Talk:Modern liberalism in the United States/Archive 1

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


 * Several alternate names have been proposed, but there is no consensus, so let's leave it the way it is for now. Meanwhile, I would appreciate an explanation of how what you call "Classical Americal liberalism" differs from "Libertarianism".  Oh, and by the way, can some of the "totally disputed" tags go now? Rick Norwood 01:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, libertarianism includes anarchism --such as the individualist anarchists and anarcho-capitalists. Classical liberalism may think government is an evil, but a necessary one. Also, Alan Ryan, professor of Politics at Princeton, says the claim from "contemporary libertarians...that they are classical liberals...is not wholly true. There is at least one strain of libertarian through represented by Robert Nozick's Anarchy, State and Utopia that advocates the decriminalization of 'victimless crimes' such as prostitution, drug-taking and unorthodox sexual activities. There is nothing of that in John Locke or Adam Smith." But, then many say libertarianism is a form or subset of classical liberalism, with classical liberalism being the broader more encompassing form of individualist philosophy. At any rate, I think everyone agrees that the terms aren't identical in meaning. One thing that is certain is that they're both individualist philosophies. Modern liberalism was the introduction of collectivism and positive liberty into the American ideosphere. RJII 01:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't like to make too many edits in one day, so I'm going to watch The X-Files. The truth is out there. Rick Norwood 01:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * As best I can tell, you are using these terms in non-standard ways. Certainly, your usage differs from the way the terms are used in the article liberalism, and we should be consistent.  For example, what the article calls "economic liberalism", you identify with "classical liberalism", what you call "social liberalism", the article calls "cultural liberalism", reserving "social liberalism" for welfare and other programs to aid the poor.  Also, you use the phrase "laissez faire" in an unusual way.  It usually refers to government interference in business, in the form of tarrifs and restraint of trade, but you seem to use it to include welfare.  Finally, you often use the terms "positive rights" and "negative rights", which are libertarian jargon, and are never, as far as I know, used outside libertarian circles.  Certainly, I have never encountered these phrases outside libertarian literature.  This article needs to address a general audience, and should avoid specialized jargon and non-standard use of languge. Rick Norwood 14:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not true that I think "economic liberalism" is synonymous with "classical liberalism." Economic liberalism is just the economic philosophy of classical liberalism. And, I'm not using "laissez-faire" in an unusual way --laissez-faire means that government does not intervene other than to maintain peace and property rights --naturally this precludes having a welfare state. Next, "negative and poisitive rights" are not "libertarian jargon" at all. They're common terminology is philosophy about rights that everyone learns in Political Philosophy 101. But, aside from that, that's not even the terminology I used. I talked of "positive liberty," not "positive rights" --they are two different thigns. I'm not using any "specialized jargon" than wthe "jargon" that is standard terminology in political philosophy. RJII 17:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I am leaning toward the idea that in america classical liberalism is libertarianism.Mrdthree 16:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

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

As for "laissez faire", the first dictionary to hand says...well, actually the first dictionary to hand says (in its entirity) "Lack of restraint", which is clearly wrong. (That's the New Merriam Webster paperback dictionary.) We need an older dictionary, one that actually defines words. How about, "a doctrine opposing government interference in economic affairs beyond the minimum necessary for the maintenance of peace and property rights." That doesn't seem to say anything about government assistance for the poor or about disaster relief, though it clearly would be opposed to a minimum wage or prohibition of monopoly. Rick Norwood 17:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it's well established that classical liberals oppose welfare. "Classical liberalism is associated with John Locke ([1690] 1967), Adam Smith ([1775] 1976), Alexis de Tocqueveille ([1835] 1964) and Friedrich von Hayek (1073-9). It focuses on the idea of limited government, the maintainance of the rule of law, the avoidance of arbitrary and discretionary power, the sanctity of private property and free made contracts, and the responsibility of individuals in their own fates. It is not necessarily a democratic doctrine, for there is nothing in the bare idea of majority rule to show that majorities will respect the rights of property or maintain the rule of law...It is hostile to the welfare state; welfare states violate the principle that each individual ought to look to their own welfare." (Ryan, Alan. Liberalism. A Companion to Contemporary Political Philosophy, editors Goodin, Robert E. and Pettit, Philip. Blackwell Publishing, 1995, p.293.) RJII 18:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * "What explains the dramatic transformation in liberal ideology and governance between 1877 and 1937 that carried the United States from laissez-faire constitutionalism to New Deal statism, from classical liberalism to democratic social-welfarism?" RJII 18:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * About "monopoly," it's not that they oppose "prohibiting monopoly" but that they think that government intervention is the cause of monopoly. By having a laissez-faire system, the possibility of coercive monopoly is reduced or eliminated. There is nothing that can truly prevent competition other than goverment force. RJII 19:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

RJII's edit
Good quote, RJII. Rick Norwood 14:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I was lucky to come across it. Being from such a mainstream widely-read source, it should hold. RJII 03:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

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


 * No doubt you have accurately described Lakeoff's view, but it should be identified as Lakeoff's view. - Jmabel | Talk 01:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah! You're right.  Thanks.Minidoxigirli 02:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

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


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

Well, first off, immediately removing a template and calling it bogus is not the best way to handle the situation -- just because you think it isn't applicable does not mean it's okay to call it bogus and immediately remove it. Also, it was applied to the section to which I was referring, not the whole article. Let me highlight a few phrases that seem to constitute original research (especially without citations). If, after reviewing the Original Research Policy, you still don't understand why this probably constitutes original research let me know and I'll explain each phrase I've highlighted (which by no means is an inclusive list):
 * ... however, despite the New Deal programs, which met with mixed success in solving the nation's economic problems. Economic progress for minorities was hindered by discrimination, an issue often avoided by Roosevelt's administration. (The New Deal)
 * Reform was based on the assumption that the depression was caused by the inherent instability of the market and that government intervention was necessary to rationalize and stabilize the economy, and to balance the interests of farmers, business and labor. (The New Deal)
 * U.S. liberalism of the Cold War era was the immediate heir to Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal and the slightly more distant heir to the Progressives of the early 20th century. (American liberalism during the Cold War)
 * In the late 1940s, liberals generally did not see Harry S. Truman as one of their own, viewing him as a Democratic Party hack. (American liberalism during the Cold War)
 * Nonetheless, liberals opposed McCarthyism and were central to McCarthy's downfall. (American liberalism during the Cold War)
 * President Johnson could not understand why the rather impressive civil rights laws passed under his leadership had failed to immunize Northern and Western cities from rioting. (Liberals and civil rights)
 * While the differences between Nixon and the liberals are obvious ..."  (Nixon and the liberal consensus)

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


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

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


 * My point was that instead of putting the OR tag on the entire section, it would be better to put the OR tag on those subsections you object to, apparently sections 2, 3, 4, and 8. That will allow people to work on the specific objections, which you have now provided, instead of wondering what in the article seemed like OR to you.  I am sorry if I removed the OR tag too hastily, and I thank you for pointing out the sections you think need work. Rick Norwood 12:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Those are good starting points. My time is very limited (but may change sometime soon).  If you would like assistance let me know.  /Blaxthos 09:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

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


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

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

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


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

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


 * The question, Salvor Hardin, is this. Do liberals believe what they say the believe, that is in free markets, or do they believe what conservatives say they believe, and have a secret, hidden opposition to free markets "based on principle alone".  If the latter, it is up to you to discover the headquarters of this secret liberal cabal and support your view.  Otherwise, you should assume good faith.  Liberals support free markets.  Who was it who wrote into the drug benefits for seniors a requirement preventing the government from negotiating the price of perscription drugs?  Who threatens to veto a liberal bill to allow the government to negotiate the price of drugs on a free market?  Who tried to prevent Americans from buying drugs from Canada? Rick Norwood 13:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Liberals *don't* say they believe in free markets, that's my point. Whoever it was in congress advocating those policies (I admit I have no idea who it was), if they were a Democrat then they were stepping WAY outside their party's ideology.  Salvor Hardin 15:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Please, like Rick said, show us this hidden liberal opposition to the free market, because I'm not aware of any Democrats who steadfastly oppose the concept. I think you may just be confusing liberals with communists here... -- Ci e lomobile talk / contribs 06:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Liberals are frequently indistinguishable from communists. That's my point.  How is "the government must be the sole provider of health care" not a communistic policy?  Salvor Hardin 15:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm a liberal, and I believe in free markets. If you don't recognize George W. Bush as the person who opposes free markets for prescription drugs, you need to get up to speed on the news.  I recommend The Week. Rick Norwood 13:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * If you believe in free markets and you consider yourself a liberal, then you are definitely in the minority. As for George W. Bush, what has he got to do with what we're discussing?  Are you trying to use him as an example of the opposite of liberalism?  That would be a mistake.  Salvor Hardin 15:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

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


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

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

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


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

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


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

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


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

PS. I am going to be on vacation next week and am leaving this afternoon. Remember there is no deadline. Mahalo,  Signature <sup style="color:#20038A;">brendel  21:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


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

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


 * It is a valid opinion relevant to the article and section, and does not violate POV in any way.  Signature <sup style="color:#20038A;">brendel  04:18, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

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


 * Not neccessarily. There is nothing wrong with describing the idea that there might be another liberal consensus coming. If you have reputable source stating that there is virtually no chance for a new liberal consensus or that politics will likely move more to the right, by all means add it. But using statistics ourselves to counter points made in our sources is OR. Regards,  Signature <sup style="color:#20038A;">brendel  23:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

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


 * Yes it is. Patterns of charitable giving have absolutely nothing to do with modern liberal philosophy. There is no reason to include them in that section unless you wanted to show that modern liberals arn't as compassionate as they're made out to be - that is OR. Including this research in that section (George Will btw doesn't count as research) is OR, since it does not pertain to the modern liberal phislosophy itself but is used in order to make the point that modern liberal philosophy does not life up to its self-professed objectives.  Signature <sup style="color:#20038A;">brendel  04:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree. We're not talking about whether or not liberals are "compassionate," but rather what kind of compassion modern liberalism entails.  Take the time to dig a little deeper.  Liberals are deeply committed to compassion that's played out through public policy and delivered through government programs.  None of the text under discussion said (or intended to imply) that this public compassion isn't real or isn't important.  But it is completely relevant to a discussion of liberal philosophy to point out that it calls for or produces a compassion played out through political activism and the public policy process, rather than a compassion played out through private charity and volunteerism.   The distinction is particularly critical because it is a key distinction between liberalism on the one hand and libertarian and classical conservative world views on the other hand, which call for private rather than public compassion.  If you aren't happy with George Will, that's fine with me - he's not the primary source here, but rather a secondary source I picked up because he summarized the Brooks book (I always like to include a published summary of a book when possible, for people who don't own it).  There are other reviews of the book out there that we can pick up.  On a simpler note, this isn't "original research" when we're not making any arguments or drawing any conclusions that are not in the source.  It may be research that we find startling or don't like, but it isn't coming from me.  I'm fine with editing the text ruthlessly to make sure it clearly and correctly characterizes what the source says, and nothing but what the source says.  I'm happy adding any additional material needed to set the context a reader may need to appropriately evaluate it, and I'm happy moving it to some other place in the article where it may fit in better.  I'm not at all comfortable with dropping it because we don't like what it says, or think it's somehow too negative.  Is there another place in the article that you'd suggest for discussing Brooks' work? EastTN (talk) 14:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Edit war over lead sentence
In spite of my pleas to discuss the issue, User:Operation Spooner is taking a very principled stand and refusing to discuss his repeated blanking of sections of the lead sentence of this article on the talk page. I believe that he is completely misunderstanding the lead sentence, and that properly understood, the sentence is non-controversial. I'm taking a break in order to avoid running afoul of 3RR.    &mdash; goethean &#2384; 20:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You're lying again. First you lie in your edit summary that I committed "vandalism." Now you lie that I have refused to discuss things. When you figure out what you want to discuss, let me know. Operation Spooner (talk) 21:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Please be civil and assume good faith. I invited you multiple times to the talk page to discuss the contentious changes to the stable-version lead sentence that you are edit-warring over. Refusal to do so constitutes vandalism under WP guidelines. Here is your proposed change. Your first rationale was:
 * Source? Seems ludicrous to say modern liberalism is for negative liberty and freedom from coercion. Is not a welfare state and minimum wage laws systemized coercion?
 * Far from being ludicrous, the statement is completely non-controversial. In fact, by removing one clause and leaving the other intact, you are actually falsifying the text, which can be construed as vandalism. Literally any college or high school introductory political science textbook will have a version of this sentence in it. A page number for the citation will be found, and Template:Page number can be added until a page number is found. But until that time, please respect the integrity of the article. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 21:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't tell me to "assume good faith." You have proven that you do not have good faith and are a liar. I did not vandalize the article and I have never refused to discuss a thing. If you have something to discuss then start a discussion and Ill take part. Don't demand that I discuss something if you're not willing to start a discussion. I'll give you a chance to find a page number, so I can verify the dubious statement, but if you don't I'll have to delete again. Operation Spooner (talk) 21:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Your continued civility is appreciated. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 02:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Operation Spooner seems to think, as many libertarians do, that taxation is coertion. Which, of course, it is. Liberalism aims for freedom, but not for anarchy. I would invite Operation Spooner to give me one example of a country that does not tax. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course taxation is coercion. And all countries tax. If taxes were voluntary they wouldn't be called taxes. They'd be called donations. What liberalism, that is, classical liberalism, aims for, is for the minimization of coercion (the minimization of government) to maximize liberty. What socialism, that is, modern American liberalism aims for is a equality through coercion via big governmen and the most taxation of the investor class that the market will bear. Operation Spooner (talk) 13:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

American liberals favor freedom. Let's look at the issues. Which side is for freedom to use recreational drugs, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom from warrentless wiretaps, freedom from torture, freedom of a woman to have an abortion, freedom of homosexuals to marry, freedom from stop loss that forces soldiers to fight after the contract they agreed to has expired? Libertarians were willing to give up all of the freedoms they believe in as long as they got tax cuts.

Under Bush, the power, spending, and debt of the federal government have increased greatly. Today, you have the economy you wished for. How do you like it? Rick Norwood (talk) 14:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you calling Bush a libertarian? I don't understand what you're saying. Libertarians are for freedom across the board, both personal and economic freedom (freedom to keep as much of your income as possible and to be able to spend it how you want it). Bush is not a libertarian or classical liberal. Operation Spooner (talk) 15:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm saying that many libertarians supported and voted for Bush because he offered them tax cuts. I just hope they've now come to their senses. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I doubt that many libertarians voted for Bush. Libertarians tend to vote for libertarians, usually for the Libertarian Party nominee (the 2008 nominee is Bob Barr) or libertarian Republicans such as Ron Paul. Operation Spooner (talk) 15:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Sadly, at least according to the statistics I've read, many Libertarians voted for Bush.


 * Back to the subject at hand, which is what makes a Liberal. A liberal in in favor of freedom, as in the examples I gave above.  A socialist is in favor of socialism.  Some people are one or the other, some both, some neither. Rick Norwood (talk) 18:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * A classical liberal is in favor of freedom, all around, both in personal freedom and economic freedom. But a modern American liberal is a socialist. He's in favor of government control of the economy and industry, and promotion of equality and a welfare state. American socialists just don't like to call themselves socialist. Political parties with the same principles and goals in European other countries are called socialist. Operation Spooner (talk) 21:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm a modern American liberal, as are many of my friends, and I don't know a one of us who trusts the government any further than we can throw it. We are generally in favor of "socialism" in the form of free public education and health care, because we believe that we will be happier if the people around us are educated and free of disease. Rick Norwood (talk) 22:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * But a modern American liberal is a socialist.
 * It can give one a feeling of radicalness and power to believe that unlike things are, in fact, alike. Wikipedia, like all reference books (presumably even those written by anarchists), clearly distinguishes between liberalism and socialism. They do this because the non-RonPaul-ite world believes that liberalism is different from socialism. Do you expect Wikipedia to enshrine your own creative political theory in its articles? &mdash; goethean &#2384; 22:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No I don't expect that. Norwood and I were just having a discussion unrelated to article editing. Operation Spooner (talk) 23:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Which we're really not supposed to do in Wikipedia. But it's fun. Sigh. Back to work. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

US POV?
An article about the United States should not only present the point of view of people in the United States, any more than an article about the Sudan should only present the point of view of people in the Sudan. It is appropriate that the article include how the rest of the world views US liberalism.

This comment is not addressed to any particular edit in this article, but responds to a comment made by a recent editor. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:33, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

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


 * Anyone who believes in the Four Freedoms holds liberal beliefs. It is true that some people who are not liberals in other respects hold these liberal beliefs, but these are the core beliefs that define liberalism.


 * Further, most attacks on liberalism in America today are attacks on these beliefs. In particular, note how the ACLU is attacked every time it tries to uphold these constitutional rights, or how judges who rule according to the Bill of Rights are called "activist judges".  Note attacks on the freedom of parents to raise their children to follow their own religious beliefs instead of the beliefs of their children's schoolteachers, attempts to use the public schools to promote one religious belief over others, attacks on people who say, "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas", attacks on people who sing the national anthem in Spanish, attacks on The Dixie Chicks for exercising their freedom of speech.  I could go on, but you get the idea.   Rick Norwood 13:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

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


 * Notice I said that freedom of speech and freedom of religion ARE modern American liberal beliefs. The problem is that they are listed alongside ideas that are exlusive to modern American liberalism, which could give the impression that they too are also exclusive.  This is about what could be seen as presentation of exclusivity.  So it should be noted they are not exclusive to modern American liberalism.  FitzTheMariner 01:55, 19 December 2006 (UCT)


 * I get absolutely no impression from that paragraph that the ideas are meant to be unique to modern American liberalism. Nobody who reads it could draw from it the conclusion that every other political philosophy opposes these freedoms. And none of the other beliefs in the paragraph are exclusive to MAL, either. In fact, the paragraph, in its last sentence, makes it clear that they are not exclusive to MAL. Andrew Levine 11:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Mainly, the "exception" reads awkwardly. It is as if a reference to Paris, France felt it necessary to mention that there was a Paris, Texas.  It's non-encyclopedic.  I agree with Andrew Levine, and am reverting to the earlier version. Rick Norwood 13:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Instead of repeatedly reverting it, why don't you propose how to write it in a non-awkward manner? And Andrew Levine is correct in noting that the ideas aren't exclusive to MAL, but this article examines one facet of modern American politics on a very large and broad scale.  This aricle could be contrasted with modern American conservatism and libertarianism, neither of which support the ideas presented (or at least in the same manner) beyond freedom of speech and religion.  I'm not trying to get a revert war going here, but you're unwillingness to address a comprimise in this is certainly leading it that way.  The fact that you've said that you mainly (your words) reverted because of awkward wording certainly means you can propose another way to word it while still getting the same idea across.  FitzTheMariner 14:58, 19 December 2006 (UCT)


 * The point is that these ideas are the cornerstone of liberalism as a movement and of Modern American Liberalism in particular. To the extent that Libertarians and some Conservatives believe in freedom of speech and religion, they believe in principles which, historically, have been the definition of liberalism.  See any history book, or, for that matter, any dictionary.  To say that people believe in freedom of speech but not in liberal principles is to say that people believe in liberalism but don't believe in liberalism.  The modern political issues on the list that follows are consequences of a belief in freedom, and are secondary and probably transient.  In the Nineteenth Century, a big liberal issue was Votes for Women -- you don't see that on the list today.  Rick Norwood 13:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

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


 * I think we should accept that definitions change. Yes, perhaps Cons support free speech disingenuously, or think they support it when they don't. However, when in the modern age has anyone made an argument against the principle of free speech? BillMasen (talk) 19:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Liberalism and freedom of speech
First, let me mention that, as a rule, new posts should go at the bottom of the page.

