals and may be seen as precursors of modern American conservatism - social conservatism and American imperialism.
The Four Deuces (talk) 04:41, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Doesn't matter whether you think it's accurate or not. WP:Verifiability says "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." Introman (talk) 17:54, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

You may very well know more about this than I do, but here is a quote that supports the view in the paragraph you cite: "Beginning with the Jacksonian constitution of 1846 (New York's) political tradition embodied ... a laissez-faire liberal ethos." And later, "Indeed, in New York 'negative' government had support across the political and social spectrum ... the primacy of the marketplace and the legal doctrines upon which it depended, particularly 'freedom of contract.'" - "Charles Evans Hughes and the Strange Death of Liberal America" by James A. Henretta.

Admittedly, this only mentions New York, but then there is this from the Wikipedia article Jacksonian Democracy, which I couldn't use as a citation, obviously, but which seems to confirm the generality of the statement given above: "Laissez-faire economics Complementing a strict construction of the Constitution, the Jacksonians generally favored a hands-off approach to the economy."

Of course, like all governments, the Jacksonian democracy didn't live up to its ideal.

Then we have the quote from the Britannica given above, to the effect that (yes, as a consequence of the Industrial Revolution, but leading to doubt about a market economy) people began to see problems with a pure market economy, and believe that government intervention was necessary.

Whether government intervention was in fact necessary is obviously not a question that we can or should consider. All we can do is report that this is a split within liberalism. The quote above does not say that too much trust in a market economy was in fact the cause of the three problems mentioned in the Britannica. It says that the problems existed, that liberals in America began to question the pure market economy, and the they responded with greater government control, to prevent monopolies and support unions. In other words, the paragraph reports what was thought at the time and what was done as a consequence. It does comment (and should not comment) on whether these thoughts and actions were or were not correct. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:17, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

What I have trouble with is that the term "modern liberalism in the United States" has no clear definition and there is dispute about how it developed. It would be helpful to use a source that actually addresses the issue. BTW Soxwon, could you tell me what article by Rothbard we should be reading? The Four Deuces (talk) 16:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

As I've mentioned, Wikipedia has way too many articles that overlap: Liberalism, Classical liberalism, Social liberalism, Liberalism in the United States, Modern liberalism in the United States. As best I can tell, several of these articles came into being as follows. Someone's edits to the earlier articles were reverted, so they started a new article. I am not sure of this. But I do think that the ideal would be two articles: Liberalism and American Liberalism. With all the articles getting so many edits, I doubt that is practical at this time. I do think we could at least get rid of Conservatism in North America, which seems to be just cut and pasted from other articles, and says nothing about North America outside Canada and the US. Rick Norwood (talk) 17:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I reverted Conservatism in North America back to a redirect page. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
There would not be so much overlap if the topics were more narrowly defined. Classical liberalism should be about liberal theory popular c. 1830-1900 and should concentrate on the UK, where these theories were developed. Social liberalism should begin with the new liberal theorists of the Liberal Party (UK) and trace the development of these theories and their implementation and again should have little mention of US politics. Also, there should be a limitation on libertarian comparisons with different schools of liberalism. The Four Deuces (talk) 11:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Flags

Can anything be done about the many flags on this page? I know there are people who will disagree with any article on liberalism that doesn't say that liberalism is the greatest thing since sliced bread, and others who will disagree with any article on liberalism that doesn't say that liberals hate Christians and hate America. But it seems to me that there is a mainstream view, and that this article should not be flaged if it presents that mainstream view. The flags have been there a long time now. I would like to see some discussion of what would need to be changed to have them, or at least some of them, removed. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, there are lots of sweeping generalizations in the article and other statements that make it seem biased. Soxwon (talk) 14:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Could you be specific? Rick Norwood (talk) 14:29, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure:
Some American liberals, who call themselves classical liberals, neoliberals, or libertarians, support the liberal ideals of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and separation of church and state, but also believe that economic freedom is important, and that for the government to provide social welfare provision exceeds the legitimate role of government
So Libertarians consider themselves liberal? I think there are several sources to disagree with that.
Liberals share a belief in individual rights, representative democracy, and the rule of law. In this sense, almost all Americans accept liberal ideals, so much so that it is easy to forget how revolutionary these ideals were when the American Constitution was written.
Personally I find that rather sweeping, generalized and rather biased, especially in the lede.
The entire quotations section is rather sickening, is it meant to suggest that these are exclusive to liberalism? It also smacks of WP:OR as none are sourced or are in anyway connected to liberalism save through the editor's interpretation.
Also, the positions section: freedom of speech and the press is that why John Adams and Woodrow Wilson instituted the Sedition Acts? That's perhaps a cheap shot, but saying those are associated with liberalism only is a stretch. Soxwon (talk) 14:47, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Liberalism in this article is broadly defined so that it incorporates American ideologies that accept the values contained in the American constitution, which was based on liberal principles. While one may argue that various presidents have violated liberal values, they have justified their arguments with liberal principles and their actions were subject to judicial review. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I moved several quotes to their own section in the process of rewriting. I plan to find homes for them by the time I finish the long, hard haul of working through the later sections of the article.

