Talk:Liberalism/Archive 12

Vandal IP log
--Sfiga (talk) 22:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 18:54, 26 November 2010 67.234.3.94  | Embarq Corporation,Hagerstown, Maryland, United States
 * 18:54, 26 November 2010 67.234.3.94  | Embarq Corporation, Hagerstown, Maryland, United States
 * 15:38, 2 November 2010 198.82.12.222 | Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State Univ., Blacksburg, Virginia, United States
 * 02:50, 4 October 2010 69.178.194.13  | daktel.com, Carrington, North Dakota, United States

fair trade vs. free trade
The phrase "free trade" is tossed around a lot these days. The original meaning was a reduction in tariffs, leading to greater trade and thus to greater wealth for both parties. Today, tariffs are no longer the most important source of revenue, and so questions arise about situations in which tariffs may be appropriate. Should there be free trade between a state with slave labor and a state with free labor? Should there be free trade between a state with government subsidies and a state with no government subsidies?

Another problem with "free trade" here is that it has become a code word for unrestrained capitalism, which most liberals do not support, on the grounds that it leads to monopoly, and the subjugation of the workers by the rich. Most liberals support "fair trade", which is a moderation of free trade in the interest of greater freedom and equality. If the editor who continues to replace "fair trade" by "free trade" thinks otherwise, he or she should provide sources. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:16, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * That is the problem with an unsourced lead, especially when the term "fair trade" appears no where else in the article. It seems to me that we have neither fair trade nor free trade.  TFD (talk) 03:11, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Where is your reference for "fair trade" being a concept promoted by liberals? Free trade (whatever that means in different times and places and to different people) has been a fundamental aspect of liberal philosophy for some 200 years. Fair trade is a much more recent concept. I quote from the Wikipedia article on free trade (which I think suffices as a reference). You might also want to refer to sections II:1 and IV:d of the 1947 Oxford Manifesto:

--- Many classical liberals, especially in 19th and early 20th century Britain (e.g. John Stuart Mill) and in the United States for much of the 20th century (e.g. Cordell Hull), believed that free trade promoted peace. The British economist John Maynard Keynes (1883–1946) was brought up on this belief, which underpinned his criticism of the Treaty of Versailles in 1919 for the damage it did to the interdependent European economy. After a brief flirtation with protectionism in the early 1930s, he came again to favour free trade so long as it was combined with internationally coordinated domestic economic policies to promote high levels of employment, and international economic institutions that meant that the interests of countries were not pitted against each other. In these circumstances, 'the wisdom of Adam Smith' again applied, he said. ---

Fair trade is not as you state a "moderation of free trade", it is a specific recently-developed niche trading practise in which consumers are encouraged to pay more than the market price for a product with the promise that the producer of the good (usually farmers in the developing world) will then get paid more than market price for their products. I suggest you refer to the link provided within wikipedia. Of course in a free market, consumers are free to choose to pay more than they have to, and in a free society people are free to undertake charitable acts (which "fair trade" essentially is) if they see fit. However, mandating it (or indeed banning it) would be diametrically opposed to the foundation of liberalism, namely maximising free individual choice. Mandating charity, or claiming to know that the price agreed for a good between the parties to the exchange is somehow "wrong" is obviously illiberal.

If you really require more references please read the wikipedia article on economic liberalism. You might take the view that capitalism leads to monopoly and subjugation of the workers by the rich, but most (European) liberals take exactly the opposite view. Indeed, free trade has been very much a "working class" issue since at least the Peterloo protests against the British corn laws. 07:30, 14 December 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.58.177.2 (talk)


 * References should be to outside sources, not to Wikipedia, but the quote you give above seems to support my view. Your quote: "favour free trade so long as it was combined with internationally coordinated domestic economic policies to promote high levels of employment."  In other words, free trade modified by other values.  Given your own quote, your claim that "fair trade" is a recent development strikes me as strange.  Rick Norwood (talk) 14:00, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Needs more Mill, Bentham, Payne and Jefferson?
My instinct is that the article is a tad light on the enlightenment-era liberal thinkers, such as the four I have named in the title of this topic, including the links to Utilitarianism and women's/universal sufferage. However I am aware that this instinct is coloured by my own Millsian tendencies, so before I start drafting content would like some input from others as to 1) wheter I am right that more is needed on enlightenment development of the ideology; 2) Who should be included as significant (aware of the risk of becoming just a long name-check of how well read I think I am); 3)what aspects of their work people think would be most significant to mention.A Pedant (talk) 17:51, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree. Of the four, the current article only mentions Mill.  But you need to be careful -- there is a whole article on American Liberalism.  This article is on world liberalism.  Certainly Jefferson is a major figure in world liberalism and needs to be mentioned.  And I have no objection to a mention and a link to the other two, in some context that shows how their ideas shaped, not just echoed, the ideas of liberal thinkers who went before. Rick Norwood (talk) 22:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Liberal and Social Democracy
In the new world, liberal conservatives and modern liberals argue in cultural changing. Whereas conservatives do not want rapid changes in the society while modern liberals think that changes can do something more which is important and substantial. It is true that culture preservation is sometimes the root of political illness and social inadequacy.

People around the world would always ask for changes in the society especially the concerns of the government. A conservative government is sometimes foiled out by oppressing forces of the state, liberals and conservatives are all radicals but however they turn to have a little difference of principle. Yes, they do care about social rights but liberals would always see to something new for good while conservatives do not because of religion and culture.

The modern Liberal thought was first pronounced in the United States during World War II, the country was emotionally mobilized to tighten more its security. Capitalists who hold classic liberal thought abolished its self-mindedness and focused themselves for the better of the society. This abrupt change in the country has brought economic depression easier to handle.

American Liberalism mostly adheres to the morality of freedom and free trading where the concept of selflessness sprung for the sake of the country even though the projection of individualism is still there.

The concept is commonly used by social democrats to where “the government’s aim is the proper redistribution of wealth, the rule of the majority and the protection of the minority classes.”

Absolutism is purely intolerable avoid exploitation and oppression of the rights of each individual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.144.115.105 (talk) 12:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * This talk page is about the article "Liberalism", not a discussion page for the subject. Rick Norwood (talk) 17:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * We should define Liberalism as it is actually, not as Marxism in sheep's clothing, (ie not American 'liberalism') I edited out the equality part, as that is only part of Marxism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dexter099 (talk • contribs) 15:18, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Im not going to change the post, cuz im new to all that in Wikipedia. But i think it is of critical importance that we specifically exclude American Liberalism from general liberalism as the people who would classify as liberals under the definition given on this wikipedia page, would actually be the republican party in america. Whereas the current "liberal" or "democratic" party is really nothing more than Marxism/Leninism. If, in replying, you could please refrain from arguing about whether or not marxism is good or bad, or whether the "civil rights" as pursued by modern day american liberals is really just racism under another name, and just address the issue, Modern day american liberalism is the antithesis of classical liberalism. Something needs to be done to the page 174.29.37.9 (talk) 13:59, 22 January 2011 (UTC)M