Definitions change, but if they change too rapidly, communication becomes impossible. To quote George Orwell, "Freedom is slavery". Political discourse in America is conducted at a very low level, where instead of trying to convince people by reason, both parties try to stir people up by reporting atrocities by the other party.

How likely is it that half the people in the United States are always right all the time, and the other half are always wrong all the time?

In fact, most Americans are liberals, even those who "hate liberals". It is ironic that the gunman who killed two Unitarians recently because he hated liberals was angry because the government was going to cut off his food stamps. I doubt it ever occurred to him that food stamps were a liberal program.

How often have you heard Republicans say bad things about The American Civil Liberties Union? And yet, the main goal of the ACLU is to preserve freedom of speech.

Freedom of speech is a core idea of liberalism, and always has been. To the extent that you believe in freedom of speech, you are a liberal. To try to change the meaning of liberalism so that it has a meaning you can more effectively argue against is politics, not reason. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I added my comments to the relevant section.


 * My point is very simple: the main competing ideology in America (conservatism) also claims to believe in free speech. Therefore, including free speech as a liberal belief is redundant. I agree that they don't actually believe in it, but that's not for wikipedia to decide.


 * And please refrain from assuming bad faith and patronising people: I am not a Conservative or an American and I'm not "trying to change the meaning" of lib "so that I can argue against it better". BillMasen (talk) 17:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry I made assumptions about your motives. I should not have done so. I do know better.

We are discussing a complex issue, as you know. Since modern American liberals claim support for free speech as a core value, the article should report that fact. The fact that liberalism has a long tradition of support for free speech adds weight to the claim. Also, it is easy to cite numerous cases where liberals have gone to court in support of free speech.

The article does not claim that liberals are the only group that supports free speech. If other groups also support free speech, that should be reported in the articles on their beliefs, with references. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * RE Bill's comment. This is actually simple modern liberalism beleives in positive liberty which in turn translates into a support for all first generation rights including freedom of speech. As currently mentioning freedom of speech is definitely justified as it used as an example of a negative rights. Yes, cons beleive in it to, at least those who actually are classic liberals, but they don't beleive in the provision of positive rights. Remeber the difference between modern libs and classic libes, incld. many cons, is that of positive vs. negative freedom.  Signature <sup style="color:#20038A;">brendel  06:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that is an important distinction, but I think we ought to make it more clear that positive liberty, and not free speech, is the relevant defining characteristic.


 * I admit that I found the original (before my "de-blatherisation" as someone called it) particularly annoying. It was written like a paean to the wonders of American liberalism, as free speech it was a foreign concept to liberals elsewhere. It's not at all clear to me that American liberals believe in it more than Europeans. Hasn't it been US liberals and their constituency who have shouted down the metaphorical "he", who introduced "differently-abled" and "intellectually challenged"? US conservatives have done more than their share of shouting-down, of course.


 * In response to Rick's point, saying that they both believe in free speech is redundant. It would have been redundant to say that they both believe in a republic as opposed to a monarchy, that they are both opposed to serfdom, that they don't want to be ruled by martians, etc. It only makes sense to define them by their differences to each other, and (in the relevant sections) to other ideologies. BillMasen (talk) 11:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Nothing in the lede suggests that liberals are the only group to believe in free speech. Nor is there anything in the lede to suggest that because American liberals believe in free speech, non-American liberals don't. All it says is that a core value of American liberalism is freedom of speech, a fact which is referenced. The article should begin with a statement of the core beliefs of American liberals. Discussion of differences within liberalism, and differences between liberalism and other beliefs, and between American liberalism and liberalism in other countries, belong further down in the article. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Suppose for a moment that "modern US liberalism" triumphed over all other ideologies, absolutely. Suppose that in 100 years time someone asked you to define "modern US liberalism".


 * You couldn't do it... except by comparing it (even implicitly) with previous ideologies. That's the nature of defining something: you define it against something else. If the lead said "US liberals think that atheists should not be thrown in prison", how could anyone fail to infer that conservatives DO think atheists should be thrown in jail? If the conservative lead said "conservatives believe in a strong america", the clear implication is that Libs would acquiesce in America's weakness. BillMasen (talk) 17:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Your idea that definitions must compare and contrast is simply wrong. I define a triangle as a polygon with three sides, not as a polygon having fewer sides than a square. If there were no squares, a triangle would still be a polygon with three sides.

The idea that "liberalism" and "conservatism" are opposites is something put forward by Republicans to influence voters, not a real conflict. Most people are both liberals, believing in freedom, and conservatives, believing in the American way of life. Because of this, in order to fight the Democrats, the Republicans have tried to define liberalism as "not believing in the American way of life", but this is propaganda, and should not be taken seriously.

We don't need to go 100 years into the future to find a world where almost everyone believes in liberalism. Historically, liberalism is one of the ideas that created the world we know. The fact that, today, almost everyone believes in it does not make it less powerful. There are a few people who are not liberals -- those who call for censorship for example -- but even if they went away, liberalism would still be a powerful ideal. But most people who think they dislike liberalism are simply misinformed, by political disinformation.

But don't take my word for it. Look it up, in any dictionary or standard reference work.

If you must contrast liberalism with something, contrast it with the way things were throughout most of human history.

Rick Norwood (talk) 13:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

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

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

I think the article needs to address the issue of how American liberalism differs from European liberalism, but I know much more about the former than the latter. Help! Electionworld? Rick Norwood 00:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * That definitely needs more development. RJII 00:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I think "liberalism" in Europe reflects economic liberalism, so that European "liberals" would actually correspond with American "conservatives." The term "Modern American liberalism" is there to distinguish both against classical liberalism in the United States and "liberalism" as the term is used in Europe. 147.9.203.102 (talk) 20:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The words "turn Americans into whiny douchebags" seem to be a clear form of vandalism. I am not the sure about the procedures here, just wanted to change it immediately. How does it work to claim the consequences for the responsible user causing this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by F4fzapata (talk • contribs) 21:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Recent comments added to the article.
There have been several attempts to add to the article comments that are strongly POV. I'll only discuss the most recent attempt, which asserted in the introduction that Liberals prefer to use state power to gain freedom. Nothing I am aware of in liberal literature suggests that, though liberals are willing to use state power when no other alternative exists. For example, if my freedom of speech is threatened by thugs, I am willing to use state power -- that is, I'm willing to call the cops. But most liberals understand that freedom is just as likely to be threatened by the state as by individuals. That is why liberals oppose, for example, the recent attempt in the United States by conservative Republicans to establish an executive president who is above the law. I could go to the article on US Conservatism and try to add a comment that "conservatives think the president should be above the law", but I won't, and it would be reverted if I did, because it does not represent the mainstream conservative view. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:56, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Lede revisited.
The lede is becoming unreadable again, as everybody tries to get their two cents worth in. I'm going to make an attempt to prune it, and suggest that the various more specialized views be added in the body of the article. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

A recent edit tried to remove "freedom of speech" as one thing liberals fight for, claiming that conservatives also want freedom of speech. The libertarians who have allied with conservatives want freedom of speech, but the conservatives have fought against free speech, especially in books and movies and in the press, to such an extent that most magazines and newspapers will not use words that are in common use in the general population. Conservatives have, over the years, tried to ban a large number of books now considered classics. And conservatives today fight to prevent information on contraception and abortion being published. A recent example of conservative action against free speech is the South Dakota law requiring doctors to lie to their patients seeking abortion. Other examples that comes to mind are the conservative effort to get a college professor fired for saying that the people who died in 9/11 got what was coming to them, the limitation of protest at Bush speeches to "free speech zones" far from the president, and the recently surfaced videos of New York cops beating anti-Bush protesters and then lying about it under oath. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:09, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Having a list of issues in the lede is unacceptable, however. Modern liberalism provides a coherent, if complex, conceptualization of government centered around its understanding of liberty. We need to describe this theory, not mere give a list of issues that liberals see as imperative to the perpetuation of liberty. The theory is actually simple: Positive rights + Negative rights = positive liberty; we need to describe this equation and not merely give a list of things liberals generally value. This is not a specialized view this is the basic concept of modern liberalism, it is modern liberalism in a nutshell; if anything, issues stances ought to be features in the article body. Regards,  Signature <sup style="color:#20038A;">brendel  06:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

PS. I'm just one person :) (RE: "everybody tries to get their two cents worth in")  Signature <sup style="color:#20038A;">brendel  06:17, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Positive vs. negative rights is Libertarian jargon, not used outside the Libertarian movement. Wikipedia articles should avoid jargon as much as possible, certainly avoid jargon in the lede. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

American versus European use of the term "liberalism", Bad Description
The description of american liberalism using the "two axes" is not particularly clear. What does left on one axis mean and right on another? Shouldn't it be left/right on one axis and top/down on another. The mixing of spatial terms, the cartesian plane, and the abstract left/right terms from the political world makes for bad communication. I would recommend not describing the extremes of the axis with the terms left/right, but with the policies or ideas that each extreme represent and inclusion of a diagram. Alternatively, the explanation should be dropped altogether. I would make the change myself, but I'm not really sure what was meant in the first place, thus don't consider myself qualified to make the modification.75.82.133.73 (talk) 06:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:47, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Major Influences: Barack Obama?
I am a little hesitant to call Obama a major influence. Not yet. After he serves his term(s) his policies may have influenced liberalism but I don't think he has been a major influence so far. 00:59, 16 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timothy Kelly (talk • contribs)


 * I agree, while he is- no doubt- an important liberal in America, he has not done anything to specifically influence the ideology, especially before he's even taken office.

68.248.229.203 (talk) 23:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

First Paragraph is a Joke
Hilarious how Wikipedia purports to have a NPOV policy yet articles such as this continue to show just how liberal-biased its editors actually are. To wit, the first paragraph is an absolute joke. It might as well be a full-scale endorsement of modern liberalism. Focus on “individual liberties” so long as they don’t intrude upon the liberties and rights of others? That’s actually libertarianism (about as far right as you can get). How about modern liberals favor bigger government, higher taxes, and redistribution of wealth? No, that would be telling the truth, and wikipedians hate the truth if it places their ideology in a bad light. No matter what sources you bring to the table, and no matter how many you bring to the table, the masses of welfare-loving, big-government-favoring, anti-American, anti-religious, pro-terrorist, socialist democrat monkeys who run this mickey-mouse operation will (1) find a problem with the source (even when it is a peer-reviewed journal), (2) claim other sources favor the opposing viewpoint (even when their sources come from unreliable, and HIGHLTY biased sources), or – and this is the most common response – (3) try and interpret your source in a manner that would make it consistent with their own views (in vain, but since consensus carries the day, they end up winning). I’m giving up on this site. It’s a %@#$!&&$ joke.65.247.226.99 (talk) 05:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. The paragraph was obviously antithetical to the philosophy. Raymond Dundas (talk) 17:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I've reverted your "fix". The question is this.  Should this article reflect what liberals actually believe, or should it reflect what enemies of liberalism claim liberals believe?  The deleted material was all referenced.


 * I understand that people who listen to anti-liberal propaganda will find the claim that liberals actually mean what they say "hilarious". The mind readers out there know for a fact that while liberals claim to believe in freedom and equality, they actually (secretly) favor "bigger government, higher taxes, and redistribution of wealth", and are actually (secretly) "welfare-loving, big-government-favoring, anti-American, anti-religious, pro-terrorist, socialist democrat monkeys".  Sorry, but neither mind reading nor Ann Coulter are reliable sources for factual information. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Enemies? Ann Coulter? The source I cited was written by Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., not some anti-liberal polemicist. The article should reflect what liberals believe but with your edit, it doesn't. It is no secret that liberals favour big government, higher taxes, and redistribution of wealth. Though where in the source did it say they were "welfare-loving, big-government-favoring, anti-American, anti-religious, pro-terrorist, socialist democrat monkeys"? I would bother taking you seriously if you didn't rely on the use of a straw man argument to make your point. Raymond Dundas (talk) 17:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

My objection was not to the quote you added but to the material you removed. You say it is no secret that liberals favour big government -- then why did conservatives greatly increase the power of the government over the past eight years? Liberals favor higher taxes? Then why were my taxes lower this year, with a liberal administration. You say that liberals favor redistribution of the wealth? Then why did this country see the greatest redsitribution of the wealth of all time under the Bush administration? The quote was a quote, not a straw man. It was a quote from the poster to whom you replied, "Fixed". Rick Norwood (talk) 21:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not discussing conservatism. Nor am I debating what liberals or conservatives have done over the past eight years. I'm referring to the source. Citing random acts of liberals and conservatives to illustrate their philosophy is cherry picking and can be used to illustrate any POV. The source I cited is not liberal, conservative, or libertarian slanted. Rather it is that of a renowned historian and reliable source of the philosophy. Raymond Dundas (talk) 21:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

As I explained above, I have no objection to you adding the Schlesinger quote. I object to you removing the Starr quote, removing the Kennedy quote, and then doing a major rewrite of the rest of the article without discussion. As noted on this talk page, this is a controversial article, and people pass this way regularly trying to rewrite the whole thing from their personal point of view. Most of the sections in the article have been arrived at, through reasonable discussion by reasonable people, over a considerable period of time, and represent a compromise. If you are serious about wanting to contribute to the article, then discuss your criticisms of the passages you want to remove. You got off to a bad start by agreeing, or appearing to agree, with the person who began this topic. Rick Norwood (talk) 00:31, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I removed the Starr and Kennedy quote because they are unnecessary in the lead. The introductory paragraphs should give a basic summary of the philosophy. Secondly, the quotes are repetitive in respect to the lead because they both illustrate liberalism's support for the welfare state. The article was blatantly biased and whether or not I agree with someone on that issue is irrelevant to how I start editing the article. Rather it would be the substance of the edits. Raymond Dundas (talk) 00:38, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the lede should be shorter, so I have restored one quote, omitted the other. You seem to think liberals support something called "the welfare state". Please cite a source for this. Liberals I know support education and heathcare, but not welfare for able-bodied adults. Rick Norwood (talk) 00:49, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Cited, though whether or not they are "able-bodied adults" is irrelevant in the case of the welfare state or however you want to describe it. Raymond Dundas (talk) 01:31, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I've done a slight rewrite, to better reflect the source. Have you read McGowen? I think you would find it interesting reading. Rick Norwood (talk) 01:38, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Dear 65.247.226.99, your comment regarding "welfare-loving, big-government-favoring, anti-American, anti-religious, pro-terrorist, socialist democrat monkeys" is not appropriate for this forum, as Wikipedia does have rules regarding civility. It would be just as inappropriate if somebody were to write on this talk page about, for example, and only for example, "welfare-for-the-rich-loving, incompetent-government-favoring, Constitution-hating, compulsive-borrowing, compulsive-spending, oil-drinking, soldier-killing, union-busting, buck-passing, China-outsourcing, pro-torture, bankster-bailing, war-starting, voodoo-economic-preaching, bribe-taking, pathologically-lying, secret-agent-outing, wholly-corrupt, sell-out-America fascist rethuglican traitors". Therefore, please don't make any more uncivil comments.

Since you obviously believe that reality has a liberal bias, I would like to introduce you to Conservapedia. Perhaps your needs could be better fulfilled there. (You can even learn about how Adam and Eve rode on dinosaurs!) 71.127.6.42 (talk) 01:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Not the right approach, anon. You're now just as guilty as the crime you are accusing the other anon of. Useful tip, don't establish false dichotomies. The first being the heavily biased stereotype on the opposite side of the political spectrum. The second, offering an alternative site as biased as Conservapedia which instead of addressing this article's bias, assumes that it is perfectly legitimate. Nevetheless, the issue has been cleared up and there's no need to continue flaming. Raymond Dundas (talk) 01:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you missed the point: that language like this is uncivil, and that if one side wants to call the other side names, the favor can be returned. Oh, and BTW, this article wasn't biased until you came along; I do wonder why a person who so openly declares his right-wing leanings on his userpage thinks he can edit an article like this in such an obviously biased fashion and then has the chutzpah to call OTHERS biased? I stay away from the articles on conservativism, because I know I'm biased against those topics; perhaps you should stay away from the articles on liberalism, because you're obviously biased against this topic. That is, if you want to act in good faith. The appearance of impropriety is the same thing as impropriety itself.24.62.204.207 (talk) 16:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Then why have I and Rick Norwood (a self-proclaimed liberal) reached several agreements over the content? And please refrain from using personal attacks. Having a political position and a bias are two different (but not mutually exclusive) things. If you feel the edits I have made violate WP:NPOV, point them out. But don't call me biased without citing my actual edits. Raymond Dundas (talk) 18:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Should libertarian jargon be used in this article?
Once again, we have an attempt to put libertarian jargon into the article, in particular the libertarian idea that freedom of speech is a negative right. I know what this means, but most people don't, and don't need to. If they are interested in libertarianism, they will go to the article on that subject. This is not the place to try to remake the language to promote a particular point of view.