On the other hand, freedom is what liberalism means. Standard sources have been quoted many times to that effect. While politicians, especially in recent US politics, have tried to change the meaning of the word, to make it mean people who eat quiche and drink latte, the meaning of liberalism is the political philosophy that favors freedom. I can give you more quotes to that effect if you need them, but it is inappropriate to assert that a dictionary definition is POV or not supported by the references. Dictionaries are the standard references for the meaning of words.

Liberals do illiberal things. Lincoln, certainly a liberal, suspended habeus corpus during the Civil War. He defended his action, not by claiming that it was the right thing to do, but by claiming that it was the lesser of two evils. Similarly with Adams and the alien and sedition acts, though I think with less justification. Clearly, the alien and sedition acts were against all liberal principles. As for Wilson, a racist who invited the Ku Klux Klan to march in Washington, I would hardly consider him a liberal.

But the main point is, I think, that you have an impression of liberals that does not fit what the standard sources say liberals believe. To the extent that people who call themselves liberals oppose freedom, they are not acting as liberals. If a liberal, as a liberal, opposes freedom, then like Lincoln he must show how lesser freedom in one area will lead to greater freedom in another area.

This is essentially the argument of those who oppose greater freedom for multinational corporations. As the modern corporation, through acquisitions and mergers, gains more and more power, many liberals fear that freedom for the corporation will mean oppression for the individual. Whether or not this fear is justified is another question, though recent history has seen a number of examples of corporate misbehavior. Rick Norwood (talk) 16:38, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

>>>recent history has seen a number of examples of corporate misbehavior. Irrelevant. Corporations breaking laws is another matter entirely than corporate rights. The same as true with individuals, as don't have the right to murder, and virtually no one believes we do, but people do it anyone. Either way, the problem with the article is that it is an article that tries to blend two different ideas that are not really related. It is true that almost all Americans are liberals, but not in the sense that Ted Rall says. American ideals are so entrenched in the basic ideas liberalism, which are individual rights and equality before the law. The idea of a liberal party in America is actually somewhat absurd, because, except for the brief flirtation with Socialist parties in the early 20th century, the idea of America having a non-liberal government is foreign to us. I don't know why the modern left identifies itself as liberal, though I suppose it probably evolved from their being referred to as the liberal left, to differentiate themselves from the Marxist left. The problem with this article is that it jumps randomly back and forth from the basic sense of the word, a political system that would be contrasted with Socialism, authoritarianism, fascism, aristocracy, anarchy, etc., and the sense of the word used to describe the modern American left. Gtbob12 (talk) 00:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that there is very little to separate the so-called "left" from the self-styled "conservatives", except that one side is more willing to use the coercive powers of the state while the other is more likely to use redistributive powers. The Four Deuces (talk) 02:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Unclear statement

According to Louis Hartz, it differs from liberalism in the rest of the world, because America never had a hereditary aristocracy[1][2] and therefore never turned to socialism, as many European liberals did, as a reaction against a system that enshrined the privileges of the upper class.

To those of us who aren't already familiar with the topic, it's not clear what this sentence is trying to say. How does the fact that America never had a hereditary aristocracy and never turned to socialism relate to the differences between American liberalism and liberalism elsewhere? I'm not expecting a long analysis in the lead section, but without some further illumination the sentence does not seem worth including at all as it explains nothing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.245.63 (talk) 02:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Hartz' thesis of American exceptionalism was that in the absense of feudal institutions, the US did not have a conservative tradition to restrain liberalism. This also explained the failure of socialism, or even social liberalism, to develop in the US. As a consequence the US political spectrum has remained narrow, and both reactionary and radical politics have remained within the liberal tradition. Ironically the absence of non-liberal politics in the political mainstream made the US more conformist and less tolerant. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:55, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Liberal thinkers and leaders in the United States

I think we should remove this section. It just seems to be a catch all list of any "liberal" that pops into the head of an editor, especially at the bottom, which stinks of recentism. Without a clear criteria, the list is meaningless. It serves very little purpose to the article, and should be removed. Nutiketaiel (talk) 20:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