Further clarification on meaning of liberalism in the USA
In the USA, the commonplace meaning of the word liberal/liberalism is, roughly speakiing, the platform/priorities of the US Democratic party. In some ways this is very different than the world-definition or outside-of-the-USA definition of the term, which is what is described in this article. Living in the USA, I only recently learned this, and I think that few USA readers know this. IMHO this could use a couple of sentences in the USA section and maybe one in the lead to at least acknowledge the difference. That would be enough enable readers to fully absorb (instead of being confused by) what is in the rest of this article. The previous posters' notes about Thomas Jefferson sort of force this point. USA definitions would tend to classify Jefferson as a conservative or libertarian, being so prominently an advocate of smaller and more limited government. But, by the world-definition, or outside-of-the-US definition, Jefferson would probably be classified as a liberal. North8000 (talk) 13:48, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * It is explained in the article. TFD (talk) 15:20, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't agree. The closest I see in there is the Americas section, which hops all over the place without really clearly saying it, and which also avoids the main area where the US definition is opposite the world definition.   I don't plan to pursue this here, it was just a suggestion.  North8000 (talk) 16:45, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The U.S. definition is not the opposite. See for example "American liberalism" in Political ideology today.  TFD (talk) 17:08, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This is one of those areas where Wikipedia has a couple of problems. The word liberal does vary a lot in its usage around the world, then there's the variation between formal academic meanings and populist usage. Which do we report? I live in a country (Australia) where the more conservative of our two major political parties calls itself the Liberal Party, but liberal in popular conversation means pretty much the opposite of conservative. My impression of the popular use of the word in the USA is that it's an insult thrown by conservatives at less conservative people, on a par with socialist and commie. The fact that it's used as an insult prevents most people there who would be happily given that label elsewhere totally avoiding the word. HiLo48 (talk) 22:22, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. TFD (talk) 23:08, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, and...? HiLo48 (talk) 23:13, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "Each article in an encyclopedia is about a person, or a people, a concept, a place, an event, a thing etc.; whereas a dictionary article is primarily about a word, an idiom or a term and its meanings, usage and history." TFD (talk) 23:22, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree with that distinction, but don't see how it helps us here. HiLo48 (talk) 23:33, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hello Hilo48. Responding to your earlier post, in the US, it is often used in a pejorative sense, but I wouldn't call it inherently pejorative.  Nevertheless, most folks in the US who are liberals would use the term "progressive" rather than "liberal" in referring to their political beliefs. North8000 (talk) 23:58, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah. Thanks for that. "Progressive" has reawakened some slumbering memories deep in my brain. I knew there was a more socially acceptable term. HiLo48 (talk) 00:08, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hello TFD. Or, in the case of this article, it's about more than one and very different concepts that use the same name.  North8000 (talk) 00:03, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No, it is one concept, but there are a variety of forms. TFD (talk) 01:30, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree, but again, I was only making a suggestion. North8000 (talk) 14:11, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Should we include parts of the 2011 Arab world protests?
Some parts of the Arab world protests seem to be progressive in nature. I am talking about the revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt and other governmental protests in that region. Should that be placed in this article? Let's keep an eye on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.228.227.12 (talk) 04:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


 * It does seem to be a quest for many of the attributes of Liberalism as described in the article, but it's not up to us to decide. Just find those reliable sources that say so. (And avoid the Americans who equate Liberalism with Communism.) HiLo48 (talk) 05:04, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


 * They could also be seen as an anti-liberal challenge to regimes supported by the United States. TFD (talk) 05:20, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

2nd sentence: change "understanding" to "interpretation"
The wording of the article's second sentence is confusing and potentially implies biased PoV. "Depending on their understanding of these principles" can be read to mean: "depending on their grasp of these principles". The current wording can be read as questioning whether some liberals grasp the principles of liberty and equal rights. Assuming good faith, I believe the sentence intended to convey "depending on their interpretation of these principles". This wording wouldn't potentially question anyone's understanding. Shane Mecklenburger (talk) 05:53, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Good point. Sign your comments with four tildes. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:55, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I propose that Liberalism worldwide be merged into Liberalism. Liberalism worldwide is a fork of Liberalism and is unsourced. It is original research about which political parties should be called "liberal". TFD (talk) 19:06, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I have never looked at Liberalism worldwide and don't plan to. Given that this is a global encyclopaedia, I had always assumed that THIS article was the one about Liberalism worldwide (perhaps as distinct from Liberalism USA, which would be a very different animal.) I don't even really care what's in Liberalism worldwide. An article with such a name should not exist. HiLo48 (talk) 19:15, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. Rick Norwood (talk) 20:55, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Problem is that the merger would result in an excessively long article of over 150k as there is essentially no overlap otherwise. Also note that other ideology articles do not list every group or party subscribing to that ideology or philosophy. Communism does not contain List of communist parties.  Marxism does not list  Marxist parties.  Listing various worldwide parties in an article such as this would be unique. Collect (talk) 16:45, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * How do you propose determining which political parties should be listed as "liberal"? TFD (talk) 17:00, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That appears to be the venue of the article talk page. It is not up to me to decide anything. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 00:14, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I totally disagree with TFD's proposal: Liberalism worldwide should stay. Almost every country has its own article about liberalism (see Category:Liberalism by country) and this is the article which recollects all those articles. --Checco (talk) 02:30, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Then what is this article for? HiLo48 (talk) 02:36, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * About 1500 edits in the past year alone. Well over six thousand total edits.   The list is exceedingly stable in comparison, with a relative handful of total edits (under five hundred in seven years).  Seems absurd to add a lot of material here instead of leaving it in a stable article, no?  Collect (talk) 13:33, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Any reason why this "stable" article provides nil sources? TFD (talk) 13:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Then ask for cites for it on that page. Seems a lot simpler than moving it here - where you will still need the exact same number of cites.  Collect (talk) 15:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

It now appears that I was happier when I didn't know that "liberalism worldwide" even existed. I doubt many people go there, but it still should be improved or removed. Rick Norwood (talk) 18:37, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I ask again, why on earth do we have an article called Liberalism AND an article called Liberalism worldwide? There is absolutely nothing in those names to differentiate them. Maybe at least one of them needs a different name. HiLo48 (talk) 18:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the other article should likely be renamed - possibly to "List of liberal parties by nation" and the philosophical sections removed? Collect (talk) 19:01, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The article Liberal International has a list of its member parties worldwide. Unfortunately there is no authoritative sources for listing liberal parties, and an argument could be made that most parties, including socialists and conservatives, are liberal.  TFD (talk) 19:50, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * And is the issue somehow easier to deal with if it is merged here making a 160K+ article? Collect (talk) 20:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Once we delete unsourced material, OR, POV and duplication from the other article, the remainder will not significantly increase the size of this article. TFD (talk) 21:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I ask again, why on earth do we have an article called Liberalism AND an article called Liberalism worldwide? There is absolutely nothing in those names to differentiate them. (Yeah, it's a repeat, because no-one seems capable of answering it.) HiLo48 (talk) 21:44, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * One should be renamed to List of liberal parties by nation. Simple. Collect (talk) 21:45, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I strongly oppose deleting any material from the article, although I think that the it needs a rewrite. I especially oppose the removal of the "philosphical sections". Otherwise, I agree with renaming the article "list of liberal parties by country" (nation is not correct) and I subscribe the following sentence by Collect (from the other discussion): "any party which reliable sources so describe" is liberal. Please continue the discussion in a single talk page: here. --Checco (talk) 21:50, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Etymology
I sincerely do not think that this article needs an etymology, the definition is in the first paragraph. Any objections?MICROFN (talk) 19:42, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Most Wikipedia articles have an etymology. That's different from the definition; it is the origin of the word. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:41, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to move (rename) "Liberalism Worldwide" to "List of liberal parties by country"
Discussion on the merge topic above having quietened down after some disagreement on a merge, and no-one objecting to a rename, I now propose moving "Liberalism Worldwide" to "List of liberal parties by country". Any objections? HiLo48 (talk) 23:45, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Agree Collect (talk) 00:00, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree Rick Norwood (talk) 12:42, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree Cory Donnelly (talk) 14:58, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment This discussion belongs on the Liberalism worldwide discussion page. TFD (talk) 19:55, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I take it that the "merger" attempt failed, then. Collect (talk) 19:57, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

This is the wrong talk page for this straw poll. HiLo48 already started an identical one at Talk:Liberalism worldwide. – OhioStandard  (talk) 17:16, 9 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you failed to note who started this one? I rather think HiLo48 knows what he posted and where. Collect (talk) 19:39, 9 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I started both. There had been earlier discussion on both pages about the proposed merge. I wanted to catch both audiences. Both needed to be aware of my proposal. I obviously agree that discussion would be better primarily continued on the HiLo48 (talk) 19:47, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that "Liberalism by country" (consistent with Category:Liberalism by country) would probably be the best option. --Checco (talk) 02:37, 10 March 2011 (UTC)