We seem to have to fight this battle every six months or so. I suppose that is the nature of Wikipedia. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:35, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the removal of the phrase "positive rights". I left it in because I would always rather compromise that engage in a pointless revert war. Rick Norwood (talk) 17:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Rick -- you reverted my changes here. I'll concede that what I wrote could qualify as OR (and I would be willing to remove the whole thing, which is what I'll try now and see what people think), but what I removed not only was OR but was not cited. The article "Fact Finders" that is referenced here explicitly claims the opposite -- that liberalism is "pragmatic" and that conservativism rather than liberalism is devoted to the pursuit of "freedom". Whether or not that's a legitimate claim (and I haven't heard anyone who would describe themselves as a modern liberal use that argument, just libertarians), it's hardly referenced content to state the *opposite* of what a cited source says and then provide a citation, that the core of modern liberalism is the pursuit of freedom and everything else derives from it. I believe that the citation was originally intended to go with the subsequent sentence. Take a look and see what you think. Here's the original article that was cited. Thanks! Mark7-2 (talk) 06:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I when I said that I hadn't heard the argument before from non-libertarians, I meant the argument that other policy goals simply derive from a goal of producing freedom, not the claim that "Fact Finders" was making, that conservativism tries to produce freedom in contrast to liberalism.Mark7-2 (talk) 06:25, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Philosophy and Position's sections
The sections tend to lean on broad generalizations and concepts that aren't really unique to liberalism. For instance:
 * The Constitution of the United States, unalienable rights, human rights, civil liberties, equal justice, equality of opportunity, and liberty under law
 * Who isn't for these things? That's not really a position unique to liberalism


 * to be continued* Soxwon (talk) 16:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree, at least in part. You will note that my edit left out several of the clauses you cite above. On the other hand, parts of the list that you quote are fundamental to liberalism, and are strongly opposed by opponents of liberalism. For example, the idea of "equal justice" was revolutionary when first proposed. The idea that a noble and a commoner should have an equal standing before the law was considered absurd. Rick Norwood (talk) 17:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, but this is modern liberalism. The ideas aren't so revolutionary anymore. And to say "We believe in the Constitution, human rights, civil liberties, and equality of opportunity" is all well and good, but what you see as a right may not be seen as a right to others. I'd say both conservatives and liberals believe in all those principles mentioned, just what falls under each category is in disputeSoxwon (talk) 22:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I like the new version better, though welfare state is possbily being used pejoratively in this instance. Soxwon (talk) 22:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * "Welfare state" is not necessarily used pejoratively. There was a conflict about this on Talk:Liberalism in the United States though Rick Norwood agreed to keep it in if there was a liberal source that described support for the welfare state (which was Paul Krugman). Raymond Dundas (talk) 00:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Many people in the United States believe in liberalism. This doesn't make those ideas any less liberal. Many conservatives are liberal but don't know it. Liberal and conservative are not opposites. Liberalism is belief in individual freedom. Conservatism is belief in established institutions. In some cases (abortion is a prime example) those ideas conflict. In other cases they agree. In the US both liberals and conservatives favor fair and open elections, liberals because they see elections as a means of insuring freedom from government control, conservatives because they are an American tradition. Rick Norwood (talk) 16:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Both conservatism and liberalism (in their classical senses) are vested in individual liberty. Though the more modern incarnations of these ideologies have less of a concern for individual liberty. Raymond Dundas (talk) 16:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Conservatism, in its classical sense, was support for the vested interests of the nobility and the established religion. If you believe in liberty, then you are a liberal or a libertarian.  If you uphold tradition, you are a conservative.  Because liberty is an American tradition, many American conservatives are liberals.  Others, especially religious conservatives, believe that religious traditions are more important than liberal traditions.  If a person has "less concern for individual liberty", they they are less liberal.


 * There are good reasons for using words as they are defined in standard reference works, rather than the way they are used in the popular press. If the meaning of words is allowed to change too rapidly, communication of real ideas becomes difficult.  Instead of saying that "liberals" are less concerned with individual liberty, say that "group x" is less liberal.  That has the advantage of, first, using words correctly and, second, of forcing you to name "group x" instead of leaving that open to various interpretations. Rick Norwood (talk) 17:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

No, that's the philosophy of the counter enlightenment. Classical conservatism favours the antediluvian establishment as the best means of preserving individual liberty instead of utopian visions. Raymond Dundas (talk) 21:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Find a reference. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:11, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

http://web.nmsu.edu/~dscoccia/research/Cons&DeftoTrad.pdf

...not that this is actually relevant Raymond Dundas (talk) 16:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

What this article is about.
Raymond Dundas wrote: "This is unique to the Christian Right, not inherently conservatism. And this article isn't about belief, it's about politics."

No. Look at the title of the article. Politics is not mentioned. It is about modern liberalism in the United States. Certainly, one of the major, if not the major, battle line drawn between liberals and conservatives in the United States today is between science and religion. I've provided three quotes. I can easily provide a dozen more, or a hundred more, but if you read the newspapers at all, you already know that. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Liberalism is a political philosophy. The point is to illustrate the political beliefs inherent to liberalism and conservatism, not the personal beliefs. Granted there are modern American conservatives that deny evolution, but it is irrelevant to this article. And the sources you cited were unsuitable. The Washington Post article does not actually say denial of evolution is inherent to conservatism. Citing it as such is akin to Conservapedia citing a group of liberals verbally abusing Iraq War veterans to illustrate that liberals often hate soldiers. Of course this is not true. You would have to find a neutral source that demonstrates denial of evolution is inherent even to the principles of modern American conservatism. And the Intellectual Conservative is not a neutral source that even demonstrates this in the slightest. Conservatism is much too broad a philosophy in the United States to detail such a specific issue without context. The right approach would to explain the influence of the Christian right on conservatism and how it has affected conservative politics. But that would seem like something more suitable for this article. Raymond Dundas (talk) 16:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

No. Liberalism is a personal philosophy, which can be illustrated by the following quote from Pygmalian, by George Bernard Shaw.


 * Higgins: "My manners are exactly the same as Colonel Pickering's."
 * Liza: "That's not true. He treats a flower girl as if she was a duchess."
 * Higgins: "And I treat a duchess as if she was a flower girl."
 * Liza: "I see. The same to everybody."

That is the essence of liberalism. The same to everybody. Everybody, black and white, man and woman, gay and straight, rich and poor, free to pursue happiness in their own way. The natural and personal liberalism of most Americans is much more important than the political squabbles, which usually don't amount to anything but name calling and who gets to put their snout in the public trough.

On to the topic of conservative opposition to science. I could provide a hundred examples, but that would not convince you, because you say "conservatism is much too broad a philosophy in the United States to detail such specific issues". So I've added the word "some" to the paragraph in question, which is really about liberal acceptance of science against conservative opposition. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:38, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * No. And you claiming it is doesn't make it so. If you were to allow people to indiscriminately pursue their own happiness in their own way, that by default makes it a political philosophy. But what you've just described is libertarianism.


 * And I can provide you plenty of examples of liberals being racists, bigots, and anti-science. You're pulling the same strings as Conservapedia by selecting examples of certain people you're trying to make look bad. The sources do not demonstrate the claim that most conservatives deny evolution. Even if they did, it is completely irrelevant to this article. This article is not about personal belief but political belief. What would be more appropriate is discussing the Christian right's influence on American conservatism and how that prompts many to hold the position that creationism should be taught in state schools. Raymond Dundas (talk) 17:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The article is not about what I say it is about, nor about what you say it is about, but it is about what the title of the article says it is about, and the title of the article does not mention politics. You seem to want to reduce all human interaction to politics, when actually, in a free country, politics plays a relatively minor role. It is hard to imagine two presidents more different than Bush and Obama, but my personal life has changed hardly at all in the past ten years, because America is still a liberal nation. The Bill of Rights is still in effect.

I'm not trying to make anybody look good or look bad. Objectively, one of the major ongoing battles between liberals and conservatives in the modern United States is over science, especially over evolution and global warming. If you read the news, you know that. My references show that. If you want more references, just say so, and I'll be glad to add them.

A discussion of conservative attempts to teach creationism in the public schools is well covered in the article creationism. The paragraph you dislike in this article is about liberal willingness to accept new scientific ideas. That's one reason why about eighty percent of all scientists self-identify as liberal. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * So does that mean evolution has nothing to do with science because the title of the article doesn't mention science? This article is about politics and this article does not illustrate all "human interaction" so kindly quit it with the psychoanalysis. I'm not asking for more references, I'm asking for better ones. The sources you cite do not illustrate what you've written. I don't want to have to repeat myself so just look at my previous post. You're using the same biased tactics Conservapedia does by using one example to speak for an entire group. And I don't believe for a second your statistic about scientists. Raymond Dundas (talk) 20:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll do the research tomorrow and provide you with the evidence.Rick Norwood (talk) 00:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

research
I spent some time doing research and plan to edit the article based on what I found. I want to discuss things here, first. The Encyclopedia Britannica article seems to provide particularly balanced information, and though of course we can't quote it, we can reference it.

These two paragraphs in particular seemed worth sharing:

"Liberalism, the creed of those who believe in individual liberty."

"As the word liberty is ambiguous, however, so is the word liberal. A liberal may believe that freedom is a matter for the individual alone and that the role of the state should be minimal, or he may believe that freedom is a matter for the state and that the state can and should be used as an instrument to promote it."

Rick Norwood (talk) 13:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The phrase "original research" does not mean "opinion supported by reference". It means opinion unsupported by references. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:46, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The references given do not even support the opinion. Raymond Dundas (talk) 18:08, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

The sentence states that liberals are willing to accept scientific change that conservatives reject. The references offer statements from the Democratic Party platform and the Democratic president of the United States saying that they accept scientific change that conservatives reject. The other references are examples of scientific change that some conservatives reject. In short, all of the references support the sentence you keep deleting. Rick Norwood (talk) 22:27, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Certain conservatives rejecting a scientific idea does not speak for "most" or even "many" conservatives. If I found some sources exemplifying liberals rejecting scientific ideas, promoting bigotry, racism, and any number of undesirable traits (which I could), does that give me leeway to use those sources in this article to illustrate how "many" if not "most" liberals are racist, bigoted, and anti-science? Find a source that discusses the modern American conservative movement as a whole having anti-science politics. Raymond Dundas (talk) 02:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I've provided a large number of sources that discuss the anti-science bias of some (a great many) conservatives. I'll continue to provide more. I wonder if you are reading the references? This is not just a few individual conservatives who are anti-science.

I suspect you are reasoning as follows. "Conservative" means "Classical liberal"; classical liberals are not anti-science, therefore conservatives are not anti-science. But classical liberals are liberals, not conservatives at all. They joined the conservative movement, but they do not share most conservative beliefs (laws against abortion, censorship of the media, denial of evolution, teacher led prayer in the public schools). In any case, classical liberals are a small part of the conservative movement they have joined, a much smaller part than the religious conservatives who provide most of the conservative money and votes.

But all this is beside the point. The point is references, which I have provided and you have not.

By the way, the other changes you want to make, framing liberalism in terms of Libertarian jargon, are also unacceptable, as has been discussed at great length above. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * You're way off. I don't want to have to repeat myself but I will. Provide one source that illustrates conservatism as a movement in the US having an anti-science bias. This "jargon" you speak of is not exclusively libertarian. Where you get that assumption, you have yet to explain. Raymond Dundas (talk) 19:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your willingness to discuss this instead of continuing a revert war, which accomplishes nothing. I've given several sources, but one good one is: The Republican War On Science, by Chris Mooney.

I've never heard anyone who is not a Libertarian talk about "positive rights" and "negative rights". People who are not in close contact with Libertarians have no idea what Libertarians are talking about when they use those phrases. I do know what Libertarians mean by them, because I have some Libertarian friends. But in an encyclopedia, jargon should be avoided if at all possible.

Rick Norwood (talk) 12:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I removed the "weasel word" template since it is not applicable. None of the discussion here has involved this. Please refer to WP: Weasel for an explanation of "weasel words".  Note that the article has 3 NPOV tags which I have not removed.  The Four Deuces (talk) 04:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Just because you haven't heard a non-libertarian use the phrases "positive rights" and "negative rights", doesn't mean non-libertarians don't use them. You are making nothing but baseless assumptions. Raymond Dundas (talk) 20:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * If non-libertarians use these phrases, you have only to give an example.


 * In any case, they are jargon, and should be avoided. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Non-Democrats I cannot help but notice that the VAST MAJORITY (if not all) of those listed under "Liberal Thinkers" are people who identify as "Democrats," either politicians or individuals.

This article is about LIBERALISM, not about the DEMOCRATIC PARTY. There are MANY, MANY Republicans who would be LIBERAL LEADERS. For example, Richard Nixon, Lincoln Chafee, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Colin Powell, etc.

Likewise, there are notable independents - like RALPH NADER - who are Liberal Leaders.

In other words, just because someone does not identify as a "Democrat" (whatever that is) does not mean that they are not Liberal LEADERS.

I would appreciate your immediate attention to this matter. Please advise.

Thank you.

P.S. Before you tell me stuff like "Colin Powell is not a LEADER in the liberal movement," neither is Barney Frank, he's just some liberal Congressman. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sopm (talk • contribs) 01:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

As I've said elsewhere, I agree. Certainly Ralph Nader and Colin Powell should be added to the list. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:28, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Do modern liberals oppose free market capitalism?
Modern American liberals oppose free market capitalism.

I removed the above statement added by User:Introman saying Reverted POV jargon unsupported by original source. Introman then re-inserted it with the notation ''Not pov jargon, and no one disputes it. They're clearly not for free market capitalism but a regulated system.''

There is no source for this statement and it is not WP policy to insert statements into articles because "no one disputes it". I will therefore remove it again and if Introman re-inserts it without discussion I will post it to the reliable sources noticeboard.

The Four Deuces (talk) 20:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It says that they support a mixed economy. Therefore they oppose a free market economy. You can't support both at the same time. Introman (talk) 21:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * What you're saying is that a mixed economy cannot be a free market economy. That statement is actually contentious.  But you need a source that directly states that Modern American liberals oppose free market capitalism.  It cannot be based on a synthesis of ideas.  The Four Deuces (talk) 21:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course a mixed economy can't be a free market economy! A free market economy is an economy that is not regulated. A free market by definition is one where the government does not regulate or intervent. I don't know how you can say that this is contentious. Introman (talk) 21:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

(out)Well if it's obvious then you should have no problem finding a RS.

Your revised entry now reads:

In contrast to classical liberals who supported a free market economy, modern liberals instead favor a mixed economy.

In contrast the actual passage cited says: Modern liberalism favours a mixed economy with private ownership where possible but state intervention, regulation or provision where necessary to curb private monopolies, to promote positive - actualised - individual freedom and to ensure choice and diversity of goods and services.

Because there is no comparison at all of the two types of liberalism, this statement violates WP:SYN. It only supports "modern liberals...favor a mixed economy" which is essentially what it said before it was changed.

The Four Deuces (talk) 21:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Of course there's a comparison. You just left it out. Right above that classical liberalism was discussed and its support of a free market economy. It was an obvious contrast just by the fact that the two were distinguished with one being "classical" and the other "modern." Classical and modern liberalism are not the same thing. As you quoted, modern liberalism favors intervention and regulation. Introman (talk) 21:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * They describe classical liberalism above but do not contrast the two. BTW the quote does not state modern liberalism favors intervention and regulation.  It says ''regulation...where necessary."
 * Your insertion puts a libertarian spin on things. Modern liberals would not agree and you have no source.  So please revert to a NPOV version of the text.  The Four Deuces (talk) 22:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Look are your own quote above. It says that modern liberals are in favor of "intervention" and "regulation," and yes "when necessary." Would they favor it when they though it unnecessary? You're not making sense. Those are in favor of free markets think regulation and intervention should not be done, period. If you're for regulation "when necessary" then you're for a "regulated market," not a "free market." A free market is an unregulated market, by definition. What I put in the article is indeed backed up by the source. There is no "libertarian spin." Classical liberals are for free markets. Modern liberals are for regulated markets. I'll take out the words "in contrast" if you wish. It doesn't matter. There is still a difference between classical and modern liberals. Introman (talk) 23:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Introman: The Four Deuces is right; you are wrong. There was never a golden age when "Classical Liberals" supported a totally unregulated market. (As just one example, for the first several decades of American history, the main source of revenue for the federal government was tariffs.) These "Classical liberals" are a pipe dream of Libertarians; they never existed. The sentence The Four Deuces quotes is reasonable, your changes unsourced. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Taxes aren't regulations. Find me one example of a classical liberal supporting a government regulated market. And it's not a matter of whether or not such a free market economy existed. Classical liberalism is a philosophy, not an actual system. Classical liberals such as Adam Smith were criticizing what existed, i.e. government regulations of economies. And my changes were indeed sourced. Introman (talk) 16:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The text I challenged has been changed so that it no longer appears biased. Thank you. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Introman: I can't give you an example of a classical liberal because no such people exist. Adam Smith, for example, understood the need for taxes, and said that those best able to pay should be taxed the most.  It is one thing to oppose tariffs, quite another to say that businesses should be free to do anything they want (including, evidently, dealing in slaves), as long as they live up to their contracts.  The closest you will find to your so called "classical liberal" before the mid-20th century is the romantic, who thought that man in a state of nature could exist without any government at all. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Classical liberals don't exist? What? Adam Smith was a classical liberal. Show me where he advocates government regulation of the economy over free markets. A free market doesn't mean "businesses should be free to do anything they want." You don't even understand the concept of free market. In a free market a business can do anything it wants EXCEPT forcibly restrict the freedom of others. Likewise in a free market, the government can't forcibly restrict the freedom of businesses. "Regulation" means government is telling them how much to produce, what prices to charge, what to pay labor, etc. The classical liberals were against that. They were for these things behing determined solely by supply and demand. Introman (talk) 18:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Introman, perhaps you could give us an example of a "classical liberal" government that actually existed and had an "unregulated market". The Four Deuces (talk) 15:27, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No such thing ever existed. That's what I'm trying to tell you. Classical liberalism is a PHILOSOPHY, not an economic system. It's not about what exists but a body of thought advocating what classical liberals think SHOULD exist. Adam Smith was writing against what existed at the time, which was government regulation of the economy, and advocated free markets instead. Introman (talk) 18:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

removal of Kennedy quote, insertion of Libertarian arguments
The purpose of this article is to describe Modern Liberalism in the United States. It is not the place to argue against liberalism. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There should not be any mention of libertarian views in this article. Their presidential candidate in the 2008 election ran fourth, with 0.4% of the vote (See:  United States presidential election, 2008).  Surely Ralph Nader's view on modern American liberalism is more important yet it is totally ignored.  (See:  WP:UNDUE.)  The Four Deuces (talk) 20:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * A "libertarian" doesn't mean someone affiliated with the Libertarian Party. There are libertarians across all parties. When it's in lowercase "libertarian," it's a philosophy, not the name of party. A libertarian is simply someone who who believes in liberty. Introman (talk) 20:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Not quite. A libertarian believes that economic liberty is the most important form of liberty, maybe the only important form of liberty. Thus one can be a libertarian and believe in slavery, as a legal contract between a loser in a war and the winner. Liberals place freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and freedom of religion higher than economic freedom -- which is often the freedom of the rich to take away the freedom of the workers. Rick Norwood (talk) 11:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That's absurd. There is no such thing as a libertarian that believes in slavery. Slavery by definition is involuntary. Libertarians are for voluntary interaction. Introman (talk) 19:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I removed the reference to classical liberalism in the lead. Modern American liberalism differs from many other belief systems including Christian dominionism, Islamic fundamentalism, socialism, etc., but there is no reason to mention them in the lead.  The Four Deuces (talk) 11:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I made a small change to your good edit: there is nothing "modern" about the idea that the government can and should promote the general welfare. That idea goes by at least to Roman times, and is probably as old as civilization. It has been an important part of liberalism from the days when liberalism first took that name, and before. Solon was a liberal! Rick Norwood (talk) 11:51, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The Constitution doesn't say that the purpose of government is to promote the general welfare. It says that the purpose of the Constitution is to promote the general welfare. It does this by placing limitations on government. Introman (talk) 20:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I would also mention that John Kennedy is generally seen as having been a liberal and considering that he became the American president and made a lengthy speech about liberalism, his views on the subject are worth mentioning. Is there any reason why they should be omitted? The Four Deuces (talk) 11:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The Kennedy quote is back. I don't know why it was removed.


