Talk:Social liberalism

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 February 2019 and 3 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): DaniloHelber.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:38, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Social liberal parties
A number of parties have been added to the list of social liberal policies with either no sources provided, or sourced only to the parties' websites. None of these websites claim that the parties are social liberal and would not be good sources in any case. Several of the parties listed appear to be social democratic, for example the Social Democrat Radical Party of Chile, which is a member of the Socialist International. Others may be nationalist or agrarian. See WP:V: "Any material that requires a citation but does not have one may be removed." Please do not re-add without reliable sources. TFD (talk) 15:49, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree in countries like Spain, two minor parties are listed with a Spanish nationalistic ideology whilst the only part that is a member of the Alliance of European Liberal Democrats is Democratic Convergence of Catalonia. Hope this gets updates soon. I would delete the two parties listed as irrelevant besides the fact that I doubt that socio-liberal is the right definition of their ideology.

Seconded, we have a proper and large Social Democratic Party of Finland and other more leftist parties in Finland, and this article only gives the tiny party of Swedish People's Party of Finland as an example (it is sourced from a book which counts it as an example of an ethnic/regional party). It is a one-topic party which only basically promotes the compulsory teaching of Swedish language in Finnish schools. They always ally with any block which accepts this. They are centre-rightist in their policy when it rarely comes up. This is probably the worst example of a Social Liberal party there can be. Keskival (talk) 11:14, 8 May 2016 (UTC)


 * The SDP is not a social-liberal party, but in fact also the SFP might not be a social-liberal party—for opposite reasons. --Checco (talk) 03:03, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Any objections to remove the SFP from the list of social-liberal parties?--Autospark (talk) 22:27, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I really don't know. In the SFP article's infobox there is a source for "social liberalism"... --Checco (talk) 11:48, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It's a tricky one. There's definitely sources that indicate a social-liberal/liberal basis for the SFP, but also (primarily) it is an ethno-regionalist party too. It is often difficult categorising social-liberal parties, as unlike social-democratic parties (for example), there are a lot fewer of them, and they often have other ideologies or purposes as their basis.--Autospark (talk) 13:37, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I totally share your concerns and I leave the issue to users who happen to be more informed than me. --Checco (talk) 17:44, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Regarding my additions
The Four Deuces keeps deleting the parties I’ve added. The articles on the parties I’ve added, together with the weblinks I’ve provided, provide evidence that the parties I’ve added are socially liberal. The article on the People’s Justice Party does not state that the party is socially liberal, but I felt that the party’s centre-left policies, together with its status as an observer member of the Liberal International, make it a social liberal party. In addition, the Australian Democrats is described as a social liberal party. I don’t understand why that keeps getting deleted.

I feel that liberal parties that champion state intervention to tackle social evils such as poverty (like the Orange Democratic movement of Kenya) are socially liberal, since tackling inequality is a key aim of social liberalism.

Also, I’m not sure whether D66 of the Netherlands can be described as a social liberal party. I say this because in its 2006 manifesto, which I read on the English language version of their site, it spoke out against state intervention, saying that government is not a “happiness factory” while also championing reductions in the welfare state. To me, that seems more like classical liberalism than social liberalism, since the latter champions expanded state welfare.

Finally, the Centre Party describes itself as a liberal party, as noted in that link I added.

User:zictor23 (talk) 19:45, 29 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I have set up a discussion thread at WP:NORN because your edits violate WP:NOR. Also parties may be "socially liberal" but not "social liberal" parties, while social liberal parties historically were not necessarily socially liberal.  TFD (talk) 03:53, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Please see WP:RS, which explains how sources are used for backing up statements in articles. Ideally you should find an article about social liberal parties. For example, before you mostly deleted it, the section said, "Examples of successful European social liberal parties, which have participated in government coalitions at national or regional levels, are the Liberal Democrats in the United Kingdom, D66 in the Netherlands, and the Danish Social Liberal Party in Denmark."[Kirchner, Emil (2000). Liberal parties in Western Europe. Cambridge University Press. pp. 356–7]

Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources for other Wikipedia articles, because anyone can put anything into an article. Also, party websites are primary sources and are not acceptable for classifying them.

Arguments could also be made that the Australian Democrats are a green party or left libertarian populist party. One could argue that the Radical Civic Union is a social democratic party, because it is a member of the Socialist International, as is the Colombian Liberal Party. For us to weigh the evidence and make a call is synthesis.