It should be sourced, otherwise we can't have such a section because of subjective disputes. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 20:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
The problem is that this is "liberalism" rather than "modern liberalism" which seems to include everything from progressivism to populism to small gov't democratic-republicans to big gov't modern liberalism. The fact that many of these ppl had completely different outlooks on policy and how things should be run be run (cases in point Woodrow Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt; James Madison and Thomas Jefferson) doesn't seem to matter. But again, good luck changing it as these seeming insurmountable contradictions are always "overcome" with the argument that "anyone pre-1930, especially those who did anything positive for this nation, is considered a liberal" or w/e nonsense they're peddling atm. Soxwon (talk) 21:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I would remove the list since it is meaningless. The Four Deuces (talk) 00:59, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I think there should be some parallelism between parallel articles. Conservatism in the United States lists the following as conservatives.

President George Washington (1732–1799) President John Adams (1735–1826) Chief Justice John Marshall (1755–1835) Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton (1757–1804) Senator John C. Calhoun (1782–1850) Secretary of State Daniel Webster (1782–1852) Senator Elihu Root (1845–1937) President Theodore Roosevelt (1858–1919)

and many, many more.

Are there no liberals at all?

Rick Norwood (talk) 15:19, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Let's just remove both lists, they are as TFD stated, useless. Soxwon (talk) 15:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree. The terms liberal and conservative are both ambiguous, especially in the US where their widespread usage is fairly modern, There is widespread disagreement among their application by for example, Hartz, Rossiter and Kirk. So we should remove both. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
I also agree with removing both. When I made the suggestion originally, I did not realize that there was a comparable list in Conservatism in the United States. Both are subjective and useless. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

So, we all agree here on this article. But over at Conservatism in the United States, the idea that all of the Founding Fathers were conservative is sacrosanct. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

"Sancrosanct?" Are you kidding? If they want to build a shrine to their ridiculous opinions, they can go to Conservapedia; that's what it's for. Nutiketaiel (talk) 18:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The list of conservatives that begins with George Washington is referenced. It would be hard to remove it. Rick Norwood (talk) 16:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

We need to have this list--99.101.160.159 (talk) 06:07, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

"Are there no liberals at all?" asks one editor--well, that is a problem because liberals have been shooting down great white men for 40 years now, leaving few standing. Obama, for example, has been under heavy attack recently. That makes it very hard on the readers, of course. However conservatives do not shoot down their heroes--on the contrary they just celebrated Reagan's 100th birthday this week, for example. I'm in favor of a list here (and over at conservatism as well). Rjensen (talk) 07:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree. To be more specific, how can there be a Wikipedia article about liberalism in the United States that entirely omits Thomas Paine? His 'Agrarian Justice' is more radically liberal than many of the liberal policies during the Progressive Era. It could be argued that Thomas Paine is the standard-bearer of American liberalism or at least one of the earliest examples of it (which is quite significant for the reason that Paine was the first person, as far as I know, to refer to America as its own country: "Free and independent States of America" - February, 1776). If a source is needed besides Paine's own words, I would suggest citing as a reference Harvey J. Kaye's book 'Thomas Paine and the Promise of America'. Harvey J. Kaye is a professor who has written two books on Thomas Paine along with other books on history and so should be deemed a reliable source. Benjamindavidsteele (talk) 01:14, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
We NEED some kind of list! --99.101.160.159 (talk) 23:23, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Incredulous

How is it possible that an article on Liberalism in the United States not only does not rely on the Enlightenment to explain the origins of the Liberalism in the United States, but does not even mention the term even once. There is so little attention to the concept of liberalism during the Revolutionary period, and what is mentioned is so limited to economics seemingly taken out of context to create some kind of justification for anachronistic interpretations, that it very difficult to take the article seriously. The worst part, to me, are the many readers who will take the article at face value because they have no foundation from which to evaluate the validity of the article for themselves. Shoreranger (talk) 21:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The article Liberalism stresses the origin of liberal ideas in the Enlightenment. Please add these sources to this article to improve it. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:31, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Paleoliberalism

A recent edit to this section added a name inside a direct quotation. Because the quote is unreferenced, it is impossible to tell if the person making the edit improperly changed what someone else said, or corrected the quote to reflect the source. A reference would be appreciated. Rick Norwood (talk) 20:18, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

In contrast to what?