 * Does liberalism really favor the welfare state? I know that there is a reference that says that, but I'm not sure it is a mainstream view. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course it's a mainstream view. It's largely what defines modern liberalism. Every modern liberal supports a welfare state. Introman (talk) 20:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * American liberals introduced some welfare programs during the New Deal and the Great Society but America never became a welfare state and it was never liberal ideology that it should become one. Social welfare policies were accepted by both liberals and conservatives although they were rolled back by Bill Clinton.  So the statement "Every modern liberal supports a welfare state" is confusing.  What is a "welfare state"?  Why should we draw attention to the fact that American liberals support policies such as Social Security while ignoring the fact that American conservatives also support them?  The Four Deuces (talk) 01:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What do you mean American never became a welfare state? It's a welfare state right now. A welfare state is type of mixed economy. It's a state that contains programs where the government moves wealth from those who work to that don't, or from those who earned it to those who didn't. If Clinton rolled back welfare, then he wasn't doing something liberal, but conservative. If what you call a conservative is for social security, then he's not fully conservative. The more conservative you are, the more you would be pushing to privatize it. Most people are not purely liberal or conservative, but a mix of the ideologies. "Liberal" and "conservative" are ideals. Introman (talk) 04:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I removed Kennedy quote because it was placed in the lead. Per WP:LEAD, the lead section should provide a concise overview of the article. -- Vision Thing -- 13:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Introman: You should listen to what The Four Deuces said. The phrase "welfare state" can mean anything from a state where all industry is owned by the government to a state where the government supplies hot lunches to schoolchildren.  Liberals and conservatives alike support school lunch programs.  The main difference is that conservatives think ketchup is a vegetable.


 * The fundamental belief of liberals is freedom. The idea that the fundamental belief of liberals is to take money away from people who work for a living and give it to people who are too lazy to work is a conservative lie.  It has never been true either in liberal philosophy or in practice.  The fundamental belief of conservatives is God and country and the preservation of the class structure.  The idea that most conservatives are libertarians, or that libertarian ideas are conservative, ignores the actual meaning of the words.


 * Vision_Thing: The Kennedy quote provides a concise overview of liberalism, which is the subject of the artcle.

Rick Norwood (talk) 14:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Whether they "like" to do it is another question, but the fact is they support moving wealth from those that are working to those that are not working or from those who earned it to those that didn't. They support a welfare state. That's essential to modern liberalism. It's also called "welfare liberalism," you know? Introman (talk) 16:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Quote doesn't provide a concise overview of this article. It provides opinion of one man, who is not considered specialist on this issue, on what is liberalism. -- Vision Thing -- 14:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Introman: This article is not the place for right-wing propaganda. Liberalism is called "welfare liberalism" in Republican propaganda, not by any real liberal. If you want to end aid to families with dependent children and unemployment insurance, hire a hall. This isn't the place to debate. The essential part of liberalism, modern or ancient, is freedom.

Vision_Thing: The Kennedy quote is an eloquent statement of what liberalism is all about. We could find an academic source that said the same thing, but it probably wouldn't be as well written.

Rick Norwood (talk) 14:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually calling it welfare liberalism came from the welfare liberals like Roosevelt. They make no bones about being in favor of a welfare state. I don't know but you seem to be a modern liberal that's embarrassed about what other modern liberals are proud of. But nevertheless, it's well documented. Introman (talk) 20:34, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Where are you getting this information from? The Four Deuces (talk) 21:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That modern liberals are proud of being welfare statists? Here's a quote from the modern liberal Paul Krugman: "It was, in a way, strange for me to be part of the Reagan Administration. I was then and still am an unabashed defender of the welfare state, which I regard as the most decent social arrangement yet devised." See the Paul Krugman article for the source. Introman (talk) 21:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You said calling it welfare liberalism came from the welfare liberals like Roosevelt. What is your source for that?  Where did Roosevelt use the term welfare liberal?  The Four Deuces (talk) 21:34, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * He used the term "welfare" to describe what he supported. That's why his brand of liberalism is called welfare liberalism. I don't have a source off hand of him using the term "welfare." It was very common when this type of liberalism developed. Introman (talk) 21:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

(out)I suggest to that Roosevelt never used the term welfare to described what he supported, never used the term welfare liberalism, and that his brand of liberalism is not called welfare liberalism. I am interested to know where you get this information. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you're asking. If you're asking me for a source for Roosevelt using the term "welfare" I told you I don't have one off hand, and I'm not interesting in looking for one because that's not claimed in the article. But "welfare liberalism" is sourced for the American brand of modern liberalism. You didn't see the source I added? Introman (talk) 22:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The source refers to the vision gradually evolving out ot the various. largely ad hoc, policies of the New Deal, which we will term Welfare Liberalism. (p. 257) In other words, it is a neologism and refers to a specific debate about the role of government and is not used to describe the overall ideology of modern American liberalism.  So the first sentence in the lead which begins Modern liberalism in the United States, also referred to as American liberalism and Welfare Liberalism is false and misleading.  Please tell me where you are getting your information.  The Four Deuces (talk) 22:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, the reason I put that source is because I think that is where the term was first coined. That book is from 1985. The term "welfare liberalism" is widespread since then. It's not a neologism. What do you mean tell you where I'm getting my information? What are you asking me? Introman (talk) 23:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Your thought that the word welfare liberalism was first coined in 1985 is false. It has been used before.  The use of the term "welfare liberalism" is not widespread and in any case does not refer to the ideology of modern American liberalism.  A neologism is is a newly coined word.  I used the term because Bellah said  which we will term Welfare Liberalism.
 * I asked you where you were getting your information because you made assertions for which you did not provide sources and do not conform with mainstream usage. Specifically, welfare liberalism is not a synonym for modern American liberalism, and is not a generally used term.
 * The Four Deuces (talk) 23:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm giving sources for what I put in the article. It certainly is a synonym for American modern liberalism and in common usage. I've given two sources so far for the usage. How many sources is it going to take to convince you? Introman (talk) 23:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You have added another source but it is not helpful. It clearly distinguishes between political and economic liberalism and uses the term welfare liberalism to refer to economics.  Find me a source that says Modern American liberalism is referred to as Welfare liberalism.  I watched the last US election and never heard the term used.  Do you understand that politics and economics are different?  Do you think modern American liberals have no opinions on foreign policy, social policy or justice policy, and that their only policies relate to the economy?  The Four Deuces (talk) 00:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no need to find a statement that says verbatim "Modern American liberalism is referred to as Welfare liberalism." All that is needed are sources that indicate that they're using the term "welfare liberalism" to refer to American modern liberalism. Of course I understand that politics and economics are different. American modern liberal and conservatives don't have much difference on foreign policy. The conservative philosophy is non-intervention in other counties. That's the "conservative approach, not to use resources defending non-Americans in far away wars and not to "nation build." But in practice those called conservatives send the military overseas as much as liberals do. There is no real distinctive "liberal" or "conservative" foreign policy. On social policy, both liberals and conservatives say they're for liberty. The most substantial difference is in economic policy. American modern liberals believe it should be the government's responsibility to help people economically, whereas classical liberals believes in non-reliance on government with people helping each other voluntarily through charity. Economic policy is basically what defines modern liberals. Introman (talk) 00:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

(out)You have now added a third source, Encyclopedia of American Government (1998), p. 415. This page makes no mention of "welfare liberalism". In fact no where in the book does it say modern American liberalism is called "welfare liberalism". Please note that none of the sources you have provided support your edit to the opening sentence of the lead. Again, could you please tell me where you are getting your information.

Yes there is a need to find a statement that says "Modern American liberalism is referred to as Welfare liberalism." Please read WP:NOR. Whether the only difference between American liberals and conservatives is welfare policy is irrelevant. This article is not a comparison of liberals and conservatives.

The Four Deuces (talk) 00:44, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, was a typo. That should be page 453, not 415. I'm glad you saw that. All my sources support what I'm saying. I'm about to add another one. It says "In the United States the move of classical liberalism into the conservative camp was largely a reaction to the emergence of welfare liberalism, an important strand of modern liberalism..." It's saying the American strand of modern liberalism is "welfare liberalism." You're being really unreasonable trying to demand a verbatim statement saying "Modern American liberalism is referred to as Welfare liberalism." If we can see that the source is referring to it as "welfare liberalism" then we can say sources refer to it as welfare liberalism. That's not original research by any stretch of the imagination. Introman (talk) 00:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Introman, please read what you wrote, welfare liberalism [is] an important strand of modern liberalism. It does not say the source is referring to it as welfare liberalism.  Do you understand that these statements differ?  One may for example have a strand of intelligence but that does not make one a genius.  You also wrote The conservative philosophy is non-intervention in other counties (sic).  The reality is that modern American conservatives voted to invade Iraq twice, while American liberals opposed both wars.  But there are other issues as well:  Roe v. Wade and the culture wars are examples.  BTW, where are you getting your information?  The Four Deuces (talk) 04:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't write "welfare liberalism [is] an important strand of modern liberalism." You're misquoting me. And what is conservative about invading Iraq? Where in conservative philosophy does it say that? Bush ran on a campaign promising a "humble foreign policy" and against "nation building." That's conservativism. Just because he didn't do what he said, that doesn't change the philosophy of conservativism. It just means he didn't abide by the conservative philosophy. So-called liberals supported Clinton's invasions of foreign countries. Introman (talk) 05:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not misquoting you. The specific passage you quoted says In the United States the move of classical liberalism into the conservative camp was largely a reaction to the emergence of welfare liberalism, an important strand of modern liberalism ... (my emphasis)
 * The quote is not from me, but from that book. It's hard to follow you. What's your point here? It clearly points out that in the U.S., welfare liberalism is an strand of modern liberalism. You're disputing that it says that or what? Introman (talk) 21:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The fact that Bush may have broken his campaign promises does not mean that there are no differences between liberals and conservatives in non-economic matters. (The fact remains that ordinary conservatives in the US overwhelmingly supported the war and liberals mostly opposed it.  This cannot be explained on the basis of partisan politics.)  Liberals and conservatives also differ on immigration, education, school prayer, affirmative action, same sex marriage, law and order, abortion, censorship, gun control, global warming, etc.  So the idea that the defining difference between American liberals and conservatives is policy on welfare programs is false.  The Four Deuces (talk) 13:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Your problem here is your not realizing that conservatism and liberalism are PHILOSOPHIES. You can't just pick out people and say they're "conservatives" and then look at whatever they do and say that that's conservatism. It's not that easy. Conservatism and liberalism are PHILOSOPHIES. Everything Bush did is not consistent with conservativism. Not only did he engage in nation building and interventionism, which is not conservative, but he expanded the welfare state and increased spending. That doesn't make those things conservative. Likewise not everything Clinton did is not consistent with modern liberalism. Clinton did many conservative things. Introman (talk) 21:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You are correct that conservatism and liberalism are philosophies (more accurately ideologies) which is why it is an error to identify either one with economic ideas only, viz. "Welfare Liberalism". I said above the term refers to a specific debate about the role of government and is not used to describe the overall ideology of modern American liberalism.  Nation-building and interventionism btw are entirely consistent with conservatism, its called imperialism.  The British Empire in 1776 and the German Empire in 1914 were both governed by conservatives and were interventionist.  Furthermore, it is a principle of conservatism to protect established wealth.


 * Again may I ask where you are getting your information? Where for example did you find your definition of conservatism
 * What's conservative in one country may not be conservative in another. It can't be translated across countries like that unless they have similar foundations. A conservative can be a hard-line communist, depending on what country you're talking about. It depends on what's being conserved. Introman (talk) 22:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The Four Deuces (talk) 22:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you're confusing neoconservatism with conservatism. "Welfare liberalism" is one name for American modern liberalism. Maybe you're right that it's not a good enough name for it, that's not for us to decide, but it actually is a name for it that's pretty common. It's sourcd and I can keep on adding sources, because they're abundant. Introman (talk) 22:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

(out)Perhaps you could unconfuse me. Where did you get your definition of conservatism? The Four Deuces (talk) 22:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't get from any one particular source. I'm just recalling from the sum of what I've learned in my studies in political philosophy. I couldn't point you to a particular book or page number off hand. Doesn't matter, because it's not in the article so I don't need to cite it. Introman (talk) 22:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I asked about your definition of conservatism because you have used the term extensively and even inserted the term into the article. The fact that you cannot find a source that agrees with your understanding of the term is a good reason you should not insert the term into the article.  I appreciate that it is no longer there.
 * The Four Deuces (talk) 23:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course I can find a source that agrees with my understanding. I just don't want to look for one, because it would serve no purpose. I haven't inserted a definition of conservatism in the article. The term is inserted in the article and it's sourced for what it says. It's not a defintiion. Introman (talk) 23:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't seem proper to have that Kennedy quote in the lead. For one, it's an argument. The person seems to be arguing that he's not a liberal as it is ordinarily understood. It's a self description. And he's clearly referring spefically to HIS liberalism, not liberalism in general. I think a definition should be from a secondary or tertiary source. 23:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Introman (talk • contribs)
 * It is alright to report primary sources where people describe their opinions provided it is presented as their opinion. Kennedy is a proper source because he was a liberal who was the Democratic president of the US and gave an extensive speech on liberalism.  The Four Deuces (talk) 23:55, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually it still is in the lead: The ideology of American modern liberals differs from that called "liberalism" in continental Europe, which more closely remembles the economic ideology of American conservatives.  In fact that statement is in error.  European liberals do not support the same social policies as American conservatives.  The Four Deuces (talk) 00:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it is not proper to do so in the intro, especially to give it so much prominence. Introman (talk) 00:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I never said the term conservativism it wasn't in the lead. I said it's not a definition. And it's not your call whether the statement is in error. It's sourced. That's all that matters. Moreover, it doesn't even say that the philosophies are identical, but that it more closely resembles American conservatism than American modern liberalism. For your own edification, "liberalism" in Europe never really changed meaning as it did in the U.S. It still basically classical liberalism. In Europe, what we call modern liberalism here they call by other names such as social democracy and socialism. Introman (talk) 00:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * In fact the source given for the discussion of American conservatism in the lead makes no comparison between American conservatism and European liberalism. And it does not belong in the lead section of an article about American liberalism.  Furthermore it is a tertiary source.  (See WP:RS.)  Furthermore the statement "liberalism" in Europe never really changed meaning as it did in the U.S. is only partially true, and would need explanation that is outside the scope of the article.  The Four Deuces (talk) 00:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you caught that. The older version of that article did say it was more similar to "conservatism." It is sourced from an older version, cited in 2006. The article has apparently been revised since then. The new version says "In the United States liberalism is associated with the welfare-state policies of the New Deal program of the Democratic administration of Pres. Franklin D. Roosevelt, whereas in Europe it is more commonly associated with a commitment to limited government and laissez-faire economic policies." The last part of that sentence has been revised. I did see the older version and it said "conservative." If you'll note, limited government and laissez-faire economics is exactly what conservative philosophy advocates. Introman (talk) 01:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * So what if it is a tertiary source? That's better for intros than secondary sources. There's no rule against using tertiary sources. 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. " The intro is exactly the place for overview and summary. Introman (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC).

(out)I have set up an RfC in the next section. The Four Deuces (talk) 06:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Welfare liberalism
Is it a neutral point of view to state in the first sentence of the article Modern liberalism in the United States that it is Welfare Liberalism? The Four Deuces (talk) 05:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Although there are four sources in the lead for use of the term "Welfare Liberalism", none of them state that this term describes modern American liberalism, or that it is a commonly used term.  The disputed opening sentence is "Modern liberalism in the United States is a strand of modern liberalism sometimes referred to as simply modern liberalism, contemporary liberalism, Welfare Liberalism, American liberalism, or simply liberalism".  The Four Deuces (talk) 06:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes it's NPOV because it's not making a value judgement. It's just pointing out one of the terms used to refer to contemporary liberalism. And contrary to the claim above, it is sourced. It would be POV for someone to remove it because they didn't like the term. Note that the poster above is not contesting the other alternative term, "contemporary liberalism" and it is less sourced. As for how common, the term is, that's easily verified by doing Google searches. Introman (talk) 07:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Liberalism published by Cambridge University Press (ISBN 9780521703055) states the following: "The latter parts of that century [19th] saw the emergence of another kind of liberalism. Let us call it "welfare liberalism" or "egalitarian liberalism." In one form or another, it is this that gets the name "liberalism" in ordinary political discourse in the United States today." This is a high quality source that should be used to further improve the article. -- Vision Thing -- 08:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Wondering which of the various books with the title “Liberalism” this might be, I checked and found it to be Liberalism: Old and New, edited by Ellen Frankel Paul, Fred D. Miller, and Jeffrey Paul. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 15:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * “Welfare liberalism”, if anything, leans in favor of it, allowing it to hold onto the label “liberalism” in spite of a problematic claim to a descent from what was earlier called “liberalism”. It might be better to refer to it as a variety of social democratism. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 15:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the way it's put now is somewhat neutral, but the wording needs improvement. The sources cited in the lead for this term should be cited in the main body instead, where it should describe the characteristics of modern liberalism that persuade experts to call it welfare liberalism. You can't just say, "It's been called welfare liberalism" without explaining why it's been called that. Everything in the lead should be explained in more detail in the main body of the article, and that's where the sources should be. Only when that happens can a statement in the lead be completely neutral. Tim  meh  ( review me ) 15:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * RfC comment. As long as it is sourced, and it seems it is, it is acceptable to report that this is something that it is called. However, the lead sentence, as currently written, is problematic in this regard. First, the sentence uses the word "simply" twice, which (aside from being bad writing) does not make sense the first time it is used, but does make sense the second time. Within that first time, the sentence conflates neutral terms, such as "contemporary liberalism," with "Welfare Liberalism," which is a subjectively evaluative term. How about pulling "Welfare Liberalism" out of the first sentence, and giving it a second sentence, where it can be characterized more correctly as a view of what modern U.S. liberalism consists of, rather than implying that it is "simply" an alternative way of saying the same thing? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:21, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Having read the two very astute comments following my own, I want to modify what I originally said. I still think that it needs to be pulled out of the first sentence, and I still think that it can be used in the lead. However, I now feel more strongly that it has to be explained, as a term that is used, but that is not inherently neutral. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:27, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * But it is inherently neutral. It's not a positive nor derogatory term. Introman (talk) 17:37, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * But per the two comments below, it can be, and is, understood otherwise. I'm not arguing for censoring it, just for explaining it. Nothing wrong with saying it is sometimes used neutrally, and sometimes used pejoratively. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:47, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The term "welfare", used in this context is Loaded language. I think that even if that term is properly sourced, using the term is not WP:NPOV since in some circles 'welfare' is a code word for 'socialism' or even anti-capitalism. The word "welfare" is likely to be confused the government program, when its intended meaning seems to be the literal definition: "well being". MichaelLNorth (talk) 19:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