TFD (talk) 15:57, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Resposne from zictor23
I see what you mean The Four Deuces. I never meant to go against any Wikipedia policies, btw. One thing I would like to know is exactly which liberal parties in mainland Europe support interventionist policies such as an expanded welfare state to combat poverty like the Liberal Democrats here in the United Kingdom. The European parties I added were the only ones I saw which I think could possibly be described as social liberal e.g. supportive of expanded welafre progarmmes, amongst other interventionist policies. My sceptism of the D66 party stemmed from the fact that its manifesto of 2006 spoke out against state intervention and called for reductions in the Dutch welfare state. Perhaps since then, though, its shifted to the left. If you like, I can post you the link to their manifesto on this page here.

Also, the Institutional Revolutionary Party, which is a member of PRI, is not a completely socialist party. In fact, for most of its years in power, the presidents came from the conservative wing of the party. Presumably, it still has a socialist wing, which is probably why its a member. I could be wrong, but I think that the Colombian Liberal Party and the Radical Civic Union contain both liberals and socialists in their ranks, which is probably why they are members of PRI. I suppose there are parties that can be described as both liberal and social-democratic. Perhaps the radical civic union is one of those.User:zictor23 (talk) 17:11, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Klaus von Beyme claimed that most parties in Europe could be divided into broad ideological families, but that the classification became more difficult in other parts of the world. Social liberal parties are a subclassification of liberal parties, but few writers have attempted to list them.  Generally what unites liberals is stronger than what divides them, so their parties will contain elements of various strands of liberalism.  Also, almost all other parties have been influenced by liberalism to some degree.  Both Conservatives and Labour for example adopted first social then neo-liberal policies after the war, yet are not described as liberal parties.  Both social and conservative liberal parties have also alternated in the type of liberalism they support.  Policies however are not the main criteria for classifying parties.  Notice that although D66 has become less interventionist, that is true of all parties and it is still distinguishable from the conservative liberal VVD.
 * But the best approach is to use sources that clearly classify these parties rather than doing so ourselves.
 * TFD (talk) 16:56, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Contemporary, popular use of term 'socially liberal'
Hello TFD, on 1 May 12 you removed a section I added to the lead of this article with your explanation given as “Remove extensvie off-topic discussion from lead”. Before I start I would just like to acknowledge the considerable work you have done to making this article as comprehensive as it is, I’m sure this would be a far less worthy article without your intervention. However I would disagree with your removal of my input (perhaps not surprisingly!) and would be grateful for further discussion. I do not see the subject as being off topic. Searching for the term “socially liberal” in wikipedia redirects you to “social liberalism” - until this re-direct is changed I therefore see input on the use of the term “socially liberal” as correctly sitting within this article. I believe that the contemporary, popular understanding of the term “socially liberal” is as an adjective used as my edit outlined (to precis for those that didn’t see my edit someone who is described as socially liberal believes government should minimise legislation primarily aimed to impact on the private / personal lives of individuals - see history for full edit). Nowhere else in this article is there a description / explanation on what I believe is the contemporary, popular use of the term “socially liberal”; it therefore appears worthy of conclusion.