 * To draw this to a close, I have moved Liberalism worldwide to Liberalism by country HiLo48 (talk) 23:01, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Change in §4.1 Europe
In the sentence "The Purple Coalition, one of the most consequential in Dutch history, brought together the progressive left-liberal D66,[103] the market liberal and center-right VVD,[104] and the socialist Labour Party" I'm going to replace socialist with social democratic. That is because the PvdA/Labour Party profiles itself as such and because there is also the Socialist Party which has evidently a bigger claim on the label socialist.--217.123.72.153 (talk) 17:35, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Symbolism
Can I suggest that we have a section in the article for the symbolism for liberalism, or perhaps another page entirely as there are for ideologies such as communism and anarchism. I believe it is necessary to have this recorded in the encyclopaedia. Liberalism is one of the oldest and most important ideologies in history and does have its corresponding symbols, we should mention them --Matt Downey (talk) 08:59, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


 * What are those symbols? HiLo48 (talk) 10:36, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

A good symbol of liberalism is two raised hands, with the chain between them broken. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:55, 22 May 2011 (UTC)


 * An example ia the 1985 Bussa Emancipation Statue in Barbados. Are there any earlier examples of this?  TFD (talk) 19:48, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Another example, on a US stamp, can be seen here: http://images.google.com/images?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GGLL_enUS389US389&q=US+Postage+Stamp+Emancipation+Proclomation&biw=1020&bih=532 Rick Norwood (talk) 22:21, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Etymology but no definition
Section Etymology and definition contains no definition. The intro does. Add definitions, maybe ...? Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 15:26, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

"equality" and "democracy"
"Liberalism", according to all major reference works, is the belief in individual freedom. Freedom implies equal rights and equal oportunity, but the claim that liberals want to enforce equality of outcomes is made by the enemies of liberalism, not by the liberals themselves.

"Democracy" is generally used to include representative democracy and constitutional monarchy, which includes all of the Allied Powers in World War II.

Rick Norwood (talk) 15:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Rick. Thanks for the comments. My change was a simple one. I replaced the word 'democracy' with the more general term 'government' because the US is not a democracy. It is a constitutional republic. While it is true that senators and representatives are elected democratically by their respective states, it is inappropriate to use the term Democracy to identify the US as a whole. The President is elected by the electoral college (and senators were elected by state legislatures prior to the 17th Amendment), which is a Republic concept, not a democratic one. I think this discussion has probably occurred many times before on many forums. The political science literature identifies the US as a republic not a democracy, so I would urge not including the US in that particular phraseology, as it leads people to the false conclusion that the US is a Democracy, when it is not. I would not be opposed to a further change to make this distinction clear. It appears the original author in the desire to be brief, included all of The Allies as democracies, when in fact, this is not true. Do you think if I added some sources, which a) call the US a constitutional republic or b) exclude the US as a democracy, would be helpful to improve the article? I have numerous sources which do both a and b. Detah (talk) 16:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I am familiar with that view and arguments but they appear to be fringe, and therefore unacceptable for the article. TFD (talk) 16:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not a view. It's a definition. The United States is not a democracy, period. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.39.25.198 (talk) 21:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Really lets not stoop so low in our pursuits of having our own definitions posted that we throw reason out the window. The United States is the DEFINITION of a democracy. All modern democracies are judged by the standard of our constitution. Your apporach to the situation seems like a rediculous splitting of hairs. Obviously its not a pure democracy because a pure democracy like you are saying is not possible in a complicated society. The equivalent to your argument would be to say that we cant call water water unless it is distilled water. 174.29.37.9 (talk) 14:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC) M


 * The problem comes in assuming a constitutional republic is not a democracy, i.e. that they are mutually exclusive. Democracy is a general form of government, republics are a type of that general form. "Democracy" encompasses a broad range of governmental types, INCLUDING our Republic. Not all democracies are republics, and technically, not all republics are democracies, but ours is. But saying we are not a democracy is like saying an orange is not a fruit. We are one of the many specific forms of democracy, but we are a democracy. An orange doesn't stop being a fruit because it is a specific type of fruit. Please refer to our existing page on democracy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy. Please do not confuse "democracy" as a term for our form of government with the more specific term "direct democracy". These two are not synonymous. Direct democracy, like our Republic, is a FORM of democracy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.65.34.182 (talk) 13:44, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


 * In particular, a republic is a representative democracy. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:11, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

A representative democracy may or may not be a constitutional republic. The electoral system of the United States is based on a representative democracy, but the system of government itself is NOT a representative democracy. The basis of a constitutional republic is that it contains laws and principles that are NOT subject to majority votes, whether these be representative or direct. Certain laws and principles that protect minority rights are NOT democratic. In other words, whether the vote is direct or representative, it does not change the fact that majority vote cannot violate these laws and principles. '''The United States is NOT a democracy, whether it be a direct democracy or a representative democracy, because certain laws and principles are not subject to majority votes. The United States is a constitutional republic with democratic principles.'''

CyberKarl (talk) 01:15, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * You seem to ignore the fact that there is a way for the Constitution to be ammended. In any case, according to standard references, the US is a democracy, so your use of the word to apply only to governments with unrestricted majority rule is not standard usage. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

=
======== Maybe in questioning whether a government is a democracy or not we should be focusing less on differences in definitions and more on the degree to which the reality of how the democracy functions reflects the way it is purported to. i.e. to what extent to extra-democratic forces hinder the functioning of democratic government, whatever the form and despite appearances.

I would also comment on the notion of enforced outcomes. While enforced outcomes may not be liberal in nature, they may be championed by those who, misguided or not, seek solutions to deficits in the liberal status of society. For example barriers to opportunity whether institutional or informal, or any sort of class related gradient.

Anyway the reason I stopped by the talk page page was because, on the subject of misuse of the term liberalism, immediately upon reading the article I get the impression that liberalism is the thinking associated with modern liberals or the "left" and while there may be a connection here, I think the wikipedia article liberalism should reference the subject in political philosophy with more devotion, especially since their is some debate over whether modern "liberals" truly embody liberalism.

See.nature.hear.music (talk) 20:50, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

The article is not right
I have a trouble accepting the article as being biased and presenting a whig history all the same presenting an image of liberalism development characterized by presentism. I think (based on my university book "Politiska ideologier i vår tid" by Docent Reidar Larsson ISBN 91-44-00294-7) that the liberals after the French revolution was anti-Napoleonide and/or against representative democracy, while before the French revolution there was no coherent liberalism, just a myriad of enlightenment freedom thoughts. The present self-conception within liberalism is that liberalism single-handedly invented democracy and reformed all governments to democracy, I think the reality is that social liberalism, not liberalism per se, developed democratic ideas in sort of uneasy truce with social democracy (the reformist branch) and collaborated to introduce it in society to avoid otherwise inevitable popular convulsions. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 18:06, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Another note: the article is biased towards American comparatively left liberalism, i.e. social liberalism. I get the impression that there is some underlying confusion between the historical development of USA and liberalism, a most disputable notion, at least from an US republicans perspective and a European historicians perspective. US is some kind of enlightenment creation, an antithesis to the tyrrannical monarchies of Europe at the time, but not a liberal creation. In Europe the niche of the social liberals is also occupied by social democrats and partially by christian democrats, therefore rightists tend to attain a liberal reasoning, most notably the neo-liberals, who translated to a US context would maybe be regarded as some liberalish speaking republicans, or Ayn-Randists, who are generally rejected among liberals as some kind of not-really democratic fringe. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 18:50, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * While some scholars believe that the term "liberal" should only be applied to the liberalism that emerged in the 19th century, that is really an argument over semantics. The article does not pretend that 19th century liberalism developed in the 1600s.  I am having trouble following your comments on democracy.  Universal adult suffrage (for white people anyway) was first advanced by radicals, who predated social democrats and social liberals, and was implemented before the emergence of social liberalism.  While some articles provide too much emphasis on the U.S., the development of liberalism in the United States is important to the topic, and the U.S. ranks with England and France as one of the three most important examples of the development of liberalism.  TFD (talk) 22:02, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree. My comment abt Ayn-Randists was confusing even myself. I don't understand what that has to do with anything. I think your picture is correct. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 15:27, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Statue of Liberty as symbol of liberalism
A newly registered user keeps adding the Statue of Liberty as a lead image in the article, and in early edits, stated that it was a "symbol of liberalism." The source provided doesn't mention the word "liberalism." Yes, liberty part of the broad concept of liberalism, but liberalism != liberty. I'd rather avoid the appearance of edit-warring with this individual, even though it seems like a clear case of lack of sources to me. Thoughts? OhNo itsJamie Talk 22:26, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, I dunno. Liberalism has so many different meanings around the world that something equivalent to what the Statue of Liberty represents is bound to be right somewhere. But you're right. It does seem a particular narrow POV to me too. I will join the game. HiLo48 (talk) 22:40, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