This is illustrated by the recent town hall debates, where speakers clearly think that "welfare liberals" want to take away their medicare, or that "welfare liberals" want to make America into a communist state. There was also the man in Tennessee who killed several Unitarians because they were "socialists", and because he was angry that his social security check was late. If Wikipedia uses these words in the same way they are used by the conservatives on Fox News, then people who turn to Wikipedia for information are going to read these words that way. In short, they read "liberal" to mean Godless communist, "welfare" to mean Godless communist, "socialist" to mean Godless communist, and "left-wing" to mean Godless communist. To avoid this reading, we should avoid code words, and spell out what liberals really believe, using respected academic sources. A professor may (some do in the examples in the footnotes) use "welfare liberalism" in an academic paper, trusting other academics to understand the phrase in its dictionary meaning. But Wikipedia should strive to be understood by academics and non-academics alike. Rick Norwood (talk) 11:57, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It's standard in all Wikipedia articles to list the synonyms. It's extremely POV of you to want to censor "welfare liberalism" as one of them. "Welfare liberalism" is used in many sources to refer to the American version of modern liberalism. Apparently "welfare" means something negative to you but you shouldn't let your POV interfere. It's not a negative term for a lot of other people. Aren't you the one that put the quote from the Constitution about "general welfare" in to specifically refer to American modern liberalism? Why do you like the term "welfare" there, but not like it in the term "welfare liberalism?" Introman (talk) 17:46, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Introman, the term "welfare liberalism" has a specific meaning. It refers to policies concerning the welfare state and does not refer to a specific ideology.  There are no political parties called the "Welfare Liberal Party".  People do not demonstate with signs saying "Up with Welfare Liberalism".  People do not appear on Fox News to defend "Welfare Liberalism".  You may believe that there is a group of "welfare liberals" who want to set up "death panels" like in Canada and the UK where they have "no respect for human life", where people like Stephen Hawking would be dead, but that is a minority view.  Incidentally I did not put in the quote from the American constitution about the term "general welfare" and wonder why you thought I did.  The Four Deuces (talk) 06:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not interested in a political debate with you. I'm interested in improving the article. And what do you mean I thought you put the "general welfare" in the article? Are you and Rick Norwood the same people? Introman (talk) 07:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Introman, you may already know this, but in the interest of assuming good faith, there are certain terms that bring a POV along with them, and thus are themselves POV. For example, if I called you "red" in the 1970s, I would be calling you a communist, not describing your pigment. This is a clear case of Loaded language, and I can see no reason to use it unless the goal is to sneak in a POV. Obviously, it is especially important not to sneak in a POV in the first sentence of an article. MichaelLNorth (talk) 03:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If there are welfare liberals themselves calling it welfare liberalism, and welfare liberals themselves such as Paul Krugman says: "It was, in a way, strange for me to be part of the Reagan Administration. I was then and still am an unabashed defender of the welfare state, which I regard as the most decent social arrangement yet devised," then I don't understand on what basis you're saying it's POV. It's not POV to point out that they support a welfare state, because they DO. Introman (talk) 03:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Introman, first of all it its WP:OR to describe modern American liberals based on the statements of Paul Krugman.  He is not the liberal Rush Limbaugh - he is not the leader of the liberal party of the United States.  Also, you have taken his comments entirely out of context.  He was defending his employment in the Reagan administration which btw is not normally called "welfare liberal".  Also, it is OR to synthesize a term for an ideology based on one aspect.  George W. Bush did not support "pro-war conservatism", Ron Paul did not support "pro-drugs conservatism", John McCain did not support "pro-adultery conservatism".  The Four Deuces (talk) 07:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Why can't you understand that talking here does not constitute "original research"? The rules against original research apply to the ARTICLE, not the talk page. You continually calling up rules that apply to the article rather than talk page doesn't make sense. Krugman is not used as a source in the article for "welfare liberalism." Here, we're just TALKING in order to try to educate each other and find some common ground in order to move forward with editing the article in a sensible way. Introman (talk) 07:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's fine to say that you believe that modern liberals in the United States call themselves welfare liberals because Paul Krugman defended the welfare state. However the specific purpose of this RfC is to determine whether modern liberal in the United States should be called welfare liberals.  It is not helpful to provide an opinion that cannot provide any basis for determining this issue.  The Four Deuces (talk) 07:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's your opinion that my opinion cannot provide any basis for determining this issue. I think it can. It's really odd for you to say this even, because you state your opinions all the time when you disagree with my opinions. You call my opinions original research, but you feel fine stating your own opinions here without presenting sources. Introman (talk) 07:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What I am saying is that if you want to insert your opinions into the article then you must support them according to WP policies, which includes NOR. You said I feel fine stating my own opinions here without presenting sources but I have not suggested inserting my opinions into the article as you have.  The Four Deuces (talk) 07:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I never said I wanted to insert my opinions in the article. So there's no need to present any sources for them. Introman (talk) 07:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I put the quote from the constitution in the article to show that the idea of a government looking after the welfare (meaning well being) of its citizens was not a new idea, and as one way of dealing with the efforts of some to paint liberals as people who want to take money away from hardworking people and give money away to lazy, good-for-nothing bums. You've expressed that view of liberalism several times, Introman, but you have never found a single liberal who actually says that. You have found a small number of liberal authors who use the phrase "welfare liberalism", but none of the major sources I've found -- standard dictionaries and encyclopedias -- use that phrase to describe liberalism. And the phrase "welfare liberalism" is apt to be misunderstood, as I've pointed out more than once. If you are really interested in improving the article, you'll stop using it to put forward minority views. I'm putting together a number of quotes from standard sources on which I think this and other articles on politics should be based. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The term "welfare liberalism," though it has acquired a somewhat pejorative tone in recent years, I think should stay because it has been described as such. The issue is a hard one, and it may be necessary to use a footnote or something similar to maintain balance. Ngchen (talk) 15:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Liberals as "anti-socialist" - restored and amplified
I have reverted Vision Thing's deletion of a paragraph saying that liberalism is generally anti-socialist. His reason was not that that passage was wrong, but that the cited source was too old. His deletion was a clear violation of WP:PRESERVE, considering that the statement made was not only true when the cited source made it, but has arguably become even stronger over time.

In fact, if there's anything notable vis-a-vis modern American liberalism's position with regard to socialism, it would be a further leaning away from socialism -- especially in the post-Cold War period -- and toward ever greater marketizations for solving problems that were considered by liberal economists, policy architects and politicians in the 1950s as being within the bailiwick of Big Government. Whatever the more recent fluctuations in this ideological trend, it should be noted as such, and supported with citations. I've mentioned Thomas Friedman (free trader), Paul Krugman (free trader, advocate of inflation targeting as better than more interventionist fiscal stimulus for liquidity traps, opponent of rent control, and more), and that Keynes was not nearly as interventionist as some of his followers, with whom he argued openly. One could perhaps add most of Obama's current economic advisors.

John Kenneth Galbraith's "Convergence" theory -- that the Communist nations would move ever more toward market reforms, the mixed-economy nations toward more direct government command of the economy -- is basically dead. And that's assuming it was ever alive as anything more than an idle intellectual entertainment for American liberals. (Don't get me wrong, here -- I am one.) Yakushima (talk) 06:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for a good edit. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well done. The Four Deuces (talk) 14:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The importance of getting references correct.
A recent editor badly mangled the names of the authors of his reference. I corrected that, and also brought the statement in line with what the reference says. This editor disagreed about what I believe the reference said, but instead of going to the trouble of changing the text, he simply reverted, restoring the mangled authors names. I'm going to remove the sentence until he can at least be bothered to get the names right. Then we can discuss what the reference says. Rick Norwood (talk) 20:58, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You did not bring the statement in line with what the reference says. On articles regarding liberalism, you keep doing this in regard to classical liberalism. You put in articles that the source is talking "modern classical liberals" whatever that is, when the source makes is simply talking about "classical liberals" period. You're misrepresenting sources, like you have done in the classical liberalism intro. Introman (talk) 21:15, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

You repeatedly claim without evidence that when an author says that the modern liberals who call themselves "classical liberals" have a certain belief, that is evidence that the liberals of the 17th and 18th century shared that belief, and vice versa. You claim without evidence that these beliefs are the same. Evidence is needed. Rick Norwood (talk) 21:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * No such claim is being made in information I put in articles. Classical liberalism is classical liberalism. It's the philosophy of the liberals prior to the advent of modern liberalism. Someone who calls himself a classical liberal today may or may not share that philosophy. If not, then he's not a classical liberal but is just calling himself one. Now lets go back to what the source say. Contrary to your claim, the source does not differentiate between you call "modern classical liberals" and just regular "classical liberals." So stop misrepresenting sources. Introman (talk) 21:58, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Below is Introman's claim and the reference he provides as evidence for that claim.

Introman's claim "unlike the classical liberals, such as Adam Smith, who also wanted to advanced human welfare but believed that this was best achieved by minimizing government intervention and leaving individuals free to pursue only their own self interest."

Introman really should try not to write so rapidly that he makes obvious mistakes in grammar, such as the one above, but everybody makes mistakes, so I'll only ask that he correct it.

Introman's reference 1: "Gaus. Gerald F. Why All Welfare States (Including Laissez-Faire Ones) are Unreasonable. Problems with Market Liberalism. Eds. Ellen Frankel Paul, Fred D. Miller Jr. & Jeffrey Paul. University of Cambridge, 1998. pp. 1-2"

Introman's reference 2: "Razeen Sally, Classical Liberalism and International Economic Order: Studies in Theory and Intellectual History (London: Routledge, 1998), 17 (ISBN 0-415-16493-1)."

Reference 1 does not mention Adam Smith on pages 1 or 2,

Reference 2 says on page 17 that Adam Smith believed that man should be free to pursue his own interests "as long as he says within the limits of the law". It does not mention "minimizing government intervention", though clearly Smith would object to government telling people what interests they ought to pursue, as would any liberal.

In the interest of compromise, I suggest the following formulation.

"Some liberals believe that the best way to promote the general welfare is to minimize government intervention in the economy."

On another topic, there is an interesting statement on page 18 of the second reference which is relevant to the claims in the article Classical liberalism. "Adam Smith and David Hume do not think of man as a rational utility-maximizer." "Classical liberalism takes man to be largely irrational, governed by his passions, not his reason." I trust Introman will want to modify the article on classical liberalism accordingly. Rick Norwood (talk) 22:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Hearing no objection, I'm going to put the compromise suggested above into the article. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:34, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Where are you saying there's a grammatical error in the portion of the sentence: "unlike the classical liberals, such as Adam Smith, who also wanted to advanced human welfare but believed that this was best achieved by minimizing government intervention and leaving individuals free to pursue only their own self interest." ? Introman (talk) 17:15, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Contrary to your claim, the Razeen source does indeed mention minimizing government intervention. It says "Hence the normative core of classical liberalism is the approbation of economic freedom or laissez-faire—Adam Smith's 'obvious and simple system of natural liberty'—out of which spontaneously emerges a vast and intricate system of cooperation in exchanging goods and services and catering for a plenitude of wants." What do you think laissez-faire refers to? Introman (talk) 17:15, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know why you're bringing up the "utility-maximizer" stuff. Introman (talk) 17:15, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Why do you object to the sentence saying that classical liberals believe that the government should leave people alone to pursue their own self interest? That's basic to Adam Smith and it's in the source that that is the classical liberal philosophy. Introman (talk) 17:15, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

"America was founded as a liberal nation"
I find this sentence to be awfully pejorative and in violation of NPOV. Such a statement implies that the nation as a whole favors a particular ideology. Therefore, I will temporarily be removing it. Crim12 (talk) 14:39, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The sentence is referenced. And yes, almost all Americans believe in the liberal principles on which America was founded: freedom, and government by the consent of the people.  Some conservatives would say that American liberalism has taken a wrong turn, in extending freedom to non-Christians, Hispanics, women, and homosexuals, and in providing welfare for the poor, but most conservatives agree with the liberal principles on which America was founded, as laid out in the Declaration of Independence, The Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.


 * Thanks for correcting the grammar and spelling.

Rick Norwood (talk) 15:27, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

America was founded as a liberal nation if you're using the term in it's original meaning. That's back when "liberalism" it referred to a philosophy of minimal government intervention in the private and economic sphere. That's why the American Constitution was drafted, to protect freedom. But it does cause confusion because it seems to be equating "liberalism" with "modern liberalism." Introman (talk) 17:21, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, the term here is used with its original meaning. As you know, we disagree about what that original meaning was, but whatever it was, that is the meaning intended here. Rick Norwood (talk) 17:33, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Lead section
Various recent disputes have led to the lede becoming confusing, with a lot of trivial information as well as dubious synonyms. I am tempted to revert the lead to a version before all these edits began, like this one from June 11th. However I would like some input on this. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:13, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Certainly the older version is better than what we have now. At some point (after we get Liberalism in good order?) attention must be paid to this article, using referenced sources.  I also think there are too many articles on Liberalism: Liberalism, Social Liberalism, Liberalism in the United States, Modern Liberalism in the United States.  Introman moves from one to the other, trying to get Wikipedia to say that real liberalism is what he calls Classical Liberalism, by which he means that property rights are paramount. Rick Norwood (talk) 23:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

synonyms
Just because someone calls Liberalism "Welfare Liberalism" doesn't make it so. The lede, especially the part of the lede that defines the word, is a place for exact, generally accepted synonyms, not for things somebody called the subject at some time. As for "social liberalism", that is a phrase that has too many disputed meanings to go into in the lede. According to Wikipedia (as of today) "social liberalism" is a synonym for Libertarianism, but that is not how the references use the phrase.

Introman has for months now made a large number of very hasty and error filled edits to the ledes of many articles, all changing the ledes to reflect a Libertarian POV. He has stated that he has no interest in editing any part of an article other than the lede. When people point out his errors, he accuses them of nitpicking, and when they try to make the articles reflect standard sources, he accuses them of POV. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I have another question about the first sentence (or about the title). Is this considered a descriptive title?  The reason I'm asking is that titles that describe their subject, rather than name it, need not be placed in boldface font in the first sentence, according to WP:BOLDFACE.  Sorry if I'm going a little off-topic here. <span style="font-family:Frankenstein SF, Luftwaffe, Fraktur Plain, Fraktur, Old English Text MT; font-size:large;">Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 14:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I was unaware of this convention. Thank you for calling attention to it. I have changed the lede accordingly. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I also agree with the change for the reasons given. The Four Deuces (talk) 03:51, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree, and have been wanting to change that but was afraid if I did it would have been reverted by a couple people on here who revert pretty much everything I do seemingly just because *I* was the one who wanted it. But "modern liberalism" itself should be boldfaced because it's a term. Introman (talk) 03:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I might tend to agree with the idea of leaving modern liberalism in boldface, but then it also appears as modern liberalism (linked) in the first sentence, so I think the boldface is somewhat repetitive. I was thinking of maybe rewording the first sentence thus:
 * The United States form of modern liberalism arose from progressive ideals such as Thomas Paine's asset-based egalitarianism, Theodore Roosevelt's New Nationalism, Woodrow Wilson's New Freedom, and Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal.
 * No boldface and no italics. I think that eliminates redundencies without muddying the waters too much.  What do you think? <span style="font-family:Frankenstein SF, Luftwaffe, Fraktur Plain, Fraktur, Old English Text MT; font-size:large;">Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 04:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Excellent, dude. Introman (talk) 04:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright dude! But seriously, back to the question about the "synonyms" I think the terms "welfare liberalism" and "social liberalism" are somewhat problematic in and of themselves, and their application here as "synonyms" would be misleading, confusing, and favoring a partisan POV. That's my thought on these particular terms. <span style="font-family:Frankenstein SF, Luftwaffe, Fraktur Plain, Fraktur, Old English Text MT; font-size:large;">Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 06:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Introman: If there is any way I can avoid it, I do not revert your edits or anyone elses. In the past few minutes, I've looked at several of your edits, and had no inclination to change any of them. Your edits would not be reverted so often if you wrote more carefully and less dogmatically.

Wilhelm_meis: To my ear, "The American form of modern liberalism..." sounds better than "The United States form of modern liberalism..." Purely a question of style. Does anyone else have an opinion on this? Rick Norwood (talk) 12:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Either "The American form of modern liberalism..." or "Modern American Liberalism..." sounds good to me. I personally tend to frequently use American to describe people/things from the US.  I often seem to encounter people from points south, however, who want to claim American is ambiguous because (in their view) it refers to Canada, Chile, and everything in between.  I personally view this argument as preposterous because the word American, unless its context indicates otherwise, is almost always understood to mean "of the United States".  So I say go for it, but don't be surprised if you hear some whining about it sooner or later. <span style="font-family:Frankenstein SF, Luftwaffe, Fraktur Plain, Fraktur, Old English Text MT; font-size:large;">Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 03:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I question whether it is right to describe it as a form of modern liberalism, rather than a modern form of liberalism. See Richardson Contending liberalisms in world politics.  Modern liberalism is often used to mean social liberalism which is usually seen as being only one of several influences on modern American liberalism.  The Four Deuces (talk) 13:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

So, how about "Modern American Liberalism..."

And do we really need two articles, Liberalism in the United States and Modern liberalism in the United States, or should these articles be combined? Rick Norwood (talk) 13:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That sounds better. I think there is a need for two articles.  One is about the major ideology in the US, while the other is about people who today are called liberals, as opposed to conservatives.  The problem with this article's subject is that there is no agreement on what modern American liberalism is.  (This article should not give much coverage to American conservatism because that already has its own article.)  The best we can do is present the different theories.  BTW I was reading an interesting comparison of the American, Canadian and European political spectrum by Gad Horowitz from 1966.  He was influenced by Hartz and his theories were used by the U.S. National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence.  In the article he compares  US liberalism with modern liberalism in other countries and notes that American liberals are different:  they are more radical and democratic, yet less likely to intervene in the economy, that they are on the left of their country's spectrum, while modern liberals are in the centre.  The Four Deuces (talk) 15:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Liberal constitution
An editor has deleted the followed sentence from the lead with the notation (please explain how the edits have a conservative POV. Your additions have an incessant bias):
 * America was founded as a liberal nation, and the preamble to the Constitution of the United States includes the clause stating that the purpose of establishing the Constitution was to "promote the general Welfare, and secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity".