The History section, at least, could benefit the casual reader by spending a considerable amount of attention to just what liberalism was in contrast to what was in place when it was introduced to America in the 18th century. It might also be helpful to current discussions, such as the one on religion, now going on re: this article. If the reader and others don't start from the common starting point of understanding state religion, oligarchy, inherited aristocracy, virtual representation etc. the comparison ends up to be about modern interpretations of political philosophies rather than an understanding that all modern US politics is "liberal" in contrast to the system it replaced, and that the spectrum of modern liberal thought is all really just varying degrees of fundementally the same thing from "socialists" to "tea partiers." Another example is the monarchy: Most modern Americans have no concept of what living under a monarchy meant in the 18th century, and use modern understandings of figureheads and Disney-like royal weddings as their reference point rather than the political realities at the founding of the US. Shoreranger (talk) 19:29, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I've added a link to the liberalism article, which includes this in the lede
"Liberalism first became a powerful force in the Age of Enlightenment, rejecting several foundational assumptions that dominated most earlier theories of government, such as hereditary status, established religion, absolute monarchy, and the Divine Right of Kings. " Rick Norwood (talk) 20
39, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps an improvement, but some elaboration would be useful. What do these things really mean? Why were these things replaced? What were the problems under these systems that liberalism was meant to solve? Unfortunatly, these things are not self-evident to the average reader. Shoreranger (talk) 20:56, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree, but that's what hypertext is all about. The lede of a single article cannot tell the reader everything. Rick Norwood (talk) 21:05, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I've suggested in my original post that the "History" section, not the lede, be expanded for that purpose for just that reason. I am in favor of a liberal use, if you will pardon the pun, of the hypertext but the articles they link to need to be put in context to the ideas in this article, and I've suggested this be achieved by answering the questions I proposed in my last post, not simply introducing hypertext in this article in the hope that the reader will study each one and make the right connections. That correction can easily happen in the history section and, I'd suppose, other appropriate places in the article. Shoreranger (talk) 21:32, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Since the American colonies were established as liberal communities, there is no before to discuss. TFD (talk) 01:27, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

The "before" was fundamental. Before there was a United States, there had never been a country founded on liberal principles. The article says this, but the idea could be expanded, if the expansion were carefully sourced. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:27, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I added to the history section. What do you mean by that comment - that the former colonies that formed the United states had been founded on liberal principals or that the constitution of the federation they joined was based on liberal principles? There was continuity between the earlier colonies. Both imperial laws (including the Bill of Rights 1689) and provincial statutes continued in force although the states could now amend or repeal imperial laws. TFD (talk) 14:24, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
the British government founded the colonies around 1600 on the basis of mercantilist principles that certainly were not "liberal". (Locke's liberalism in 1680s was 80 years after the founding). Rjensen (talk) 14:34, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Doesn't that depend on how broadly one defines liberalism? Virginia was a commercial venture, and its characteristics were different from Spanish settlement in the Americas. It was not set up along traditional feudal lines. Didn't Locke speak for the interests of the investors in Virginia? Even though the English government was not liberal, it does not mean that the colony was not. Compare with the Chinese government and Hong Kong. TFD (talk) 15:18, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Virginia was indeed set up for business, but business has been around a long time and it does not equate to liberalism. Rjensen (talk) 15:26, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Freedom of religion AND separation of church and state?

There has been a recent edit adding to the short list of liberal principles in the lede, so that it includes both "freedom of religion" and "separation of church and state". It seems to me that in what is necessarily a brief introduction to liberalism in the US, religion only needs to be mentioned once, and that freedom of religion is the more common formulation of the basic liberal idea. Comments? Rick Norwood (talk) 14:48, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

...except that many people, Conservatives especially, use Newspeak to interpret "Freedom of Religion" to mean that a public school, gov't institution, or gov't employee can force religion on others, whether through school-led prayer, religious-focused curriculum, public gov't displays of religious symbolism, laws based solely on religious doctrine (such as anti-gay marriage bills)or other means. For example, if you turn to page 53 of the Republican Party's platform, you will see this kind of propaganda in action, specifically in regards to the idea that "Freedom of Religion" for them means the "Freedom" to impose on personal religious liberties. [3] "Separation of Church and State" is usually seen as a different concept than simply "Freedom of Religion," as one can theoretically exist without the other. (i.e., people can be free to practice a minority religion...while a gov't still erects a "State Religion" or Theocratic laws...) With the amount of propaganda and revisionism currently clouding American politics, it seems perfectly reasonable to state both, particularly when pretty much 100% of American Liberals would proclaim support for both concepts. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 15:48, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
We need to avod confusing modern lberalism with liberalsm in general. The Puritans for example believed in freedom of religion and separaton of church and state, but did not conform wth modern liberal views. Similarly some states kept established churches long after the revolution. And of course religion has continued to play a role in government, even if it has diminished. TFD (talk) 16:12, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
I just replaced freedom of religion, which few USians of any political stripe dispute, with separation of church and state, which is more distinctively liberal. While there may have been communities in the liberal tradition that do not conform to every trait listed in the lede, church/state separation has been a characteristic and ongoing political direction of liberals. I would prefer to keep both.
As Bryonmorrigan observes above, the term freedom of religion, while not literally anti-liberal, is often attached to a broader pro-religion agenda contrary to the freedoms and rights embraced by liberals. Few conservatives, even those most rabidly objecting to one or another religious group, would ever admit opposition to "freedom of religion"; it is only because of such extremists that I consider "freedom of religion" useful in the lede of this article, albeit less important that separation of church and state. / edg ☺ ☭ 18:51, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