A very incomplete history....
The first few paragraphs of this page should more or less read this way:

"Liberal"ism in modern* terms is a watered down form of communism/socialism*. Modern "Liberals" have no connection whatsoever with classical liberalism since classical liberals were concerned with individual liberty. Modern "Liberals" are involved in very un-progressive(another very miss-used word) activities such as forcing communistic style gun control(in order to disarm the common people so they cannot fight back against communist evil) and health care down the throats of the American people at the point of a government gun. They are also known to support government schools, the progressive income tax(that targets all workers, not just ‘the rich’) and a central bank and the erosion/destruction of property rights for all, not just 'the rich,' all planks of Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto. American communists and socialists of the early to mid 20th century started calling themselves "liberals" and 'progressives' after Stalin's murderous ways became publicly known in this country. Prior to that they openly admired his dictatorship. Their history is an evil one and they have not abandoned it, but only lie about it to deceive the ignorant.
 * Conservative American. It certainly isn't a world view.

A socialist activist and Socialist Party candidate for president, Norman Thomas, had this to say about their efforts to hide their evil behind a name which represents the opposite of their evil agenda:

"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism', they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without ever knowing how it happened." -- Norman Thomas, U.S. Socialist Party Presidential candidate

This page is to be divided into two parts: the history past and present of classical liberalism and another section of the modern evil that calls itself "Liberal"ism but is the opposite of that in practice. The histories of both segments may go back hundreds of years, indeed to the dawn of civilization.

The "Liberals" have obviously infiltrated Wikipedia and affected the writing of their evil history in order to hide their evil agenda from the ignorant, as has been their goal all along. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waypasthadenough (talk • contribs) 13:42, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


 * ""Liberal"ism in modern terms is a watered down form of communism/socialism."
 * This is ridiculous. If anything, socialism has just become so watered down it's easily confused with what has always been liberalism, not the other way around. There are just a bunch of ridiculous libertarian revisionist on the internet who are inventing a historical basis, to the detriment of history.67.60.119.206 (talk) 03:46, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I posted links on your talk page to WP policies explaining how articles are written. Most importantly the article needs to reflect neutrality and be based on reliable sources.  There are of course some writers who believe that modern liberalism is not true liberalism.  However, the quote from Norman Thomas is false.  Thomas in fact opposed the New Deal which he saw as statism.  Opinions on the 1848 Communist Manifesto's demands, many of which have been implemented, are varied.  Marx later decided that reforms to improve the conditions of working people would only strengthen the state.  TFD (talk) 14:36, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I would also note that this is a global article about a word that has diverse meanings across the globe. It's not just an article about the USA. To suggest that Liberalism in Australia has anything to do with Communism is just laughable. HiLo48 (talk) 19:34, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

To suggest American Liberalism has anything to do with Communism is laughable.

Dubious
I've tagged the sentence: "It helped launch into power such presidents as Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, and George W. Bush. Economic woes in the early 21st century, however, led to a resurgence of social liberalism with the election of Barack Obama in the 2008 presidential election." as dubious as the cited introduction does not match the content, with neither HW nor Reagan being mentioned. aprock (talk) 19:15, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The source is for the second sentence. Do you find the first sentence dubious? Very well, I'll provide a citation. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:34, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I question though whether the second sentence is supported by the source (Wolfe, p. xiv). Also, Wolfe wrote the book immediately following the 2008 election, and it is pretty clear that there have been no major policy shifts in Washington, and with the 2010 election, none will occur.  TFD (talk) 23:53, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

The election of a Black man as president is itself a sign of the resurgence of social liberalism. As for major policy shifts, we have the stimulus package, regulation of banks, comprehensive health care, the end of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, the end of federal proscution of marijuana smokers and married gays. The changes in the last three years have been huge. Whether they will continue, or be rolled back, only the 2012 election will tell. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:20, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I will try and find something on it. From what I have read, the 2008 economic crisis led to a challenge to the neoliberal paradigm, but the steps taken to address the crisis were within the paradigm, and therefore there was no return to social liberal theory.  TFD (talk) 17:54, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Ruth Blakeley (Taylor & Francis, 2009) wrote in State terrorism and neoliberalism, "It is too soon to say what the full impact of the 2008 global economic crisis will have on neoliberalism.... We witnessed in the latter half of 2008 the massive injection of capital by numerous states to prop up failing banks and other financial institutions, practices that are far removed from the minimal state principle at the heart of neoliberalism.  This does not, however, necessarily signal an outright rejection of neoliberalism....  It may simply be that neoliberalism is entering a new phase."  The book  The crisis of neoliberalism (Harvard, 2011), which argues for a new paradigm, shows that the neoliberal paradigm continues.  TFD (talk) 01:13, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

But the sentence in question is about social liberalism, not about neoliberalism. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:18, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * See Social liberalism. The implication is that the crisis of 2008 led to a return to social liberalism.  While that was a possible outcome, it did not happen.  TFD (talk) 13:56, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I see your point. I'll attempt a rewrite based on what you've said, provided you have not done so already. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:51, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Your edit seems fine. TFD (talk) 12:28, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Equal rights
Equal rights don't belong to the definition of liberalism. No other language version of wikipedia includes equal rights in the main definition of liberalism. Britannica defines liberalism thus: "liberalism, Political and economic doctrine that emphasizes the rights and freedoms of the individual and the need to limit the powers of government." Here it is also sourced problematically. What we need here is some dictionary definition and I'm sure that none includes equal rights as a major principle of liberalism.--85.162.94.135 (talk) 12:52, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * We use definitions taken from scholarly writing on the topic, not dictionaries or other encyclopedias. Do you think btw that the quote you provided is referring to unequal rights?  TFD (talk) 13:39, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Equal rights = Egalitarianism. By "rights" the definition is referring only to legal egalitarianism - equality before the law. The mention about equal rights in this article is taken from some unimportant book called "Christianity and Liberal Society" on page 45. It looks it is taken out of context and it certainly doesn't look like part of any definition.--85.162.0.150 (talk) 21:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I am concerned that our IP editor is applying the negative, pejorative meaning of "liberal" here and cannot associate something positive like equal rights with it. I suggest studying the diverse meanings of the word (mostly positive) around the world. HiLo48 (talk) 22:16, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Hehe it's the exact opposite, I am well aware of the true meaning of the word and I see how its meaning has been distorted in the USA. I rather dislike the concept of equal rights as such and I really don't consider them positive. I am sure that the concept of equal rights doesn't form integral part of liberalism in any part of the world and therefore it should be removed from the definition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.162.26.67 (talk) 23:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The only distortion Americans have applied to the meaning of the word "liberal" is to make it even more right wing.67.60.119.206 (talk) 03:43, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * You may be sure, but the term "equal rights" appears six times in the article, so some others must be equally sure of the opposite view. I think that it's a part of what some people see liberalism as meaning, but obviously not all. This is always going to be a difficult concept to pin down precisely. HiLo48 (talk) 00:05, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * It is mentioned 4 times including the introductory part, but never in direct connection with the definition of the word. I see no reason to leave it there. Your view is the minority view, not mine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.162.26.67 (talk) 00:32, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I didn't mention minority views, and anyway, Wikipedia doesn't work on voting, it's works on what reliable sources say. Your opinion (and mine) aren't very important. HiLo48 (talk) 00:39, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Well reliable sourced don't say anything about equal rights being part of liberalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.162.26.67 (talk) 00:53, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Liberals may disagree among themselves about what equality and freedom mean. Early liberals believed that it could include slavery for example.  But those are the two core principles.  TFD (talk) 14:43, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..." The American Declaration of Independence is considered to be one of the defining documents of liberalism, and most of the liberal constitutions in the world, including the charter of the United Nations, are based on it. Rick Norwood (talk) 19:22, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