Please note that there has been considerable discussion on this matter in the talk page above. The editor has not provided an adequate reason for removing the section. I would ask that he provide reasons for removing the sentence and discuss the issue rather than merely revert. Please read the policy WP:BRD.

The Four Deuces (talk) 23:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Rick has not responded in months.
Since I posted here on September 15, and try to answer every question I am asked, your suggestion that I am unresponsive puzzles me. But let that be. The question is not why I want it in, the question is why you want to take it out. The sections you deleted are true. They are referenced. And they are relevant to the topic at hand. Why should relevant, referenced, information be removed from the article? Rick Norwood (talk) 19:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

But apparently true, on topic, and referenced is not enough, because the material has been deleted again, with no comment except that the person who deleted it is "tired". Do we delete referenced material because we are tired, now? Rick Norwood (talk) 19:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No, but some are getting rather frustrated with you and Four Deuces constantly arguing that this is "factual" when it's clearly a very POV addition. Very little effort is put into differentiating between modern liberalism and classical liberalism. Whether you want to agree to or it or not, such a difference exists and is not reflected well in the article. For instance:

America was founded as a liberal nation, and the preamble to the Constitution of the United States includes the clause stating that the purpose of establishing the Constitution was to "promote the general Welfare, and secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity".

This is about modern liberalism, not classical. To compare the two would be like comparing night and day. Many of those so called "liberals" were rather aristocratic. For such a liberal constitution it certainly started out pretty elitist (ppl only allowed to vote on 1 house of Congress) and besides, the statement is uncited. This is just one example of what comes across as POV pushing and non-attempts at neutrality. Soxwon (talk) 19:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You say that modern liberalism and classical liberalism are as different as night and day, but the references say otherwise. You have not offered any references to support your point of view.  We have offered numerous references to support ours.  The question here is this: should what goes into Wikipedia decided by what standard reference works say, or should it be decided by who reverts most often.

The article mentions ways in which modern liberalism has changed over time, but also mentions, and starts by mentioning, that modern liberalism is still liberalism.

Now, you seem to be saying that 1) this article is about modern liberalism and the constitution is about classical liberalism and they are as different as night and day so we must not mention the constitution. 2) That the framers of the constitution were not classical liberals because they were too aristocratic. Do you see the contradiction?

We provide references. You do not. Please either provide a reference for your point of view, or stop deleting true, relevant, referenced material. You have yet to offer a single example of anything you have removed that is not true. All you can say is that it is too "classical". But you have not offered a single reference for your assertion that modern liberalism is not a descendant of classical liberalism. You just say it, over and over and over, without any source other than that it is your personal opinion. Rick Norwood (talk) 20:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The founding of the US as a liberal state is mainstream thinking. America was never a feudal state with an aristocracy.  The relevance of the liberal constitution is that it would shape political debate and ensure that it developed differently from other countries.  The Four Deuces (talk) 21:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Rick, you have provided no references as you claim in your revert on the subject of science. Your claims are not demonstrated in the sources but you keep restoring the content. I don't feel like repeating myself. Raymond Dundas (talk) 21:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The sourced statement you removed said: American liberals describe themselves as open to change and receptive to new ideas. For example, liberals often accept scientific ideas that some conservatives reject, such as evolution and global warming.  Could you please explain why you think it is not demonstrated by the sources.  It seems pretty uncontroversial.  Could you also please explain your other deletions.  The Four Deuces (talk) 06:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Sentence "For example..." violates NOR. None of the sources connects openness to change of American liberals with their acceptance of scientific ideas, nor establishes connection between "some conservatives" and them. -- Vision Thing -- 08:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Soxwon, could you please explain your objections and suggest alternative sources, rather than just deleting text. I notice that in the popular American media that American "liberals" and "conservatives" tend to talk about each other in extreme terms. But these articles are supposed to follow mainstream interpretations which may differ from the partisan rhetoric. BTW could you please be specific in your objections because deletions were made from several sections. Please note too that I have no objection to removing any element of perceived bias or correcting text that does not reflect the sources, but it would be helpful if you could identify any problems that may exist. The Four Deuces (talk) 06:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Text about Great Depression is not sourced, while text: "America was founded as a liberal nation, and the preamble to the Constitution of the United States includes the clause stating that the purpose of establishing the Constitution was to "promote the general Welfare, and secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity". Most modern American liberals believe this requires an active role for the government." has been disputed by several editors. Can you or Rick present us with quotes that establish connection between American constitution and modern American liberals, and that support claim about what "most modern American liberals" believe in? -- Vision Thing -- 08:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Vision Thing: Many sources is not quite the same as no sources. Sources that say exactly what the article says is not the same as sources that do not support the article. You have repeatedly been asked to provied references for your POV and have not done so. You just keep repeating your unsupported opinion.

You ask me to prove that modern American liberals are liberals. That's a little like asking me to prove that equilateral triangles are triangles. Rather, I think it is up to you to prove your assertion that modern American liberals are NOT liberals. Which, of course, you can't do, because all the standard sources say otherwise. Have you ever heard of the Civil Rights movement?

I've provided two references for the Great Depression. You do know, I assume, that you are asking for references for information found in every standard American history book. But more references are always good.

Rick Norwood (talk) 14:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

While there is no doubt that the US was established as a liberal republic and that all major ideologies in the US developed from this, it seems that the quote from the US constitution is open to interpretation and I would leave it out. If there are arguments that modern liberals believe the founding fathers, if they lived today, would support their policies it could be presented elsewhere in the article but would have to include more detail as well as opposing views. It is interesting and unique to the US that mainstream political discourse always assumes the validity of liberal assumptions, although both sides accuse the other of being non-liberal. The Four Deuces (talk) 14:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The assertion is not that the Founding Fathers would support modern liberalism, but rather than modern liberalism grew out of earlier forms of liberalism, rather that (as some people here have asserted) modern liberalism and classical liberalism being "as different as night and day". However, I'll try to rewrite that paragraph to make the point clearer. Rick Norwood (talk) 17:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Rick Norwood, you say "You have repeatedly been asked to provied references for your POV and have not done so." I haven't made any prior comments on this issue. Please don't reinstate removed content until you or The Four Deuces address the concerns that were raised by several editors. -- Vision Thing -- 14:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * VT, I do not follow your reasoning. The three sections that you removed without discussion on this page were all sourced.  User:Raymond Dundas says that he does not want to provide reasons for his changes because he provided them four months ago.  However in the meantime he has not contributed to this article or discussion and the section he complained about has been changed.  Furthermore he then deleted two other sections that he had not discussed four months ago.  User:Soxwon just claims that the section is POV, is too tired to discuss the matter, and presents a discussion about America's founding fathers being aristocratic because they did not allow the direct election of senators.
 * Talk to me. Explain your objections.  I was thinking of setting up an RfC on this, but I have no idea what the point of disagreement is.
 * The Four Deuces (talk) 16:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Vision Thing: You state the same opinion, over and over again, and request other editors to provide yet more sources, even after many sources are already provided. Sources that are standard reference works, you claim are biased. Your own biased edits, you fail to support. Sources are given that support exactly what the article says. You call for more references. What do you hope to gain by this? Rick Norwood (talk) 18:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Edit-warring
A number of editors continue to remove sourced text from this article but refuse to discuss their edits on the talk page. The Four Deuces (talk) 02:02, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

They have been discussed, your explanations rejected. You refuse to acknowledge our disagreement is all. For those who are unaware, here are some of the sections in dispute: "Modern American liberalism grew out of the liberal tradition on which America was founded and, in the words of the preamble to the Constitution of the United States, seeks to 'promote the general Welfare, and secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity'." Either the distinction between classical liberalism (not necessarily libertarianism, but not just "liberalism") needs to be made, or it should be removed. It's rather vague and POV either way, but at least not as much so with the link to classical liberalism.

"However, some modern American liberals, who call themselves classical liberals, libertarians, or conservatives assert that the best way to promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty is to minimize government intervention in the economy." So all Americans are liberals? That's news to me. This needs to be removed or reworded, the sources do NOT confirm that these positions are considered "liberal" except by editor's own WP:OR.

"Still, although fundamental economic indicators may have remained depressed, the programs of the New Deal were extremely popular, as they improved the life of the common citizen, by providing jobs for the unemployed, legal protection for labor unionists, modern utilities for rural America, living wages for the working poor, and price stability for the family farmer, though economic progress for minorities was hindered by discrimination, an issue often avoided by Roosevelt's administration." The source provided does NOT come close to using glittering generalities like "improved life of the common citizen" and "extremely popular."

Other problems: 1)The entire history section uses no references, comes across as rather wordy, and seems to use "liberalism" as a catch-all term to refer to everything from populism to Federalist.

2)Speculation of "return to liberal concensus"

Basically, the article appears to present a fairly distorted view of what Liberalism is and what is represents. It needs to be balanced out so that it isn't all-encompassing and trying to paint itself as positively as possible. Soxwon (talk) 01:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The article does not say that all Americans are liberal. However America developed as a liberal society and became an independent country with a liberal constitution.  All mainstream political ideologies accept the principals of the constitution and are therefore liberal, although they frequently accuse each other of violating liberal principals.  If you have an alternative source that says otherwise could you please explain what it is.
 * The sections you mentioned should be written in a more neutral tone. While the article should present the views of modern liberals, it should present them as views rather than as facts.  And terms like  "extremely popular" do not tell us understand how widespread or how strong the popularity was.  Perhaps Rick could re-write these sections closely following the sources.
 * The Four Deuces (talk) 04:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The federalists were 18th century liberals who often did not accept principles that are now considered mainstream liberalism. Populists generally phrase their demands in liberal terms. There are theories that these groups were outside liberalism, and there are other ideologies in the US outside the liberal mainstream.  I think all this should be mentioned in the appropriate articles.  The US differs from the UK and other countries where the main parties derived from parties that were clearly either aristocratic or socialist, although their policies have altered over time to more closely resemble the American political spectrum.  The main problem seems to be terminology which has developed differently in the US.  The Four Deuces (talk) 06:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The RFC comment makes it sound like you were looking for WP:RFPP.--Otterathome (talk) 21:34, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It seems that editors are now discussing the article so I will remove the RfC tag and thank you for mentioning RFPP which I should have considered. The Four Deuces (talk) 01:29, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Claims of bias and weasel
We understand that you personally disagree with this article, but to you have any evidence for your claims that the article is biased? Do you have any examples of the use of weasel words? Rick Norwood (talk) 12:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Rick, here is an example of how the article could be improved. The following sentence could be written in a more neutral tone:
 * American liberals insist upon the right of all citizens to the necessities of life and oppose massively unequal distributions of wealth and the destruction of the environment.
 * American liberals support the right of all citizens to the necessities of life, a more equitable distribution of wealth and protection of the environment.
 * The Four Deuces (talk) 13:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed, that's the kind of phrasing I'm talking about. There are a lot of peacock terms and other items that aren't really supported by sourcing. Soxwon (talk) 14:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I've made the changes suggested. Anything else? I do want this to be a good and impartial article. Rick Norwood (talk) 18:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Problems with this topic
I cannot find any reliable sources that provide a clear definition of Modern Liberalism in the United States although there are numerous books that describe the subject. Was Wilson a modern liberal, an influence on modern liberalism or totally outside the tradition? How do we classify liberal republicans or socialists? Did populism and progressivism influence modern liberalism? The Four Deuces (talk) 19:53, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The reason for a lack of a clear definition is that politics makes strange bedfellows. If we follow the definition of "liberal": those who support freedom, then we get one set of ideals: liberals support multiculturalism, conservatives a single "American" culture, liberals oppose censorship, conservatives support it, liberals support freedom for Blacks, Hispanics, women, and gays, conservatives oppose.  A clear distinction.  Here the racist Wilson is clearly a conservative.  Liberal Republicans and liberal socialists (two dying breeds) are, I guess, liberals, but a minor influence.  Populism is usually conservative, because most people believe their way of life (and only their way of life) is best for everybody.  Progressivism is usually liberal, because progress means change.


 * Then there are economic questions, and the welfare state. Liberals (bleeding heart liberals) believe the government should help people.  Conservatives believe the government should leave people alone.  Which side is really in favor of freedom is not so clear.  Are we more free if the government regulates banks and corporations, or are we more free if banks and corporations are free?  It is, fortunately, not our business to try to answer that question.

The sources I read say that modern liberalism in the United States favors freedom for individuals, but does not favor absolute freedom for banks and corporations. Most modern liberals oppose the right of businesses to create monopolies, to pollute the environment, and to discriminate against certain races and religions. They also believe the government should provide security for children, the elderly, and the unemployed. This, it seems to me, is what the article says. Do you disagree? Rick Norwood (talk) 13:48, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

"Some modern American liberals, who call themselves classical liberals..." - Is this not a contradiction?
"However, some modern American liberals, who call themselves classical liberals, libertarians, or conservatives assert that the best way to promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty is to minimize government intervention in the economy." - This seems to be confusing (at least, to me, perhaps someone could explain if I'm wrong) and hypocritical to the article's explanation of what modern American liberals generally support. If we want to define what a modern American liberal is and we are going by how modern American liberals are described in this article as being Americans who generally support welfare policies, single payer health care and a progressive tax policy (i.e. "big government") then wouldn't that contradict the definition of what a classical liberal / libertarian supports ("limited government")? If so, how can one be a modern liberal that is also a classical liberal? That's hypocritical and confusing to the reader. Aurora30 (talk) 08:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * As I mentioned in this last section that there is no clear definition for modern liberalism in the United States. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The point is that modern liberals and classical liberals claim to have the same goals, but see different means to best attain those goals. Modern liberals fear multinational corporations and banks, and seek government protection of their freedoms. Libertarians fear government, and think they can protect their own freedoms. Rick Norwood (talk) 21:54, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Social liberalism
The lead states that "modern liberalism in the United States" "is also called 'modern liberalism', 'social liberalism'". The first reference is redundant. Of course "modern liberalism in the United States" is called "modern liberalism" in the United States. The reference to "social liberalism" however creates a problem. The first source used for that term, Ideology, social theory, and the evironment, does not in fact state that American liberalism is called social liberalism, but mentions that social liberalism developed in America. The best known social liberal in America was of course John Dewey but his ideas do not represent the mainstream of American liberalism.

A book on sociology should not be used as a source. Mainstream thought is that social liberalism never became popular in the US (per Louis Hartz) and only extremists could equate American post war policies with social liberal policies followed in Britain and Europe.

An interesting theme of this book is how American liberalism is called "left-wing" in the United States and how that marginalizes left-wing thought in that country. Since the Mainstream media has decided that centrism is actually the left, left-wing thought is ignored. It would be interesting to include discussion of this subject in the article.

Anyway, I will remove these terms from the lead and ask that there is further discussion before anyone puts it back.

The Four Deuces (talk) 05:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll put them back and and ask that you find consensus before you remove them. You only criticized one source for social liberalism. It was multiply-sourced. Introman (talk) 05:12, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The other sources for "social liberalism" are from essays on sociology. Could you please explain why you are using these sources and not mainstream sources on political science?  How do you reconcile this with Louis Hartz?  The Four Deuces (talk) 11:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Introman, do you think you could reply to my reasons for removing these synonyms from the lead rather than reinsert them with more sources? If sources are good you do not need lots of them.  It just makes it more difficult to check them.  The Four Deuces (talk) 16:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The sources are good. When the title of an article has synonyms, the synonyms ought to be listed on the first line in boldface rather than later in the intro, or worse yet only in the body. This because it is POV to highlight only one term as being "the" proper term to use when there are synonyms. That is, it shows editor preference for one term over the other. Wikipedia shouldn't push any particular synonym. It's bad enough that the article title has to choose one. Some may argue that listing the synonyms on the first line is not that pleasing to the eye, but NPOV is more important than looks. Introman (talk) 17:20, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Introman: You are cherrypicking quotes out of context. The Four Deuces has already pointed out what is wrong with your sources, and cited mainstream references that disagree with your sources. You ignore all evidence to the contrary, do not explain or correct your many errors, and continue to try to push your personal, non-standard point of view into the lede in many articles. Rick Norwood (talk) 20:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Currently I have no opinion on appropriateness of the term "social liberalism" but it is common practice to include relevant synonyms in the first sentence of the lead. -- Vision Thing -- 12:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The trouble with the term "social liberalism" is that it is used in two entirely different ways. One meaning is greater social freedom, equal rights for women, votes for Blacks, and so on.  That's how I use the phrase and how I see it used in Wikipedia.  But recently, I've seen the phrase used by some to mean "socialist liberalism".  I don't mind the use of the phrase, but if used it needs to be clear from context that it has the first meaning.


 * My objection to many recent edits is that they imply that economic questions are the only important questions, that economic liberalism is all there is to liberalism and that economic conservatism is all there is to conservatism. Clearly, this is not the case. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I just looked at the article social liberalism. It says that social liberalism is a form a classical liberalism and that classical liberalism is a form of libertarianism.  At various times, Wikipedia has said that "liberalism" means libertarianism, that "conservatism" means libertarianism, that "classical liberalism" means libertarianism, and that "social liberalism" means libertarianism.  It seems we don't really need all these words -- we're all libertarians. Rick Norwood (talk) 19:10, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * On the internet it is common to draw a dichotomy between social and economic issues, and a lot of libertarians like to say they are "socially liberal", or are a "social liberal". However, social liberalism is classically a 19th century ideology, a more left wing and centrist variant of liberalism - in a European context - that existed in contrast to Christian Democracy, classical liberalism, socialism... etc... etc... I don't think it exactly equates to American "Modern Liberalism" either. And neither ideology is socialist. You are probably just being a partisan. 65.0.166.73 (talk) 01:55, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Alan Ryan on "Liberalism"
This article by Alan Ryan can be read here:. It is learned and thoughtful, and has many interesting things to say. We should all read it. I'm sure I'll be using quotes from it often in the future.

However, it does not say what it is referenced to say, so I'm moving it to a place in the article that reflects what it does say, and providing a quote to show that the reference is correct.

Rick Norwood (talk) 13:38, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I could not access the article there but it is on Google books (complete). The Four Deuces (talk) 03:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Ayn Rand. Gee, I'm excited.65.0.166.73 (talk) 01:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Read the name again. Rick Norwood (talk) 11:53, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Modern Liberal Thinkers
"President Thomas Jefferson (1743 – 1826) President James Madison (1751 – 1836) President Abraham Lincoln (1809 – 1865)"

While I do not deny that these men were liberal thinkers (in the classical sense of the word), to include them as "Modern Liberal Thinkers" is absurd. I think we can all agree that modernity, in terms of liberalism, came to light in the early to mid twentieth century and these men are too far removed from that period to have any relevence here.