It does not seem to me that Wikipedia is an appropriate forum for propaganda, even propaganda I happen to agree with. If this were the article, Modern Liberalism in the United States then "separation of church and state" might be more appropriate than "freedom of religion", but this is splitting hairs. In the lede, brevity is the soul of wit. The US Constitution mentions both. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of relition, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

By the way, looking up "Bill of Rights" I discovered something I did not know. The British Bill of Rights specifies that no Roman Catholic shall ever rule England!

As for the idea that conservatives favor freedom of religion, consider Pat Roberton's proposed constitutional ammendment allowing only Christians and Jews the right to vote, or George W. Bush's famous satatment than an atheist is not a "real" American.

Rick Norwood (talk) 20:35, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

well is someone has false hateful images they will not make a good Wiki editor. try google, which tells us "Your search - "George W. Bush' atheist is not a "real American" - did not match any documents." Rjensen (talk) 15:51, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Apparently, you aren't very skilled at Internet research. I found it in under 5 minutes. It was George H.W. Bush, not his son who made the statement, which is far more "hateful" and "false" than anything Rick has posted on this talk page.:
Sherman: Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?
Bush: No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.[4]
As I stated before, the general Conservative consensus is that "Freedom of Religion" only applies to Christians...and at most Jews, but certainly not to Hindus, Buddhists, Atheists, Wiccans, or anyone else. To argue otherwise is like trying to argue that Conservatives aren't opposed to LGBT rights or the teaching of Evolution in schools. Sure, you'll find some that aren't...but the general consensus does not back that thesis, which is well shown by the GOP platform that I linked earlier. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 16:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
for the record it's a fake quote. No journalist ever reported it. One person -- an atheist activist--claimed he heard it at a press conference where no one else hear the so-called "remark" and the atheist was unable to provide a tape recording. GWH Bush simply never talked that way. Rjensen (talk) 14:12, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
No, it's not a "fake" quote, nor is there any source backing up that assertion. A "fake" quote would imply that it was deliberately made up, whereas the only "evidence" against it's legitimacy is that a) It was reported by an Atheist, which Christians take to mean that he cannot be believed; and b) No other evidence exists to prove it, beyond Rob Sherman's report filed as a legitimate member of the press, from a legitimate magazine. [5] The fact that other reporters did not also report the remark only shows that they did not feel it "newsworthy" in 1988, and the lack of any of them standing up to publicly state otherwise is just as significant. If you have sources showing otherwise, feel free to post them. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 15:41, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
This quote came up in another article. Whether or not Bush actually said what was reported does not matter, because one would need more evidence to demonstate that this was part of U.S. conservative ideology. TFD (talk) 15:53, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Bryonmorrigan, for correcting my mistake but backing up my general impression. I think there is a pun in here somewhere about a bird in the hand, but I can't find it. Rick Norwood (talk) 11:39, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

When a quote gets challenged the "reporter" produces the tape recording or witnesses. Sherman did not do that, even though there were dozens of experienced reporters there with tape recorders. Bush's press conference (at Ohare Airport) was also covered by TV cameras. Sherman was an occasional columnist for an atheist magazine and had no other journalistic credentials. Rjensen (talk) 15:53, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
David Conway explains this apparent anomaly in his book from Ashgate Publishing, "the English nation was not one which atheists or Roman Catholics were eligible to join. In this respect, those with such religious or irreligious filiations differed from pagans, Jews, and Muslims whose religious filiations, in Locke’s view, did not disqualify them membership of the English nation. Locke considered atheists ineligible to join the English nation since he considered membership to be gained by swearing an oath of allegiance. As oath, being a vow to God, meant an atheist could not swear one and hence could not do what was necessary to join. Roman Catholics clearly could swear oaths, but, according to Locke, not oaths of allegiance to the English commonwealth. This was because, in Locke’s view, the ultimate allegiance of Roman Catholics was to a foreign Prince, the Pope."[6] TFD (talk) 12:48, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

"Part of a series on..."

on the "Conservatism in the United States" page, it is a portal to topics directly related to conservatism in the United States, but on this page, the portal only relates to liberalism in general. shouldn't there be a more relevant portal? --99.101.160.159 (talk) 16:33, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

map

I have removed a map that seems to show that America is almost entirely Republican. But the map is colored by area (counties) rather than population, and is therefore misleading. Votes are counted by population, not by area. A map designed to inform rather than mislead would show votes by population. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:42, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

One man, one vote.Slmslr27 (talk) 19:17, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia liberal biased??