With this in mind I would appreciate an explanation of why you believe my edit was off-topic. DistractionActivity (talk) 11:07, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The phrase "social liberalism" is fairly common, "socially liberal" much less so. If I encountered that phrase, I would guess it described someone who partied a lot.  In any case, you need to find a good academic source for your proposed addition.  Rick Norwood (talk) 12:03, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi, Rick. Thanks for your input.  The term "socially liberal" is common enough that The Economist uses it to describe British politicians (please see my original now deleted edit) - I think an international publication (average weekly circulation 1.5 million according to Wikipedia) probably satisfies any criteria as to how common the term is.  I agree that a good source needs to be found to support the proposed addition (although I would question that it needs to be an academic source - I'm arguing that the term is in popular use and means something specific in popular use, so any reference would need to be of popular (not necessarily academic) use).  Actually a source I'm leaning to at the moment is http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/politics-and-government/fiscally-conservative-socially-liberal ; which I think is a fairly good example of the popular use of "socially liberal" by a pretty well established institution (whether of course you agree with what they say being besides the point).   Your reply does take me a little off the question I posed to TFD however; which was that the edit was deleted because it was "off-topic" not because it was wrong - I'm more interested in whether it is off-topic or not at the moment; my position remaining that as "socially liberal" redirects to this article it is not.  DistractionActivity (talk) 12:55, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree that social liberalism may refer to being socially liberal and added a link at the top of the page: "Not to be confused with cultural liberalism".  However I thought that the addition on to the lead was too lengthy and not supported by the source, which uses the term "socially liberal" and provides no definition.  A Google Books search shows one of the first ten hits (Porn Generation: How Social Liberalism is corrupting our Future) using social liberalism to mean cultural liberalism.  Unfortunately if does not describe the term.  Can you find any source that explains this meaning?  I don't think the example of use of the term "socially liberal" is helpful unless one can find a source that people who are socially liberal are called social liberals.  One may be socially active but not a social activist.  TFD (talk) 14:17, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I actually asked why you thought my edit was "off-topic" as this is why you stated my edit was removed. Instead of answering whether it was "off-topic" or not you instead say that it was removed because it was "too lengthy" and not "supported by the source."  Sorry to labour the point, but when someone goes to the trouble of penning something and someone else removes it, it is a little bit frustrating for a reason to be given which when challenged appears not to be the reason and is not explained further.  My frustration clearly is not your concern however, and I won't mention it again!  So to start afresh with your points. "Can you find any source that explains this meaning?" - I take it you don't think the Adam Smith institute constitues an example of popular usage of "socially liberal" from which the meaning is apparent?  Onto the more interesting question I think you raise: you think it is not "helpful" to include an explanation of the term "socially liberal" unless one can find a source "that people who are socially liberal are called social liberals."  I differ in my conclusion as to whether this is helpful, and I will attempt to explain why using your example regards activism.  I agree entirely that one may be socially active but not a social activist.  At the moment though if I search "socially active" in wikipedia I am quite rightly not taken to the (social) activist page, proving your well-made point.  If I search on "socially liberal" (an article which does exist, unlike socially active) I am however taken to the "social liberalism" page.  I suspect that plenty of people might consider themselves "socially liberal," but are not signed up to the ideology of "social liberalism" (Boris Johnson I suspect being one) - continuing with your excellent example lots of pople would consider themselves "socially active" without considering themselves (social) activists!  I'd like to propose a compromise - the "socially liberal" redirect is pointed at "cultural liberalism"?  I do actually mean that as a constructive comment, let me know what you think.  DistractionActivity (talk) 15:39, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

(out) It was off-topic because it provides an extensive description of a topic different from the subject of the article. I think it violates no original research to find examples of the use of the expression "socially liberal" and develop a definition. If it is a notable concept then there should be a definitiion somewhere. It is in the nature of language that writers often modify nouns and adjectives with adjectives and adverbs and that does not necessarily imply a new concept.

There is a "socially liberal" page which redirects here, and links out to half a dozen articles. My view is that this is an example of over-linking and the page should not re-direct to this article, and probably be deleted. On the other hand, if you can establish that socially liberal is a genuine topic then you can turn the re-direct into an article.

There is also social libertarian, which used to re-direct here but now for some reason re-directs to libertarian socialism. Social libertarianism is defined on p. 243 of Libertarianism Defended.

TFD (talk) 16:39, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with your statement that the socially liberal page should not re-direct to this article. I am shortly to drop off the net however so have no time to "establish that socially liberal is a genuine topic" - although my edit was actually to establish that "socially liberal" was not synonymous with "social liberalism," so as long as I succeed in doing that I feel no onus to prove the genuineness of socially liberal or otherwise - so in short I will not turn the re-direct into an article.  If you do not believe there is a better place that "socially liberal" should re-direct to then I would have no issue with it being deleted.  Are you happy to do this as the more experienced Wikipedian, or would you rather me (I will first need to find out how to do this, not having done it before)?