First sentence of article: "Modern American liberalism is a form of social liberalism that arose from progressive ideals such as Thomas Paine's asset-based egalitarianism, Theodore Roosevelt's New Nationalism, Woodrow Wilson's New Freedom, and Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal.[1] Modern American liberalism is a combination of social liberalism, social progressivism, support for a welfare state and a mixed economy"

Find me the link to Jefferson, Madison, and Lincoln from this lede. I vote to remove. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.1.42.98 (talk) 14:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I also vote to remove. Jefferson for one, was a classical liberal which is very distinct from today's notion of the word "liberal".--Napkin65 (talk) 21:36, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The problem, as I understand it, is not that today's notion of "liberal" does not include Jefferson -- it does -- but that Jefferson is not "modern". Rick Norwood (talk) 14:26, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Woodrow Wilson
Was Woodrow Wilson, who invited the Ku Klux Klan to march in Washington, and fired all the Jews working for the federal government, really a liberal? Rick Norwood (talk) 14:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * A major problem with this article is that we do not have a starting date for "modern liberalism". I think it starts with FDR, but it would be helpful if someone could find a source.  Wilson might have been a forerunner (e.g., internationalism) but we would not a source for that too.  The Four Deuces (talk) 22:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Percent of Americans who self-identify as liberal.
This article cites a 2008 exit poll as giving the percent of Americans who self-identify as liberal. I don't find that information in the poll, and in any case there are certainly better sources than exit polls that could be cited. Can anyone provide authoritative information on this subject (a brief google search was unhelpful). Rick Norwood (talk) 15:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Here is a Gallup poll:   The Four Deuces (talk) 15:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * What do you mean you don't find that information in the poll? It's right there. Just search for the term "liberal." And this is not just a 2008 exit poll. It's the exit poll for the presidential election. It's the most important piece of data on ideological groups that we have in this entire article. Exit polls are far more important than normal polls because they actually analyze the real electorate, as opposed to other pollsters, who have to guess what it'll look like on election day.UberCryxic (talk) 16:31, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Negative use of word liberal
Sections such as this one tend to be filled with innumerable POV issues, and it's very appropriate that this article has a neutrality tag (it needs more, I'd say). I remember how some very confused souls got upset that my FA on French military history, which went on the main page, did not have a section talking about the "perceptions" of the French military here in the United States. Subjects related to "perception" are always very tricky. They'll violate global perspective, or some form of neutrality, or they'll just be downright filled with propaganda and vitriol from the other side (ie. this section seems like it was written by a right-wing hack intending to destroy the quality of the article). Based on the fact that this section contains no encyclopedic value, it should be completely deleted.UberCryxic (talk) 16:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, all political terms have some negative connotations, but I don't see a "negative use of the word conservative" in the article on conservatism in America. And it should not be there, per the arguments above. Let's just report the facts. We're supposed to be an encyclopedia. Leave the perceptions to the pundits on cable TV.UberCryxic (talk) 16:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I understand your point, but it seems to me that the blackening of the word "liberal" was so deliberate, and so noteworthy, that it belongs in the article. If, for example, John Smith was a fine person who did noteworthy things, but there were several best-selling books, marketed as non-fiction, that said he was worse than Hitler, and if Fox News, almost every night, said he was worse than Hitler, this attempt to blacken John Smith's name should be addressed in the article on John Smith, even if the charges against him are completely baseless, because they are so widespread.  So with Liberalism, which is a belief shared by every American, but which has been blackened by the likes of Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, and nightly on Fox News.


 * One could argue that to respond at all to such baseless attacks is to give the attacks more credit than they deserve, but since the books attacking liberalism are best sellers, and Fox News the most trusted news in America, it seems to me incumbent on an article on the subject to at least mention these attacks. Rick Norwood (talk) 21:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Arguing that the assaults on the 'liberal' label should be mentioned in the article is different from arguing that they deserve an entirely separate section within that article. To that point, I would like to know which position you hold. I am not necessarily against mentioning, very briefly, the anti-liberal backlash of the Republican party in the last few decades, but much of the content in the disputed section was absolute garbage more appropriate for the New York Post. It read like a hit piece on American liberalism. Furthermore, when you bring up sources like Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh, you severely undercut your own argument. Those individuals clearly do not qualify as reputable sources, and thus to include them so thoroughly in what is supposed to be a serious treatment of American liberalism seems blatantly disingenuous. There are books attacking conservatives that are also best-sellers in the United States, but that kind of analysis misses the point of what we should be doing with this article, which is not parroting attacks from partisans, but including reputable information from professional scholars.UberCryxic (talk) 21:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe we can find a compromise which shortens the section without removing it entirely. You seem to have read it in a different spirit than I did, and taken away a different message. I understood it to say that there are virulent and irrational attacks on liberalism which have gained some traction in American public opinion. You seem to have taken the section as one of those attacks. Do you want to try a rewrite or shall I? Rick Norwood (talk) 21:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I would support the inclusion of some of that information as part of the historical narrative of modern liberalism in the United States. I categorically oppose that kind of section standing on its own because, again, it has little encyclopedic value, at least as it's currently written.UberCryxic (talk) 21:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * And to be absolutely specific: that information should go in the section "End of the liberal consensus." The vitriolic attacks of the right against liberalism can be explained in the context of that collapsing consensus.UberCryxic (talk) 21:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it is important to show that use of the term liberal to identify oneself has fallen out of favor, but this should be sourced to reliable sources and if Fox News types are quoted it should be as an example only. The Four Deuces (talk) 02:16, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * On what basis do you make that claim? The polls I've seen show that the number of people who self-identify as 'liberal' in the US has held steady at around 20 to 25% from the 1960s until the present. And we don't have any reliable data before that period. Here is a good place to start. In 1972, 18% self-identified as liberals. In 2004, it was 23%.


 * The right in America has, indeed, tried to malign the word, and with much success. But to say that it's fallen out of favor is not predicated on the hard evidence -- or on any personal experiences, I would presume, since I have plenty of friends who call themselves liberals...and proudly so!


 * Like I said, this conversation belongs to the historical progression of liberalism in the United States. It does not deserve a separate section.UberCryxic (talk) 04:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Well I actually seem to be underestimating my own case here. I'm glad you brought up the comment about how using 'liberal' has fallen out of favor Deuces because it prompted me to do some more research. Here's how out of favor it's fallen. In the 1980 presidential election, 18% of the electorate self-identified as liberal. In the 2008 election, as you can see in the link the article now cites, that had fallen to 22%.....err sorry.....had increased by 4 points to 22%. Google News trends for the word 'liberal' also show a steady rise in recent times.UberCryxic (talk) 04:45, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the info by the ANES. Just what I was looking for. On the other hand, the Google News link is for UK Liberals, who are another breed of cat. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The Google link is for the term 'liberal' in all of Google's featured news archives. In other words, I literally typed 'liberal' in Google News and searched on archives (so for all time). The first articles you see in that link are about the Liberal Party because the archive starts chronologically, and that means the 19th century when it comes to the consistent political use of the word 'liberal' in magazines and newspapers. As you can obviously see references to 'liberal' throughout modern times in that blue histogram, clearly it's not just confined to the Liberal Party, which was largely irrelevant by the middle of the twentieth century. Anyway, the point behind the Google archives was to directly contradict Deuces, who claimed that the word had somehow fallen out of favor. That statement makes no sense when compared against the Google News archives, which show the use of 'liberal' in the media increasing over the past two decades.


 * Here are some great case studies of what I mean: take a look at the archives for the word 'communist' and 'fascist'. Now THAT'S falling out of favor! Both terms show significant declines, 'fascist' starting in the 1940s and 'communist' in the 1990s. Obviously that decline is most reasonably attributed to the fact that the states representing those ideologies collapsed and there were no longer any organized institutions willing to seriously adopt those labels. In that sense, the Google archives are actually more powerful in conveying the popularity of liberalism than the ANES polls.UberCryxic (talk) 16:30, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * But as a baseline argument, I think we've clearly established that the number of people in the United States willing to call themselves 'liberal' has actually increased over the last three decades, despite Republican efforts to taint that label.UberCryxic (talk) 16:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The poll only allows respondents to chose along a liberal-conservative axis. If you read political speeches or statements of politcal groups you will find that the term liberal is rarely used by liberals to describe themselves or their beliefs or to name their organizations.  The Four Deuces (talk) 16:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * So what if the poll is restricted like that? All the polls being cited in this article have the same options, including the Gallup poll you mentioned above. I mean, granted, I wish these polls would reflect some more diversity among political ideologies (instead of always asking are you liberal, conservative, or moderate), but all of them have that problem, so you should not single out this one.


 * On your second point: I don't know where you live, but I live in the United States and I can tell you that's blatantly false. Liberals use that term quite regularly to describe themselves and their organizations, although the term 'progressive' is obviously just as popular (but I would not say more so). Here are a few prominent examples: long-time advocacy organization Americans for Democratic Action, popular magazines like Mother Jones and The New Republic, and countless numbers of blogs, which, if you'd only spend a day in them, would instantly reveal the overwhelming number of people who use aliases with the word 'liberal'....not to mention popular blogs themselves that use the word, like LiberalOasis, Gun Toting Liberal, or Michigan Liberal. Again, I'm noticing several unfounded allegations here, and I'm tempted to question your understanding of American politics.UberCryxic (talk) 16:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * By the way: even organized religion is in on this thing called liberalism (ie. the Unitarian Universalists).UberCryxic (talk) 16:59, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not denying that some people call themselves liberals, although it is interesting that you would pick Mother Jones and the New Republic as examples. (These were actually socialist, not liberal.)  I do not think however that any Democratic persidential candidate has called himself liberal since 1972.  Even your link to Mother Jones says, "Call that what you will–we're not insulted by being called left, liberal, progressive, whatever. (We've noticed, though, that the people who resort to name-calling are often just trying to distract the public from their own misdeeds.)"  The Four Deuces (talk) 18:57, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Sigh....see this is what I'm talking about. You just make flagrant and inciting claims that turn out to be flatly false. Dukakis actually called himself liberal at the end of the 1988 campaign. It's true that many Democratic politicians have reacted against the label after that defeat, but there are still plenty who call themselves 'liberals.' Recently retired Congressman Robert Wexler was one example with his book Fire-Breathing Liberal. By the way I'm ashamed that I forgot The American Prospect in my previous list of magazines. It's a fine liberal magazine.


 * Look, you have the option of continuing what I consider to be a silly debate, but you said that people rarely call themselves liberals in the US and you're flatly wrong my fellow Wikipedian. Beyond fundamentally flawed misconceptions, you have no basis for making that claim. The polls show that the number of people calling themselves 'liberal' in the US is increasing and I've just given you a truckload of famous examples highlighting that generalization. My original, overarching point still stands: the right demonized the 'liberal' label, but ultimately that label survived, and the evidence suggests that it's now thriving. Refer, for example, to youth ideological identification, where liberals have held a solid lead over conservatives for the first time ever.UberCryxic (talk) 19:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes here is that UCLA study last year that showed college first-years were becoming increasingly more liberal. The article states:


 * An increase was also seen in the proportion of students who characterize themselves as liberal, which reached its highest level in 35 years in 2008, at 31.0 percent. The percentage of incoming students who characterize themselves as politically middle-of-the-road, however, has seen a steady decline and in 2008 reached an all-time low of 43.3 percent, roughly the same percentage as in 1970. One in five students (20.7 percent) identified themselves as conservative in 2008, down from 23.1 percent in 2007.UberCryxic (talk) 19:45, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You should read the references you are providing. The NYT article for example says, "Michael S. Dukakis dropped his resistance today and accepted the label that Republicans have been trying to pin on him for months. But he defined it in his own terms, declaring, I'm a liberal in the tradition of Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman and John Kennedy."  Wexler calls himself a liberal in a book written after he retired.  That is totally different from how Republicans speak - they call themselves "conservatives" all the time.  Liberal politicians in other countries have no problem in calling themselves liberals.  The implication is clear - the term "liberal" has lost favor in the U.S.  The Four Deuces (talk) 19:54, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * In your previous post, you stated: "I do not think however that any Democratic persidential candidate has called himself liberal since 1972." You were wrong. What you just did now....that's an example of circumstantial waffling, grasping at straws when your original claim was completely disproved. You are the one misreading the NYT article, and the entire 1988 campaign, by not recognizing the courage Dukakis finally (and belatedly) had in adopting the 'liberal' label, which is something he should have done much earlier. For our purposes, the point is that he finally said it, not under what circumstances he said it. Plus the 'tradition' of which Dukakis speaks places him squarely in the modern liberal camp, further solidifying my argument. You are completely wrong on Wexler because the book was written before he retired. For liberty's sake, did you even bother to check out the link? It was released in 2008, and Wexler just retired!


 * Moreover, you are making inconsistent claims. Now you're speaking about politicians, but before you were speaking about liberals in general. Before you were saying liberals rarely use the word 'liberal.' Now you're saying liberal politicians rarely use the word to describe themselves. You're wrong on both counts, of course, but I'd just like to know which position you're arguing for and which you're disavowing.UberCryxic (talk) 20:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If as you say it takes courage to call oneself a liberal in the United States, then the term has fallen out of favor in that country. Ironically, the terms "left-wing" and "progressive", which imply a position more radical than liberalism, are more acceptable.  I am sorry that I do not remember every presidential campaign in great detail, but nonetheless you don't often hear anyone calling themselves a liberal.  The Four Deuces (talk) 20:51, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Just to allay my confusion, I presume you mean that you don't hear any presidential candidates doing that, correct? You're not actually saying that large numbers of people, in general, do not call themselves liberals. Is that correct? If we're going to have a meaningful debate, then I need to fully understand your arguments, and so far your statements have been either factually incorrect or inconsistent. It's very difficult for me to understand what you mean much of the time.


 * It's difficult to call yourself 'liberal' in the US if you're a presidential candidate, sure! I don't disagree with that at all. But that's an absurdly high bar you're setting there. I have no idea why that should be the standard for the popularity of a term in a particular society. The best standard is what I've already given you: polls, polls, and some more polls. The polls show that use of the word 'liberal' is on the rise, driven in large part by the youth. News trends also show use of the word 'liberal' on the rise. You can't possibly say with a straight face that an ideological designation is falling out of favor when 18% claim it in 1972 and 23% claim it in 2004. Words like fascist or communist....those are ideological terms that have fallen out of favor. If a fourth of the population claims a label, and that proportion is rising, you can't reasonably assert that the term has fallen out of favor. The trends totally contradict your claims.


 * Speaking of your claims....I'm going to keep a running tab. So far we have:


 * 1) No Democratic presidential candidate had called himself a liberal since 1972. Wrong
 * 2) Robert Wexler published his book, Fire-Breathing Liberal, after he retired. Wrong
 * 3) Use of the term 'liberal' to identify oneself has fallen out of favor. Wrong


 * Your third claim did not contain any qualifications about politicians or political groups, but was so sweeping and general that I imagine it covered the entire adult population. I will happily update these as the debate moves forward.UberCryxic (talk) 21:33, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

(out) If the term "liberalism" was still in favor, why do presidential candidates not call themselves liberal? After all, they have no problem in calling themselves "conservative"? Here is a poll that shows that more Americans conisder themselves progressives than liberals. Other polls that have questioned people's beliefs rather than their self-identification have found that numbers of people holding liberal views is higher than the number of people calling themselves liberals, while numbers for conservatives were lower. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:20, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * All that your first correctly premised question shows is that the 'conservative' label is politically more popular than the 'liberal' label. It doesn't show that the 'liberal' label has fallen out of favor among the public, which was less ideological in the time of FDR or Kennedy, hence why those presidents could afford to describe themselves as 'liberals' even though the proportion of self-identified liberals was probably lower at that point than it is now. I'm not even going to dignify the poll you mentioned because there's a one-point separation (you serious?!!??) among the two groups that has no statistical significance. I'm not quite sure why you brought up that poll, but the last thing it does is prove your point. This poll from Gallup in 2006 does a better job at what you were trying to do, only in the opposite direction. Among Gallup's most important findings in the context of our debate:


 * Thirty-four percent of Americans say the term liberal applies to them, while 28% say the term progressive applies.


 * But the money-maker is this:


 * There have been some indications in the political world that those on the left end of the political spectrum are trying to move away from the "liberal" label and toward the perhaps more appealing "progressive" label. To get a sense of whether this is the case among the general public with a left-leaning orientation, the poll conducted a split sample experiment. Gallup asked one half of respondents to choose whether their political views were conservative, moderate, or liberal, and asked the other half to choose whether their political views were conservative, moderate, or progressive.


 * The results show that roughly the same percentage of Americans describe their political views as liberal (22%) as do progressive (19%). However, there are hints that Americans may be more likely to describe their political views as conservative (42%) and less likely to say they are moderate (33%) when the liberal option is offered than when the term progressive is offered (36% say they are conservatives and 43% moderates in the progressive construction).


 * Gallup ALSO found that 59% of the American public was familiar with the term "progressive"...as opposed to 90% for liberal. I consider these last figures to be of extreme importance as well because they indicate how pervasive the two terms are in American culture. In other words, the 'liberal' label is very widespread (people hear it all the time) while the 'progressive' label is far less recognized.UberCryxic (talk) 22:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I reviewed the poll you posted a bit more carefully. It seems to be, and as a liberal who is favorably inclined towards the Center for American Progress I am surprised to say this, a blatantly partisan poll conducted within the organization. In other words, it's not like the liberal blog Daily Kos contracting an actual polling organization, Research 2000, and reporting on its results. This poll was done by the Center for American Progress. Because we are in Wikipedia, I would have to say that calls into question its reputability. For a hypothetical scenario, if we were in any way arguing over which polls to include in this article, certainly I hope you agree that the Gallup poll should take far greater precedence. Unfortunately for you, that Gallup poll also happens to contradict the main thrust of your argument as it relates to the left and its connection with American liberalism.UberCryxic (talk) 23:33, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

One, two, three, what are we fighting for?
I'm sorry to see two good editors playing "gotcha". As best I can tell, the disagreements are over details. Yes, it is important to get details right, but there's no need to fight about it. The cited references are decisive.

I was glad to learn that the number of people who self-identify as liberal is increasing. I did not know that, and that's the kind of hard data that should be driving this article.

I've restored some of the material on the negative use of liberal. It is too important, and too well-referenced, to leave out. But, following suggestions made here, I've shortened it and made it part of the "End of the Liberal Consensus" section, which was too short and not up-to-date.