Why is there a psychology section for conservatives using only negative findings on them, but not one for liberals?? There have been studies showing liberals have a mental disorder and is more apt to blindly follow their leaders:

http://www.amazon.com/Liberal-Mind-Psychological-Political-Madness/dp/097795630X

http://www.libertymind.com/

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/12/101209074403.htm

I am not saying it should be written that liberals are mentally ill, just these studies should be cited in the article like on the conservative one. This article makes liberals sound like they are sane and more intelligent than conservatives, and that is disputed. Also, the findings that liberals are more intelligent than conservatives have been disputed too.Bjoh249 (talk) 00:55, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I just had a look at those three sources. The first is a book review that seems to equate modern liberalism with the radical left, which is obviously nonsense. The second is another review of the SAME book, claiming it "is the first systematic examination of human nature and human freedom". I seriously doubt it. The third describes some research which may be quite valid, then draws conclusions which suggest that conservatives are, well, more conservative. I think you need better sources. HiLo48 (talk) 01:36, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
The liberal mind is published by "Free World Books" which is a label of "Red Room", a self-publishing company.[7] See WP:SELFPUB which explains the limited use that can be made of self-published works. TFD (talk) 03:21, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

And how are the sources on the conservative article any better?? They try to equate modern conservative with mental illness and fascism, which is also nonsense. The book I cited was a real book written by a psychologist, and I know it is for sale on Amazon.com which is respected bookseller. The third one was a study that was done by scientists. I am not saying to state that liberalism is mental illness, I am simply saying to give equal time to both instead of mainly printing the negative stuff on conservatives and leaving the negatives of liberals out.Bjoh249 (talk) 10:31, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Almost every book is for sale on amazon.com, so that is not a qualification. The difference is between academic research and popular non-fiction. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:11, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Indeed. That has to be the most hilarious "justification" for claiming that someone's vanity press book deserves RS status...in the history of Wikipedia. LOL. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 17:29, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
The studies were unable to find any correlation between liberalism and psychology, otherwise we would include it. TFD (talk) 12:34, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
If the article(s) on conservatives contain rubbish, then fix them. Don't add garbage to this one. HiLo48 (talk) 04:58, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Bjoh249, read the 2012 history book Rule & Ruin: The Downfall of Moderation and the Destruction of the Republican Party, From Eisenhower to the Tea Party (Studies in Post War Political Development) published by the Oxford Press to find out how crazy Conservatives are.
http://www.amazon.com/Rule-Ruin-Moderation-Destruction-Development/dp/0199768404
The radicalization of Conservatives has gotten so bad that in 1966 it lead moderate Republican Senator Thomas Kuchel to proclaim, :::::"[Conservatives are] a fanatical neo-facsist political cult of right-wingers in the GOP, driven by a strange mixture of corrosive hatred and sickening fear that is recklessly determined to control our party or destroy it!"
I think this section in the Talk page should be deleted as flame-bait. --50.128.155.168 (talk) 18:28, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage

Same-sex marriage is mentioned as a liberal cause in the lead, but there is no mention of it in the section, "American liberalism, 1970 to the present day" (which is woefully lacking substance). I believe there should be at least some mention of Obergefell v. Hodges. Thoughts?Kerdooskis (talk) 17:38, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

agreeRick Norwood (talk) 21:19, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Liberalism in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:49, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Liberalism in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:09, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

The Modern Liberalism in the United States Template.

Does anyone know how I'm supposed to edit the Modern Liberalism in the United States template? I was hoping to add more names to the template, because in my opinion, it's under-populated. However, for some reason, it won't let me. Can someone please help me with this? Mr. Brain (talk) 22:50, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

"Liberal" as an insult

As a non-American, one thing I see that's different about language in my country and language in the US is the use of the word "liberal" as a pejorative in the United States. It goes close to being used that way in the first thread on this page. I don't think that happens elsewhere in the world. The article is about Liberalism, in the US. How can it ignore the word as an insult? HiLo48 (talk) 01:25, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

The current version is "libtard", implying that liberals are all retarded. Rick Norwood (talk) 11:35, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes, language does evolve, doesn't it? HiLo48 (talk) 12:06, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
I think the intended implication is that you must be mentally retarded to not realize that Mexicans are rapists. Rick Norwood (talk) 11:37, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
The term liberal is used as an insult by the Left throughout the world. The term actually began in the early 19th century as an insult by conservatives. TFD (talk) 04:40, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

NAFTA?