This page is simply ridiculous. There seems to be a very pathetic, or deliberate misunderstanding of the word liberalism here. It is a latin word, from liberalis, and is not something anyone can just redefine at their leasure, as "TFD" seems to be suggesting above. Words don't change just because a few wikipedia trolls support a particular political ideology. Liberalism has nothing to do with equal rights, infact liberalism divides humans purely by monetary worth and removes protections of the disadvantaged. This page is simply ridiculous and one of the best examples I've seen of wikipedia being used for sinister political bias. And TFD "We use definitions taken from scholarly writing on the topic, not dictionaries or other encyclopedias." This statement is, again, simply ridiculous. Most dictionaries and other encyclopaedias I've read are far more reliable than the junk internet-based sources used in this article. I love how wikipedia goons go on about references, and then quote off the internet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.114.8 (talk) 03:21, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Anachronistic Yellow Flag
The Yellow flag used as symbol for the whole liberalism portal should go. Three reasons:

1. Yellow is the colour associated with a bunch of modern liberal political parties. But not more than that, a mere association. The colour yellow does not have the same meaning as for example the colour red has for socialists.

2. Flags like these symbolize resistance and revolution. Modern liberals don't do that stuff.

3. Classical liberals did, but this colour is completely anachronistic when discussing classical liberalism. They would use the national colours or the colour red (jacobins). The image on the front page of liberty sporting the tricolore is a good example. --Two-and-twenty (talk) 11:21, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * This is not the talk page for that discussion. This is just one of a series of articles on liberalism.  TFD (talk) 15:37, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * You are correct, I apologize. I will go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Liberalism_sidebar to discuss this further. --Two-and-twenty (talk) 09:27, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

"Psychology" section
Removed this as not noteworthy.

The full section relied on just one study which had found a correlation between some genetic disposition and being liberal (when some other condition is fullfilled, and it looks like all subjects lived in the US). Scientific studies correlating something measurable, such as genes, with the political view must number in the thousands, if not more. Finding one more correlation there is absolutely not noteworthy. --Xeeron (talk) 16:06, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree with this removal. People can change their view points due to life experiences, it is hard for me to believe that genes play a significant role in political affiliation.P0PP4B34R732 (talk) 19:56, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on evidence, not on what is or is not "hard to believe". Rick Norwood (talk) 12:12, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

First of "it is hard for me to believe" does not enter into it, secondly concervatives has a psychology section so sould Liberlism. If not it sends the signal that one is a patology, the other is the thing that is "not hard to belive" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.9.49.112 (talk) 17:10, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, not having seen the data, an appropriate same size is determined by the statistical error, not whether the variable is "measurable" vs "political." If the comparison attained statistical significance, it was sufficiently sampled. de Bivort 17:26, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

USA section is very wrong
This article discusses classical liberalism...that which is called libertarianism in the USA. What is called Liberal politics in the USA is socialized economics (FDR, Kennedy, Obama, etc.). The two have almost nothing in common. If there is going to be a section in an article that discusses classical liberalism, as this does, the USA section needs to reflect American libertarianism, not Democratic Party history. --Lance W. Haverkamp (talk) 04:15, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * This is, of course, what US conservatives say American liberals believe. But this article reports what American liberals say they believe, not what their enemies say they believe.  Rick Norwood (talk) 13:25, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

In the USA, the Democratic party is known as the liberal party. So it would seem more accurate to report what that party does with policy, rather than report what those who claim to be liberals, claim they support. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.241.83.46 (talk) 19:05, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, but with caution. First, you need to avoid saying Democrats do things when Republicans do the same.  For example, Democrats spend a lot of money.  So do Republicans.  You need to stick to things Democrats do that Republicans don't do.  Second, you need to avoid generalizing what some individual Democratic politicians do, and stick to actions that characterize Democrats, such as the right of labor to organize for better wages and working conditions.  Third, you need to be clear that while at the present time the Democracts tend to be more liberal, the Republicans more conservative, this was not always the case.


 * On the subject of "socialized economics" which Lance W. Haverkamp brings up, the meaning of that phrase has changed dramatically in my lifetime. It used to be a synonym for state ownership of business, and both parties oppose that.  Now it means medicare and social security, and both major parties favor that.


 * Finally, classical liberalism is not all that different from modern liberalism. Both favor freedom.  The only major difference is the ongoing debate about whether small government, low taxes, and economic freedom leads to more or less personal freedom.   Rick Norwood (talk) 13:15, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Another issue

 * Another issue. Someone is adding information that says that after the election of Barack Obama "the question of whether or not the US will accept a return to social liberalism remains in doubt.(ref)Wolfe, p. xiv.(/ref)" This is inappropriate for this section because it is trying to predict the future instead of stating what has happened in the past. — Preceding unsigned 07:04, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * You did not mention the first part of the sentence which you have left intact, "Economic woes in the early 21st century led to a resurgence of social liberalism with the election of Barack Obama in the |2008 presidential election...." The source, which is used throughout the article, The future of liberalism (2008), also says (p. xiv), "But will [liberals] use that power to advance liberal ideas? The answer to this question, as it happens is not self-evident."  We cannot use this source to say there was a resurgence of social liberalism without qualifying it.  Since the book was published of course it is increasingly apparent that the 2008 election is not leading to a return to 1960s economic policy.  There is no policy btw against saying there is doubt about future events.  TFD (talk) 17:10, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * You have taken the authors words out of context because you personally don't think that there's a future for liberalism while I know that there is a future for liberalism in this country because I'm involved politically. Liberal political groups have grown quickly over this last year and polling is showing that they are viewed favorably with 79% viewing progressives favorably while only 72% view conservatives favorably. I took this out and I'm writing to Alan Wolfe to clarify this section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.227.166.60 (talk) 18:23, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * It is not whether liberalism has a future but whether it will be the social liberalism of John Dewey or the that of "post-New Deal Democrats" as represented by Bill Clinton. When Wolfe wrote, there was doubt which road Obama would take.  You might way to read Wolfe's introduction to his book before writing to him. TFD (talk) 19:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

A note to 71.227.166.60. Mind reading is frowned on in Wikipedia. ("...you personally don't think that ...") The statement reflects the view stated in the book cited. On the other hand, I looked at the paragraph with the last part removed, and I think it is more encyclopedic that way, so I agree with you that it should be removed. But please don't tell us what other people think. Rick Norwood (talk) 19:17, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I would be more in favor of removing the sentence entirely. To say that the source says there has been a resurgence of social liberalism is misleading.  Wolfe did not use the term "social liberalism" and it is used here as a synonym for U.S. liberal economic and welfare policies, not what in the U.S. would be called "social" policies.  There has been no return to Keynsianism or expansion of the welfare state and it is doubtful that there will be under the current administration.  TFD (talk) 19:59, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Since the topic of the article is Liberalism, I think Obama merits a mention. If you want, you could delete the adjective "social". As for your statement that there has been no expansion of the welfare state, I need only mention Bush II's prescription drug plan for seniors and Obama's Affordable Health Care Act. But social liberalism is not the same as welfare liberalism. It includes the end of Don't Ask, Don't Tell and the decriminalization of medical marijuana. The election of a Black president is itself a major victory for social liberalism, in a country where all previous presidents have been White. Rick Norwood (talk) 20:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The problem is the ambiguity of the term. The term "social liberalism" as used in the article refers to economic and welfare policies only, which are "social policies".  As you mentioned, Bush introduced the seniors' drug program and he also brought out a stimulus package, all before the election of Obama.  In any case we must represent what the source says and if it is wrong find another source.  The source says that it was possible that Obama would return to the social welfare policies of Roosevelt and Johnson, but might instead return to the policies of Clinton.  The belief was that the polices followed by Western governments since the mid-1970s had failed and we would return to the policies followed from the mid-1930s to the mid-1970s.  Well that has not happened.  TFD (talk) 21:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