Rick Norwood (talk) 14:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok I'm good with the structure now. As for the content, I'm fine talking about the negative use of the word, but let's not do that at the expense of actual history. The section right now contains too much perception analysis and not enough historical analysis. That's what we need to change moving forward, but it's nothing too pressing right now.UberCryxic (talk) 16:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Also one more thing: our disagreements are, indeed, over details, but those details will fundamentally determine the structure and the content of the article, so arguing about them is more than appropriate!UberCryxic (talk) 16:26, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * As I mentioned before, the problem with the article is that it does not provide sufficient sourced information about the definition of modern US liberalism and when it began. Was Wilson a modern liberal or did it start with the New Deal?  Does it include neoconservatives, socialists or liberal republicans?  The Four Deuces (talk) 12:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes I agree with the main thrust of this effort. More reputable sources on the history and the original development of modern liberalism in America would definitely improve this article. It's kind of a strange topic. One supposes that, as a movement, modern liberalism started with the progressives of the early twentieth century, but the label 'liberal' and its association with progressive causes did not emerge until the New Deal in the 1930s.UberCryxic (talk) 05:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Did it start with progressivism? I have been unable to find an sources for that.  The Four Deuces (talk) 16:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

IQ
First of all, the study given is taken out of context and ignores the entirety of the study for the one piece of evidence that he/she finds to be appealing to them (their edit summaries appear to prove this point). I would be willing to see something about the novel appeal to liberals and the general things that pull more intelligent people. But to simply say "Liberals=high IQ, conservatives=low IQ" is missing the point entirely. Soxwon (talk) 02:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I cited my source, which is not ambiguous:
 * "According to the ASA, a major health study found that adolescents identifying as "very liberal" averaged an IQ of 106, while those calling themselves "very conservative" averaged an IQ of 95. "
 * That "one piece of evidence" was chosen by the American Sociological Association as the one piece to present in a press release. I don't deny a certain gleefulness in editing, but neither law nor policy says we need to be dour about presenting the well-sourced truth.  You've rapidly and repeatedly reverted this edit at both Modern liberalism in the United States and Conservativism in the United States, and the most you can do is allege that it is "taken out of context" without presenting any reason to say that about this fact more than any other on Wikipedia.  I don't think you've concealed your bias very well either.


 * The other aspect of the edit, for this article, was to reorganize the material in chronological order - adolescent liberals are smarter; more likely to become educated; more likely to go to college; more likely to be in academia. For a fact "out of context" it seems to fit very well. Wnt (talk) 02:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * We should wait until the article is published rather than rely on a newspaper report. Notice the results are for adolescents who describe themselves as "very liberal" or very conservative".  How many adolescents describe themselves in these terms, are the results consistent with older people and how did liberals and conservtives overall compare?  The Four Deuces (talk) 02:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The ASA press release gives an e-mail address for "bona fide journalists" to obtain copies of the article now. I doubt we rate, but are you seriously suggesting that the ASA is misrepresenting a main conclusion of an article it is currently in possession of? Wnt (talk) 03:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Dumb teenagers back the system without question while smart teenagers are rebellious; But when smart teenagers grow up, they realize the errors of their ways.  Get the article and see what it says.  The Four Deuces (talk) 07:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no idea if that's supposed to mean anything. I know that liberals' fatal Achilles heel is the ability to feel shame, a failing conservatives have long since put behind them.  The story has gradually been getting out over the past 24 hours: Eurekalert ScienceDaily Newswise PhysOrg. (Technically, I was the first source online;  apparently I haven't cured my precognition after all...) Of course I don't expect these or other sources to have any relevance whatsoever. Wnt (talk) 08:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you provide a link to the study? Without reading the report it is impossible to determine the significance of the findings.  The Four Deuces (talk) 16:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You know, what's funny is that every time I start digging deep into a paper and making statements not based on the abstract, I risk having a bunch of deletionists whining about Original Research. But here I am in possession of the one source in all Wikipedia that can't be meaningfully quoted or interpreted unless you can go over the original dataset line by line and do your own math.  Awesome.  By the way, here's another study:  Wnt (talk) 17:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

(out) Without reading the paper we cannot know what it says. It could say for example that conservatives have higher IQs on average than liberals, with the exception of very conservative or liberal adolescents. (It probably does not but we would need to know this.) I am not opposed to including information from these studies where it is relevant as you see by my comments at Talk:Conservatism. Thanks for providing the other source. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Listen, I'm a liberal and I think of myself as very intelligent, but in no way should we start throwing around claims like liberals have higher IQs than conservatives or liberals are smarter than conservatives. Even if I believed that proposition outside of Wikipedia (and I do), there are way too many POV issues involved with including claims that compare intelligence levels between large groups of people. It's something I categorically oppose for all comparisons (including racial ones, an issue that has sparked wars in Wikipedia in the past). UberCryxic ( talk ) 00:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Which pillar of Wikipedia involves leaving stuff out because it sounds provocative? And for your knowledge Race and intelligence exists and details a 17-point difference between blacks and whites.  (Of course, interpretations of this data may vary, and understandably the article misses one important explanation, because it was only last year that evidence quietly emerged that Trofim Lysenko was actually right... But I digress.)  In Wikipedia you just find the major sources and you quote them.  Sure, this leads to an edit war, but as I recall every single fact pertinent to the election (however minor) was an edit war, without exception, and the excuses used for the reverts were just as lame as... these.  Point is, if you have sources that tell the story the other way, your duty is to describe those also. Wnt (talk) 07:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Be careful not to claim that people with a high IQ are more intelligent than people with a low IQ. It is fundamental to conservative values that people with a high IQ are less intelligent, just as it is fundamental to conservative values that people who are educated know a lot less than people who are uneducated. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Wnt, that's precisely the article to which I was referring, so I don't know why you'd bring it up, knowing that it proves my point entirely. Did you even examine the article? It's a war zone&mdash;an eternal war zone. It's filled with tags. The talk page has 76 archives. It's insanity on steroids. Right now, however, the best reason for leaving this stuff out of the article is the following: you don't have consensus. I might agree to some kind of carefully worded statement, but it's a long shot. Speaking (especially) as a liberal, there are no intrinsic or irreparable differences between groups when it comes to intelligence. There are only differences in circumstances. The Race and intelligence article reveals this fact quite clearly in its explanations. UberCryxic ( talk ) 17:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The analogy to a racial difference in intelligence is spurious. Races are disjunct sets of people who develop in parallel, but political factions recruit from a common pool.  It is no more surprising to find intelligence differences here than between the schoolchildren in the regular class and the "gifted" class. Wnt (talk) 16:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Mmmmm... Yes, a press release is a perfectly okay statement to use.


 * > "Without reading the paper we cannot know what it says."


 * Bull shit. The APA published a press release telling EXACTLY what it says.


 * But this door swings both ways. They've published OTHER things too... things you wouldn't like. You can spit on the repuglycans who try to keep out distressing truth, and rightly so.  But don't be so smug, fellow liberals, YOU WILL DO IT TOO.


 * Here, watch. I'll make it happen right now.


 * > UberCryxic said "There are only differences in circumstances. The Race and intelligence article reveals this fact quite clearly in its explanations."


 * Does it? I'm one of the people rewriting that biased article.  But while  reading the research, I learned  something horrible that, as a former head start volunteer, left-wing socialist, and probably would fit the definition of "communist", I didn't want to be true.


 * Hey, you remember the "scientists" at Padua University who refused to look through Galileo's telescope?  You know the contempt you feel for the sniveling cowards?  And rightly so!


 * In in 20 seconds, you will BE that sniveling coward!


 * You will angrily reject this out of hand. If it were false, you wouldn't care. But it will haunt you as it's haunted me because it's TRUE. You wil become furious and outraged and angry at me.  But when you do, I want you to think about the "scientists" at Padua.


 * Okay, ready?


 * Yes, the race and intelligence article here is biased. But it's biased the wrong way.


 * According to dozens of duplicated studies published in respected, objective, serious, peer-reviewed, academic journals; MRI studies using standard volumetric software have proven conclusively that blacks average 5% smaller brains than whites, and 6% smaller than Asians.


 * No, it's not the environment. The deficit is seen in embryos just weeks old -- and it's seen globally and independent of what the mother eats/drinks/does.


 * The results have been duplicated many times all over the world using different brains, and verified three completely different ways (brain weight at autopsy, etc.)   It is not due to nutrition, body size, or any of the other OBVIOUS excuses you want to believe.  You think these things didn't occur to scientists who do statistical analysis for a living?  In fact, this brain-size difference hasn't been disputed by scientists for over a decade.


 * ...they just don't talk about it in public!


 * A FEW of the dozens of sources:


 * Harvey, I., Persaud, R., Ron, M. A., Baker, G., & Murray, R. M. (1994). Volumetric MRI measurements in bipolars compared.


 * Ho, K. C., Roessmann, U., Straumfjord, J. V., & Monroe, G. (1980). Analysis of brain weight: I and II. Archives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, 104, 635–645.


 * Beals, K. L., Smith, C. L., & Dodd, S. M. (1984). Brain size, cranial morphology, climate, and time machines. Current Anthropology, 25, 301–330.


 * Johnson FW. Race and sex differences in head size and IQ. Intelligence 1994; 18: 309-33.


 * Rushton JP. Mongoloid-Caucasoid differences in brain size from military samples [and NASA]. Intelligence 1991; 15: 351-9.


 * Rushton JP. Cranial size and IQ in Asian Americans from birth to age seven. Intelligence 1997; 25: 7-20.


 * Simmons K. Cranial capacities by both plastic and water techniques with cranial linear measurements. Hum Biol 1942; 14: 473-98.


 * ...and MANY more. Hey, I don't like it either.


 * If you're curious about how such a horrible thing could be true, which you're not, the reason is that the first humans were black, and whites/Asians evolved from them 100,000 years later. That's right, whites evolved from blacks, who evolved from apes, which evolved from monkeys.


 * Sure, a random black guy might be smarter than you and me--and I've known several who are! But it's just not as LIKELY as it5 is in whites and Asians. And now you know why.  Say, you think this might explain blacks' average IQ of 80 in America, 70 in Africa, and 60 in Ethiopia?


 * A summary of this and other research which will make you even madder is here, in the journal of the Liberal bastion you're so fond of quoting, the American Psychological Association: http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/PPPL1.pdf


 * But, and this is the point I'm making, you won't read it.


 * See, even Liberals won't look through the telescope! And that's because, just like your fellow sniveling cowards, the repiglican creationists, you know that the truth will destroy something you want desperately to believe.


 * And you know what? I have no idea why, but I think that's really, really FUNNY! Techno Faye Kane  11:56, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

1) Race and intelligence is not the topic of this article, and I'll leave it to the proverbial tall Pole to touch it if he wants to. 2)"The APA published a press release telling EXACTLY what it says." No, the non-scientific press, in their efforts to reach a popular audience, rarely get the results of a scientific paper "EXACTLY" right. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:21, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

"American liberal causes include voting rights for Black Southerners"
This is patently false. Modern Liberalism was vehemently opposed to giving rights to blacks, and in fact under the Woodrow Wilson era were responsible for creating segregation first in government, which expanded through society. The Republican party was founded upon defending the rights of the newly-free slaves, and straight through the 1960's the liberals were opposing civil rights. Woodrow Wilson, a progressive liberal, what an outspoken racist. To state that liberals championed "voting rights for Black Southerners" is complete misinformation and needs to be at least removed, if not rewritten in a new section regarding "racism and modern liberalism". --216.114.194.20 (talk) 23:24, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you have reliable sources to help your case for making the change? Dayewalker (talk) 23:39, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Whatever the truth in this claim, Wilson was not a modern liberal, and the founding of the Republican Party predates modern liberalism. The pro-segregation Democrats did not call themselves liberals but conservatives, although they mostly moved to the Republican Party (e. g., Strom Thurmond).  TFD (talk) 02:36, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I think 216 is confusing liberalism with the Democratic party. Today, the Democratic party is more liberal and the Republican party more conservative, but it was the other way around in the years following the Civil War. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:25, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

No matter how many times they do it, conservatives always make me laugh when they try and claim liberal, left-wing policies like civil rights and desegregation were somehow magically conservative, right-wing policies at the time. The Democrats and Republicans of today were completely different 60 years ago. Trying to take credit for liberal acts when conservatives TODAY still oppose them, while simultaneously trying to claim conservatives were the ones who got blacks civil rights, is one of most pathetic and hilariously disgusting fallacies of the modern conservative movement. Along with demanding birth certificates, calling for the end of "socialism" while collecting social security themselves and the terms "Islamofascist"/"Communistfascist". 124.169.169.146 (talk) 06:41, 11 May 2011 (UTC) Sutter Cane

Suspected POV Vandalism
IP 219.90.214.208 has made about 13 or so edits to the article today that I am not sure are in good faith. These edits, while not profane or spam, seem to be original research and induce a point of view on the article. Even if not vandalism, these edits do not add anything to the article that improve its accuracy or its succinctness. Frankly, I believe they should be undone. However, given the number of them, the undo feature doesn't seem to be advisable. Perhaps someone with rollback privileges or who is experienced with a vandalism tool or bot can repair the article? Otherwise, it seems that many of this user's edits will need to be reverted manually. Examples of the user's edits are: 1 (Unsourced/Unnecessary) 2 (Unsourced), 3 (Unsourced), 4 (Unsourced/Heavy POV), 5 (Unsourced/Ridiculously POV), 6 (Unnecessary), 7 (Original Research/POV), 8 (Unnecessary?), 9 (Unsourced/POV), 10 (Unnecessary?), 11 (POV). If I am in error about the compliance of these edits with NPOV and NOR, please let me know. John Shandy`  • talk 17:24, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Unsourced edits should be reverted. Serious editors should check recent edits before making their own edit, and revert any that do not reflect standard, mainstream views. Rick Norwood (talk) 19:55, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The lede
The lede states, "Modern American liberalism is a form of social liberalism developed from progressive ideals such as Theodore Roosevelt's New Nationalism, Woodrow Wilson's New Freedom, Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal and Lyndon Johnson's Great Society," and is sourced to Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.'s "Liberalism in America: A Note for Europeans". Other than the fact this is a poor source, it does not support the statement. Can anyone recommend a better source? TFD (talk) 14:56, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Schlesinger was one of the most important historians of liberalism, and his 1956 essay explictly says "The process of redefining liberalism in terms of the social needs of the 20th century was conducted by Theodore Roosevelt and his New Nationalism, Woodrow Wilson and his New Freedom, and Franklin D. Roosevelt and his New Deal." -- I added LBJ's Great Society, which came after Schlesinger wrote that essay. Other leading historians include Leuchtenberg, Hamby and Wilentz. Rjensen (talk) 15:08, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Schlesinger was a partisan writer and often wrote for a wide audience. The essay does not have footnotes and does not refer to earlier historical analysis. In any case it does not say that modern US liberalism "developed from progressive ideals such [the] New Nationalism, [the] New Freedom...." He does not even use the term "progressive". And he does not say it is a form of "social liberalism" and in fact notes that the ideals of John Dewey (America's foremost social liberal) were rejected. He draws the definition so wide it includes the mainstream Republican party. TFD (talk) 16:03, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Schlesinger wrote very well indeed and had a big audience, including professional historians who greatly admired his work on the history of liberalism. He clearly id's modern liberalism with TR, Wilson and FDR, which is the whole point of the lede. He does cover a lot of history in that essay, and he does use "progressive." It's a very solid source. Conservatives and the mainstream GOP rejects TR's New Nationalism, WW's New Freedom and FDR's New Deal, which are basic to modern liberals. It's hard to think of a better source for this article--and Four Deuces does not suggest one. Rjensen (talk) 16:22, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The New Nationalism and the New Freedom were competing party platforms and while they may have foreshadowed modern liberalism they did not necessarily develop into modern liberalism and there is no reason why they should be seen as the beginning - why not populism abolitionism, Jacksonian democracy? In fact modern conservatives accept the fed, the SEC, the FDA, social security, etc. and therefore would meet Schlesinger's definition of US liberals.  Here is a source, a book published by Rowman & Littlefield, tht says modern liberalism is rooted in progressive reform and draws upon social liberal values and was emerging in the US even before FDR, although he is often described as the father of modern liberalism.  While it may seem pedantic, that is not the same as saying liberalism developed from progressive ideals or that it is a form of social liberalism.  Modern US liberalism is more a tendency and coalition than a coherent ideology and movement.  TFD (talk) 18:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

While no source is infallible, we have to go with the best we got. Schlesinger was a Harvard professor who won two Pulitzer Prizes, two National Book Awards, and a Four Freedoms Award, among many other honors. If he isn't a reliable source, it is hard to imagine who is. As for the claim that his work does not support the lede, I think Rjensen's quotes take care of that.

Yes, modern liberalism is based on ideas from the American Revolution. (I've restored Tom Paine to the lede.) But the purpose of the lede is to give a general idea of what modern American liberals believe, and where they got those ideas. A detailed history of the many philosophers who contributed belongs further down in the article.

As for the observation that many Republicans support these ideas, this is true. Essentially all American politicians except Ron Paul are modern liberals. Rick Norwood (talk) 18:47, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Tom Paine was a powerful voice in 1775-76 in overthrowing the King and going for independence, but not after that. His suggestion for a cash endowment came 40 years after the revolution and has not been endorsed --or even mentioned--by many liberals,. It does not make the text of the article which the lede summarizes. So let's just drop it. Rjensen (talk) 18:56, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Nonetheless, the US has been increasing polarized since the 1930s between opposing camps of "liberals" and "conservatives", and there should be an article about the first group. And while Schlesinger was a great historian, we need to exercise caution when using works that are published outside the academic mainstream.  The most obvious problem is what weight to give competing claims.  TFD (talk) 19:21, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * yes indeed, modern liberal and modern conservatives have been fighting continuously for the last 75 years. The tension we see in 2010 is, in my opinion, about average for that period. (for example, this year we see relatively little fighting over foreign policy this year, unlike years when real battles raged--over Iraq, Nicaragua, Korea, WW2, etc. Likewise civil rights debates have cooled down, though Arizona/immigration might explode into a big fight). Rjensen (talk) 21:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I should have said that the two parties have become more polarized along liberal-conservative differences. When Schlesinger wrote in 1956 he believed that conservatism was dead as there was a post-war liberal consensus.  TFD (talk) 23:24, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The 1940s had very high tensions. For example, on labor issues. The fight then was 1) over Taft Hartley; 2) expelling Reds from major unions 3) major national strikes, esp 1946 and 1951. Today there is a little tiff over card-check, which seems unable to pass a heavily Democratic Congress.Rjensen (talk) 23:39, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Still, that overstates things. The Old Right (McCarthy, Taft, etc.) and the Progressives (like Wallace) were not the dominant forces in US politics which was dominated by liberals.  In 1948, the two liberal presidential candidates polled almost 95% of the vote, despite clear left and right alternatives.  TFD (talk) 20:22, 15 May 2010 (UTC)