"Democratic president Bill Clinton (1993–2001) worked with conservatives, against strong liberal opposition, to end some of the main welfare programs and to implement NAFTA, linking the economies of the U.S., Canada, and Mexico."

If there is a connection of NAFTA to liberalism, it needs to be explained and supported with citations. Shoreranger (talk) 14:19, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

"Classical liberalism" = "free market economy"?

"Classical liberalism in the United States (also called laissez-faire liberalism[18]) is the belief that a free market economy is the most productive."

Since when is an economic system the same as political theory? --Shoreranger (talk) 17:45, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Error?

Towards the bottom of the text under the Section titled "Modern Liberalism" the text discusses a book that supposedly Herbert Croly wrote, The Techniques of Democracy published in 1915. That book was written by Alfred Bingham and was published in 1943. The book I suspect the writer/editor was referencing was Croly's Progressive Democracy. LAWinans (talk) 22:07, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Formatting

Yesterday, I accidentally messed up the formatting. My apologies. 66.44.91.122 (talk) 14:24, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Please add sources to this page

I'm too busy with school to add them myself but please add sources and citations where needed, this is embarrassing. I'm giving it a week, but if nothing gets added by then, I'm going to straight-up blank every section of this article that doesn't have citations. I'll reduce this page to a "stub" if I have to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.44.209.196 (talk) 19:45, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm not seeing that. Even where someone has tagged citation needed, there is a citation that covers more than one sentence. TFD (talk) 20:06, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Recent deletion

The following quote, which has been in the lead for years, was recently removed from the lead by GuardianH:

"Ideologically, all US parties are liberal and always have been. Essentially they espouse classical liberalism, that is a form of democratised Whig constitutionalism plus the free market. The point of difference comes with the influence of social liberalism and the proper role of government." -- Ian Adams. In Adams' view American liberals favor a free market.

I restored the deleted quote. GuardianH deleted it again, maintaining that "Ian Adams is an academic at Durham who has not held a substantial influence over liberal scholarship (far from it); his opinion should be noted in the body, rather than placed prominently in the lede."

Without the Ian Adams quote, the impression a reader gets by reading the lead is guided by this sentence: "Since the 1930s, the term liberalism is usually used without a qualifier in the United States to refer to social liberalism, a variety of liberalism that endorses a regulated market economy and the expansion of civil and political rights, with the common good considered as compatible with or superior to the freedom of the individual." But the reference for this sentence is a book that is not about US liberalism at all, but is De Ruggiero's 1959 book "The History of European Liberalism".

So, GuardianH wants to remove the claim by an academic that American Liberalism favors a free market, and keep a quote based on Europen Liberalism that claims American Liberalism favors a regulated market.

Rather than start an edit war, I would like to see other people weigh in on the question of whether American liberalism is essentially, in favor of a free market or essentially opposed to a free market.

Of course, there is no such thing as a "free market", unless by "free market" you mean a market dominated entirely by the rich. But it is reasonable to ask which side is basically in favor of freedom. Rick Norwood (talk) 16:58, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