No. While this article is strongly biased in favor of what it calls "classical liberalism", presenting it as an equal movement with what it calls "social liberalism", when in fact it is a minor strain, which has never been put to the test, while social liberalism has been successful in every country where it has been tried, and is the major political view in every successful country. The chief opponents of social liberalism is not classical liberalism but rather capitalist dictatorship, as in China, or religions dictatorship, as in Saudi Arabia. However, this article does at least define social liberalism as the use of government to protect people's rights. Consider how absurd it is that the section on liberalism in the US does not even mention the Civil Rights movement! The article needs a major rewrite, to restore some semblance of objectivity. Ironic, that the person who alerted me to this is someone who objects that the article is not biased enough! Rick Norwood (talk) 23:41, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Whether or not the article is biased, the prediction that Obama will roll back 35 years of post-New Deal liberalism is doubtful. The article should accurately report what the source says.  TFD (talk) 01:12, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think we all agree that the speculative portion of that sentence should go. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:07, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I started a discussion thread at WP:NPOVN. TFD (talk) 17:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Is the Libertarian view of liberalism the mainstream view?
This article states, without reference, that liberalism has two strains, classical and social. Throughout the article, these two views are contrasted. This is, of course, the Libertarian worldview, and the Libertarian jargon, "positive rights", "negative rights" is introduced in the lead.

Looking at several encyclopedias, dictionaries, and academic studies of liberalism, this does not seem to be a standard view of the subject. In fact, only libertarians seem to hold this view, and of libertarians, mostly American libertarians.

Unless someone can provide a mainstream source for this point of view, I plan to remove it from the lead.

Rick Norwood (talk) 16:22, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The more I see comments like this the more I think we need two articles on Liberalism, one for the USA and one for the rest of the world. The usage and common meanings are just so different. HiLo48 (talk) 18:41, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with Rick Norwood. HiLo48, there already is an article called Liberalism in the United States.  TFD (talk) 18:48, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Why don't we call this article Liberalism outside the USA and treat the usages completely as two different languages? HiLo48 (talk) 22:16, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

The two uses of "liberalism" did not begin to diverge until about fifty years ago, and so this article is the appropriate place to disucss the liberalism that was and is the dominant political philosophy of all modern nations that are not dictatorships. We need to remove the strictly American usage (and that only by some Americans) from this article, or else limit it to the subsection on liberalism by country. Rick Norwood (talk) 22:38, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * It would make no sense exclude the U.S. from an article about liberalism. TFD (talk) 01:12, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Without acknowledging the problem of fundamentally different usage, that post makes little sense either. Let's face it. It's virtually only in the USA that the word liberal is used by some as an insult, almost akin to "spawn of the devil". The emotion attached to that usage makes it very hard for some American editors to accept that such a meaning doesn't exist elsewhere. HiLo48 (talk) 01:23, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * What is your point? TFD (talk) 01:42, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Of course it would make no sense to exclude the US from this article, but nobody is suggesting that. What I plan to do is make the article a little less US-centric, by limiting the anti-liberal definition of liberalism that HiLo48 rightly complains about to at most a short section on the modern US usage. Since there does not seem to be any disagreement about that, I'm going to go ahead and start rewriting the article, by removing unreferenced claims. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:49, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Since the usage of "Liberal" as a pejorative seems to be limited to the US I agree with RN that it is better placed within the US section. 137.111.13.200 (talk) 01:51, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

^^^^
 * Libertarianism implements limitations and prohibitions on government to establish individualism (liberalism), while authoritarianism enables government to establish statism (conservatism), where both definitions share a consistent point of reference by being defined with respect to government.
 * Now, at some point egalitarianism (equal merit) subverted libertarian principle and libertarian etymology with the introduction of the term liberalism!
 * It was a coup d'etat of morose proportions as the means to establish egalitarianism is through authoritarianism - an antonym of libertarianism: Orwellian doublethink!!
 * For example, the statue of liberty represents absolute autonomy, as individualism, independent from any other authority.
 * Libertarian policy applies a deontology of negative wrights, while authoritarian policy applies a consequentialism of positive wrights.
 * The contentious realm of compromise for degree between the extremes of libertarian policy versus authoritarian policy, in pursuit of optimizations for individual liberty within a society, is correctly categorized as UTILITARIANISM!
 * Egalitarianism must be categorized as authoritarian and a facet of utilitarianism!
 * Political science must excise egalitarianism from an association with the term liberalism and seek to make the term liberalism consistent in principle and etymology with libertarianism and liberty as independence of the individual from authoritarianism of government! GeMiJa (talk) 02:14, 9 May 2012 (UTC) • contribs)

This is, of course, the Libertarian view. But it is not the mainstream view. The mainstream view is that government exists to protect liberty ("to insure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our descendants"). Libertarians love to hold up the "straw man" of liberals being in favor of "equal merit", but I've never heard any liberal suggest any such thing, except in the sense of equality under God and the law. As for Utalitarianism, that just means doing what works, instead of following belief systems that don't work. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:00, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Modern liberalism is based on the concept of freedom not equality. They argue that unless individuals have access to food, shelter, education, etc. that they are not truly free. The term "positive right" refers to freedom not equality. TFD (talk) 14:38, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Brief Australia mention is wrong.
The liberal party in Australia is the Labor party. The Liberal Party (also known as The Coalition due to them requiring to team up with The National Party to even get close to enough votes to compete with Labor) is conservative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.149.65.207 (talk) 02:59, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The Labor Party is socialist, not liberal. There is no conservative party in Australia.  TFD (talk) 03:27, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I'd agree that the Liberal Party is no longer a classical liberal party. But we really need to relate what reliable sources say, and the one used in the article is useless. HiLo48 (talk) 07:15, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Alan Ware's Political Parties and Party Systems is a good source for identifying liberal parties worldwide. I no longer have access to it, but here is a summary from the University of Dayton.  The term liberal today creates semantic confusion because in some parts of the world it is associated with reformist liberalism, e.g., the U.S., in others with market liberalism (e.g., France).  TFD (talk) 00:21, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * TFD, while generally you are dead on the money, the Australian Labor Party's ideological position varies between very very soft social-democracy in their ultraleft faction, through "Labourism" an ideology that is typically Australian (Try "How Labor Governs" by VG Childe, etc.), through social Catholicism to reactionary and imperialist working class positions. However, since 1983, the party's actual practice has been neo-liberalism.  This doesn't make them a "liberal" party, in that very few ALP authors or politicians espouse "liberalism," rather it is that Labourism reconfigured to be neo-liberal, and dragged the Labor Right with them.  Socialism has had very little to do with the ALP, and the proportion to which the ALP has had any socialist tinge has decreased rapidly over time. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:03, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I am just going by the general categories assigned to types of political parties. Presumably the Liberals support capitalism and the constitution, while the Labor Party retains ties to organized labor.  Two of the other main criteria for categorization - history and naming of the parties - are pretty clear also.  And the ALP retains membership in the Socialist International.  Of course both parties have changed from their 19th century origins, at which time they would have appeared similar to the British Liberal and Labour Parties.  Read the link I provided.  TFD (talk) 04:33, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * As you'd know there's a dubious connection between the Socialist International and Socialism, which is normally considered as something to the "left" of social democracy, and occasionally (PSI, Hungarian Social Democrats) left of democratic socialism. The 19th century Labor parties varied quite considerably from the Lib/Lab origins of the UK Labour Party, and the equivalent of the ILP was extraparliamentary, and...  "Labourism" is usually the best categorisation for the ideology of the antipodean Labour parties.  anyway. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:01, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * As I said, I was usuing the broad categories that are generally used which are explained here and are largely based on the reasons for the creation of parties in the first place and are broad enough that they do not make distinctions between socialist and labor parties, radical and liberal parties, authoritarian and liberal conservative parties, left-wing and right-wing green parties, etc., and yes it can be argued that socialist parties are no longer socialist, conservatives are no longer conservative, liberals are no longer liberal. Still it forms a useful tool for grouping parties in different countries so that the Labor Party in Australia bears some resemblance to the Labour Party in the UK.  TFD (talk) 05:27, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

R-41 edit
Good edit, R-41. You put a lot of work into improving the appearance of the article. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:19, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Should Robespierre and the Jacobins be classified as liberal?
As per the articles on more controversial topics such as fascism and Marxism-Leninism, I have noticed that they address the controversies and atrocities that involved the ideology such as the Holocaust and the Great Purge - it is not POV to address these because they are important in the history of the ideology. However the controversial elements of the French Revolution such as the Reign of Terror seem to be minimalized here - especially in regard to Robespierre. When I added a picture of Robespierre, a user removed it, and claimed that it was doubtful where Robespierre was a liberal and claims that the Reign of Terror was not liberal. Historian Francois Furet claims the Reign of Terror was deeply ideologically rooted in the idea of promoting "man's regeneration" based on free will and enlightenment that the Committee of Public Safety promoted that resulted in violence against people suspected of being counterrevolutionaries out of a zealous commitment by the Jacobins to the revolution. Robespierre defined the Reign of Terror as being necessary, Robespierre said: "The government in a revolution is the despotism of liberty against tyranny" and said that "Terror is nothing else than justice, prompt, severe, inflexible."