The nub of the problem here is that "liberalism" means one thing to Europeans (i.e. Classical liberalism) and another thing to Americans (probably Social liberalism with elements of Economic liberalism comes closest to describing it). Saying "Ideologically, all US parties are liberal..." is confusing to the reader because they will approach such a statement with a different predetermined view of what liberalism is, so that even the corrective that follows the statement will not really be adequate. (An American reader, for instance, will almost certainly balk at parties which are considered to be conservative in the US being described as "liberal".) Adams' view is essentially correct, but they are probably not the best source to base the statement on - there are certainly many other more prominent political scientists who can be quoted to make the same point, which, if it's written up better, would explain the situation to the reader of whatever viewpoint. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:34, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
This seems like something that should be restored but perhaps with more context. Springee (talk) 20:24, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
Adams eminence as a liberal theorist is irrelevant. Reliable tertiary sources are not typically written by Nobel laureates.
Adams quote is helpful because it helps us, especially Americans, understand the topic. It is the ideology that has dominated both parties from their establishment. The fact that Americans ahistorically adopted the terms liberal and conservative in the mid 20th century to describe competing versions of liberalism should then be explained.
It's probably better to use sources that cover liberalism as a topic, rather than narrowly focus on U.S. politics, because liberal ideology in the U.S. does not exist in isolation.
It's overly simplistic to say that in the U.S. liberalism means the left of the U.S. spectrum, which incidentally contains ideologies outside the liberal tradition, such as democratic socialism. Social scientists such as Louis Hartz for example wrote about the "Liberal tradition in America," by which he meant the dominant ideology. Both definitions are used in academic writing and which is meant is determined by context.
There is no question that despite differences among themselves, Americans have always shared certain beliefs as described in the Federalist Papers, the Declaration of Independence, the 1789 constitution and the Bill of Rights. And these beliefs are expressions of liberal, rather than Tory, socialist or fascist ideology. TFD (talk) 23:49, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
Until rather recently, I would have agreed with your statement "American have always shared...", but in the past decade or so we've seen the rise of a movement which does not share those beliefs. People such as that have always been around, but only on the fringes. Now, unfortunately, they dominate one of the primary political parties. Some of them give lip service to those ideals, but, in fact, their actions hew much closer to fascist ideals than to those of what has been, historically, the American mainstream. I don't say this with any pleasure, I'd much rather it be the case that all Americans believed fervently in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, etc., but differed -- even vigorously -- about ways and means and policies, but that's simply not the case at this moment. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:57, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
Even if that is true, the fact remains that the political debate uses liberal principles as agreed truths. Both sides seem forced to defend their policies on liberal grounds. That's in contrast to say Russia in the early 20th century when tsarists did not have to explain how their policies promoted equality while the Bolsheviks did not have to explain how their's supported property rights.
One constant in the debate has been to portray the other side as outside the liberal tradition while claiming it for themselves. Hence Republicans accuse Democrats of being socialists. But you don't see conservatives in France accuse their main opponents, the Socialist Party, of being socialists in the hope that would discredit them as being outside the French political spectrum. TFD (talk) 00:20, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
No, I'm sorry, you are not totally correct here. Saying -- as our former President did -- that the Constitution should be suspended is not adhering to liberal principles. Mind you, if you had made that statement 10 or 15 years ago, I would be in full agreement. I'm sorry (very sorry) that it's not possible to agree now, given the circumstances. Yes, lip service is given to "freedom" while passing law after law that restrict personal liberties, but it's their actions which speak loudest, not their lying tongues. We have, I'm afraid, passed through the very long era where the entire American mainstream is dedicated to liberal principles. I very much hope that we'll be able to get back to it, but the signs are not all that great. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:34, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
But I do agree that historically, until very recently, all but the fringes of American politics, "liberals" and "conservatives" alike, were liberal in terms of classical liberalism. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:40, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
You can add that. But I think that it doesn't affect the wording under discussion. TFD (talk) 14:36, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
So far, it seems the quote should be restored, perhaps with a short, referenced sentence that politicians have often failed to live up to the ideals they espouse. A good reference for that sentence would be Zinn's "A People's History of the United States". In any case, since my restoration was deleted, I would prefer someone else did the next attempt. Rick Norwood (talk) 10:21, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
I've waited a day, to see if there were going to be any strong objections to restoring the long-standing quote. There haven't been, so I am going to put it back.Rick Norwood (talk) 12:22, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

History: Rousseau versus American liberalism

There's something fundamentally wrong here: The article strives to discriminate American liberalism from European liberalism, but attributes belief in "the common good" to American liberalism. "The common good" however, comes from Rousseau, made the difference between the American and French Revolutions, and has always been diagnostic of European thought. The liberalism in America, by the time of the Revolution, was based on a different conception of "the common good" than European liberalism. American liberals have until quite recently believed that, at the policy level, there is no such thing as a "common good". They believed that even good people have conflicting interests, and the purpose of government is to referee the development of a compromise between competing interests. So by identifying the "common good" with American liberalism, this article in effect says that American liberalism has been supplanted by European liberalism. Philgoetz (talk) 03:08, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

There are a number of strange statements above, particularly the idea that "American liberals have until quite recently believed that, at the policy level, there is no such thing as a "common good"." Jefferson changed Locke's "property" to "the pursuit of happiness", certainly happiness is a common good. The preamble to the constitution gives one reason for government to "promote the general welfare", certainly a common good. The big difference between European use of the word liberalism and the American use has to do with economic freedom in the European usage with some limitations on the concentration and power of wealth in the American usage. Rick Norwood (talk) 09:55, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Liberalism_in_the_United_States/Archive_7&oldid=1247065560"