First of all, I believe a strong argument can be made that demonstrates that Robespierre being a Jacobin upheld many classical liberal values - albeit in a contorted way like Stalin's sociopathic version of Marxism. In Robespierre: The Voice of Virtue, that seeks to describe Robespierre not merely as a tyrant but as a man with genuine beliefs, it describes Robespierre as being a proponent of universal suffrage, of being an abolitionist (seeking to end slavery). Robespierre was part of a revolution that was associated with many classical liberal goals. The issue of Robespierre's association with liberalism - if he was a liberal or if he was not a liberal - needs to be investigated further here by other users, because regardless of Robespierre's controversies he was an important figure in the Jacobin movement and the French Revolution.--R-41 (talk) 20:42, 19 April 2012 (UTC)


 * It is always possible to find historians who present revisionist views. You need to show that they have become accepted.  TFD (talk) 02:58, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Francois Furet and Otto Scott do not seem to have a good reputation. Can you find more notable scholars, R-41? I'm inclined to agree that Robespierre at least posed as a liberal, may have been a liberal. No idiology is free of its bloody tyrants, and those who argue that an ideology is bad because it produced tyrants are taking a tack that can reach any desired conclusion. Rick Norwood (talk) 11:59, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not arguing that liberalism is "bad" because of Robespierre - but I am also not claiming that it nor any other ideology is innocent, and that like the articles on fascism and Marxism-Leninism, the controversial and indeed negative aspects of its history should be mentioned - including the political violence that followed the French Revolution - including the substantial political persecution was unleashed by the radical Jacobins against those officially deemed as "enemies of the revolution" - that included the moderate Girondins who supported the revolution. I am not as familiar with scholars on Robespierre as other people. Do you know examples of major scholars on Robespierre?--R-41 (talk) 03:48, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I have found a book titled The Virtues of Liberalism that describes Robespierre as a proponent of liberalism and explains Robbespierre's justification of the political violence he utilized, see here: . This book, Farewell, Revolution: Disputed Legacies : France, 1789/1989 describes Robespierre's role in the French Revolution as being an "inordinately large" topic of left/liberal historiography, it says Robespierre passionately sought to defend liberty while ironically at the same time being prepared to suspend it to attack the enemies of the revolution .--R-41 (talk) 04:00, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * New Right revisionist historians, mostly writing outside academic publications, use the French Revolution as a surrogate for the left/right divide of the late 20th century. See for example Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn's Leftism revisited: from de Sade and Marx to Hitler and Pol Pot.  Robespierre was the forerunner of Hitler and Stalin.  Not only does that distance the European Right from Hitler, but puts the blame for his crimes on the Left (which includes modern American liberalism), and justifies collaboration during the war as fighting the greater evil of Communism rather than supporting nazism, while the resistance is portrayed as traitors.  TFD (talk) 11:51, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

"The Virtues of Liberalism" is widely and favorably reviewed. Just because the "New Right" misuse the example of Robespierre doesn't mean he wasn't a liberal. I think a mention of Robespierre referenced by "The Virtues of Liberalism", preferably with a quote, is entirely appropriate in its historical context. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:52, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with Rick Norwood, TFD nothing in The Virtues of Liberalism nor the material I sourced from Farewell, Revolution: Disputed Legacies : France, 1789/1989 appears to be written by New Right revisionists. And the second source is written by Steven Kaplan, a prominent historian on France who was awarded the prestigious Ordre national du Mérite by the French government for his work.--R-41 (talk) 00:16, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The Virtues covers the New Right revisionist history extensively.  What is your point anyway?  What changes are you proposing?  TFD (talk) 03:35, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I am asking whether Robespierre was a liberal. If he is, a picture of Robespierre should be included in the history section of the article. The source by Steven Kaplan says that Robespierre is an "inordinately large" topic of "left/liberal historiography", as such it seems appropriate to have a picture of him in the article. Robespierre seems to have believed in classical liberal values of liberty, etc. Are there sources that say that he was not a liberal? Or that he believed in another ideology?--R-41 (talk) 00:18, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Since the term liberal had not yet been coined, some writers question whether anyone before the 19th century could be considered a liberal. (See for example, J. C. D. Clark, English Society, 1660–1832).  In any case, most historians consider him to be a liberal in conflict with liberals to both his left and right.  I don't see a reason to include his picture when he is only briefly mentioned in the article - Napoleon gets more space.  TFD (talk) 00:54, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

"Ideological challenges"
I have some deep misgivings about the sentence in the third paragraph which says that "[In the 20th century] ...liberalism survived major ideological challenges from fascism and communism." My objections to it basically fall in two categories:

1. The use of the word "fascism" is problematic. There is no consensus among historians about which particular governments should count as fascist and which ones should not. Depending on the source, "fascism" can mean as few as two regimes, or as many as twenty or more. To say that liberalism survived an ideological challenge from "fascism" is imprecise and unclear. Does it refer to the fact that liberalism survived the Second World War? Does it refer to the fact that liberal regimes replaced various right-wing dictatorships across the world over the last few decades? Does it mean something else? I assumed that "fascism" in this context is meant to refer to more than just the European Axis powers of the Second World War, because liberalism's survival in that war was already mentioned separately. So I proposed to replace "fascism" with a less controversial term that covers the many illiberal regimes of the 20th century which are only sometimes called fascist.

2. The whole sentence seems to imply that communism and fascism were the only major ideological opponents of liberalism in the 20th century. What about all the other prominent non-liberal ideologies of the 20th century? What about conservatism, social democracy, democratic socialism, or Christian democracy? Didn't they also provide ideological challenges? In fact, arguably, social democracy is more important than fascism, for example. I suspect the sentence is actually talking about the challenges to liberal democracy, which is a related but separate concept, and mistakenly treats "liberalism" as synonymous with "liberal democracy." For example, social democracy (an ideology) is not a challenge to liberal democracy (a form of government). But social democracy is a challenge to the rival ideology of liberalism.

Perhaps, instead of saying that liberalism survived ideological challenges from ideologies X or Y, it would be better to say that liberalism lost a great deal of influence in the first decades of the 20th century but then regained prominence near the end of that century. User1961914 (talk) 03:57, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 1934 Montreux Fascist conference is a good start. Fascism, even if restricted to Italy and Germany, asserted that the ideological underpinnings of liberalism were fundamentally defunct and offered an alternate set of ideological underpinnings for modernity.  This is the nature of an ideological challenge.  Even if fascism is restricted to these two movements, the impact of the attempted assertion was a transformative period of European social history.  As noted in our article, the challenge is ideological.  Social democracy hasn't challenged the bourgeois individual or their rights to appropriate property in the form of capital (with the limited exceptions of Italy, Austria and Hungary, and during an incredibly limited period of time).  Douglas Social Credit confers with the liberal conception of the person, as does conservatism (contrast: Reactionary as a pre 20th century ideology). Fifelfoo (talk) 04:07, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, if I understand your argument correctly, you are saying that fascism and communism proposed forms of social organization that were much more different from liberalism than the forms of social organization proposed by the other large modern ideologies. In other words, fascism and communism wanted to eliminate liberalism entirely, while the other great rivals of liberalism only challenged certain aspects of liberalism. If this is indeed an accurate description of your point, then I think you're right and I agree. However, if that is what the sentence means by "ideological challenge", I think we should actually explain it in the article. In other words, I propose to replace the current sentence with something along the lines of: "In the 20th century, most modern ideologies (such as conservatism and social democracy) came to embrace important elements of liberalism. However, some did not - most notably communism and fascism - and they offered major ideological challenges to liberalism. Liberalism survived these challenges, in part thanks to the fact that liberal democracies were on the winning side in both world wars." User1961914 (talk) 07:23, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Basically, what I'm saying is that if the reason why other ideologies are not considered to have presented ideological challenges because they accepted major elements of liberalism, then the article should say this. User1961914 (talk) 07:31, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Agree with Fifelfoo. In the 20th century, Anglo-Scandinavian conservatism, Christian democracy, social democracy etc. all accepted liberalism.  TFD (talk) 12:21, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * They accepted certain elements of liberalism - such as support for a liberal democratic form of government - but they did not accept liberalism as a whole. If they had, they would have stopped being separate ideologies. I don't know of anyone who claims that Anglo-Scandinavian conservatism, Christian democracy, social democracy etc. have all become just different forms of liberalism. User1961914 (talk) 07:23, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

The sentence in question mentions the two major ideological challenges that liberalism survived, and should stand as written. We may need a later sentence about the challenge of conservatism, the outcome of which is still undecided. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:42, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I think you mean the extreme right, as typified by right-wing populism. Islamic fundamentalism may also be a challenge.  TFD (talk) 14:30, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I would caution against trying to interpret the current political situation. We can't really tell what is or is not a serious challenge until some time after the fact. As Fifelfoo reminded us, there was a short time when social democracy seemed to be a greater ideological challenge than communism. If right-wing populism and Islamic fundamentalism disappear in the next 10 years without achieving any new victories, history will consider them small footnotes. If they come to power in a string of countries in Europe and the Middle East, history will consider them great ideologies of the early 21st century. User1961914 (talk) 07:23, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

The Lead
An editor has made changes to the lead which are not supported by sources or mentioned in the body of the article. Instead of saying liberalism is "founded on ideas of liberal and equality" it now reads it is "classically concerned with the ideas of liberty and non-aggression". Among the ideas that liberals support it now includes anarchy. Also added was "With the rise of statism in the 19th and 20th centuries liberalism has become associated in many western countries with egalitarianism or socialism. Eminent liberal scholars [7] and economists [8] have criticised this shift highlighting the difference between classical liberalism and social liberalism in the history of western thought." I suggest removing these changes unless sources can be provided that they represent a mainstream view of the topic. TFD (talk) 14:41, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Liberalism is NOT "left"
In the article, it says that Liberalism "may be" "center-left." How come?

A capitalist/imperialist ideology being advertised as "left." Is this a joke?

The article also says "liberalism founded on ideas of liberty and equality." AFAIK, Liberalism has nothing to do with egalitarianism. It favors Hierarchy and "Fairness" opposed to egalitarianism.

This article needs a strong revision.--98.196.235.55 (talk) 05:53, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Sadly, you don't get to define "liberalism". Wikipedia reports on how words are actually used in the real world. Rick Norwood (talk) 11:17, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


 * ...which, in the case of Liberalism, can be to mean almost anything depending on where you are in the world. HiLo48 (talk) 11:27, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Not quite anything. Nobody ever called Atilla the Hun a liberal. Liberalism always has something to do with freedom. Rick Norwood (talk) 17:55, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Comical, I agree that the US political tradition should not have an overly focus here..."American Liberalism" has gotten a diffuse meaning born out of political theatrics to show who hated free enterprise the most. Year's of hyperbole have added an assortment of other bromides to the popular conception. I'm not going to speak on behalf of people who are called or even embraces the identity, I'm far from an expert in political science and history...but to be "Liberalism" in the American sense is more an epithet then an ideology. And, this Isnt just a matter of being a dictonary...there are academics concerned about the philosophy and history of the political trends...that goes way back in the enlightenment...a time...If i may add...where egalitarianism meant rejection of Rulership based on inheritance and divine right...not some idea that everyone is the same, Jamte law and all that spiteful nonsense.

Again, now my subjective opinion might be a bit of, and maybe it is more cohesive term then what i give it credit for...but this article should reflect Liberalism as an umbrella term, abtstract so to also cover branches of the ideology and their differences, right down to the esoteric twigs. As such the the US centric perception must be added with a bit of tact...but judging how badly this article has gone I wouldn't be surprised Rote Arme Fraktion and Castros Grandmother was to be edited in soon. 84.202.111.139 (talk) 16:57, 4 August 2012 (UTC)


 * It seems you have formed your ideas of American liberalism based on what the political enemies of American liberalism say about it (it wants equality of outcome, it hates free enterprise) rather than what the liberals actually say and do. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:42, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

WTF is a section on "bestiality" included?
Liberals are far more likely to be environmentalists and animal rights advocates, not advocates for abuse.

It's an insane insertion and that's a diplomatic as I can be.

Correction: Trolling edits in this article should be removed, and the article should be locked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.118.172.114 (talk) 05:02, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

political campaigning
An article on general international "Liberalism" is not the place for American electioneering. Use of a caption '' |Barack Obama is the 44th President of the United States and member of the Democratic Party. He arrived in office facing an economic crisis to which he and his party responded by passing the Recovery Act as a source of fiscal stimulus] is not connected with the "ideology of liberalism" and is'' connected with campaign pamphleteering.  Cheers.  AFAICT, Obama is not known as a theoretician on liberalism at all, or as a specific influence on the ideology of liberalism. [[User:Collect|Collect (talk) 14:45, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * This has been discussed before, and most of the people who commented were in favor of including the picture, but the number of people who have commented on this subject is small. I do not see any merit in your claim that including a picture of the current president of the US is "electioneering".  And I think the caption on the picture could be shorter.  I'll see what sources say.  I note that the article Conservatism has two pictures of Ronald Reagan. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:54, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * On consideration, I think a picture of FDR would be more appropriate than a picture of Barack Obama. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed, as FDR has a similar status to Reagan as a "classic" (for lack of a better word) example. OhNo itsJamie Talk 15:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * FDR would be great. Let's add him. Let's also keep Obama. There are plenty of sources indicating Obama is a liberal |here's a nice quantitative one. WP:DUE says we should include him, and sources back up the classification. The fact that an election is ongoing seems irrelevant to me. de Bivort 19:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The usage indicating that he arrived in a crisis and tried to solve it is, in fact, campaign rhetoric here -- there is no valid connexion of Obama to liberal ideology - which is the stated topic of the article. And clearly the caption does not meet NPOV in this context. Collect (talk) 20:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * With all respect, I think you should read up on WP:BRD. You acted boldly, it was reverted, and now you should make your case here. What do you say to the WP:DUE and WP:RS aspects of my argument? de Bivort 21:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Per WP:RECENTISM, Obama is no more an appropriate illustration for this article as Romney would be for Conservatism. OhNo itsJamie Talk 12:29, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

There is a difference. Obama was elected president. As of this writing, Romney has not been. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * My point is not really about Romney, so I'll just set that aside. Per WP:RECENTISM: will we (we=reliable sources) consider Obama emblematic of liberalism 10 years from now? Almost certainly. He passes that test easily. Romney less so, but whatever. de Bivort 14:23, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Any thoughts on this? de Bivort 18:26, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:55, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for weighing in. Hope to hear from some others, but we should consider restoring the Obama image unless a counter argument can shift the consensus. de Bivort 14:58, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * American liberalism is significantly important that it should have its own section. The section is confusing because it says that liberalism means something different in the US, then uses the US definition rather than the international one.  I will look for sources to correct this.  TFD (talk) 15:36, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Anyone have anything more to add here? Since Collect hasn't replied to my policy points, I think the photo should be restored. de Bivort 16:23, 11 August 2012 (UTC)