 * I don't intend to answer your no original research point as, well hopefully a solution has been arrived at, and life is too short to argue every matter you disagree with. DistractionActivity (talk) 17:59, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I set up a deletion discussion here. TFD (talk) 18:38, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Many thanks. DistractionActivity (talk) 19:30, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Social liberal parties
We need sources to include parties showing that they are generally considered to be social liberal parties. An editor added back a number of unsourced additions, saying, "Added various parties Note: The Liberal Party of Canada is a predominantly centre-left liberal party, whic it supports, and has supported in the past, interventionist social policies. That makes it a social liberal party". Curiously the last leader of the Liberal Party, Michael Ignatieff, who wrote a biography defending the views of Isaiah Berlin and books and articles defending the Bush administration's war on terror, including the invasion of Iraq, water-boarding, targeted assassinations and indefinite detention of suspects, recently wrote, "The NDP are not liberals in a hurry, and we are not a party of the left. We are a free enterprise party, and they are big-government social democrats.... We’re not and never have been the party of big government."  TFD (talk) 20:50, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I notice that a reference has been added for Democrats 66. However, |the source makes no mention of social liberalism and does not attempt to categorize parties at all. TFD (talk) 22:46, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The Liberal Party of Canada are more of a catch-all centrist party, certainly more so during the height of its powers, not a social-liberal party in itself objectively speaking. D66 would count as centrist social-liberal party by most indicactors.--Autospark (talk) 23:46, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I feel that most of the parties that I added which were later deleted, such as the United Democrats of Cyprus and the Sammarinese for Freedom of San Marino, were social liberal parties. They are liberal parties which support interventionist policies to promote social equality, which is social liberalism. It surprises me how RJFF and others keep deleting these additions. I read RJFF's message to me and I understand his argument, but I still feel that most of the parties I added were social liberal.zictor23] ([[User talk:zictor23|talk) 23:34, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Please read WP:SYN: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources."  If one source says the United Democrats of Cyprus is a "liberal part[y] which support[s] interventionist policies to promote social equality" and another says a social liberal party is a "liberal part[y] which support[s] interventionist policies to promote social equality", one cannot say that the United Democrats of Cyprus is a social liberal party.  One needs a source that says "the United Democrats of Cyprus is a social liberal party".  The fact that no one who has written about the party or about social liberal parties has made the same conclusion you have makes your conclusion questionable.  TFD (talk) 05:42, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

More on social liberal parties
Generally we need to be very careful here, with this article: there haven't ever been that many social-liberal parties, whether currently active or historically speaking. The list of active liberal parties in this article is overflowing already with organisations that weren't wholly or explicitly social-liberal in character.--Autospark (talk) 23:23, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. We need a source that says which parties are social liberal, and explain the source.  TFD (talk) 05:11, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Also, centre-right liberal parties (such as the Swedish liberal parties, or Flemish Open VLD) which happen to have social-liberal factions or elements don't belong on the list.--Autospark (talk) 20:40, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I find it to be over-categorization. While there is consensus about which parties are liberal, sub -categorization into conservative and social liberal parties does not have consensus, and parties may waver between the two.  It would be better to say "'x' says that a,, b, c, etc. are social liberal parties".  TFD (talk) 21:34, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

"Social Liberalism" the book
Just discovered that there is a print-on-demand book titled "Social Liberalism" that reprints this article and, apparently, consists entirely of reprinted Wikipedia articles. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:17, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

What is social liberalism?
I've been doing some reading about social liberalism, and it seems to be a popular term (the leading book with that title equates social liberalism with love of porn) rather than an academic term. There is no article with that title in the Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics nor in Safire's Political Dictionary. Everyone seems to agree that it means support of civil rights and the provision of government services, such as public schools and public health. Beyond that, it is used by its supporters to mean a government that protects the weak and by its opponents to mean a government that hates the rich. I think, especially in the lead, we should only include what is common to most sources, instead of the laundry list of things social liberals support. "Solidarity"? Rick Norwood (talk) 13:10, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It IS an academic term. Just one that is misused in popular speech as a synynom for social progressivism.--Autospark (talk) 14:25, 23 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The topic of this article has several names and each of these names can mean different things, although social liberalism is the most common one. This book review provides a good brief definition.  The book reviewed, The Ethical State?: Social Liberalism in Australia, while primarily about Australia, provides a detailed explanation of the subject and could be used as a source.]  Unfortunately only the first 25 pages are available at Google Books.  I don't think that civil rights and solidarity are major components.  TFD (talk) 16:16, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Alexander Rüstow
In the article it is claimed that Alexander Rüstow first proposed the German version of economic social liberalism. In the citation doesn't verify this claim. The phrase "Social liberalism" exists in the source only once: “...but in the end the Colloque Walter Lippmann was united in their call for a new liberal project — a project that still needed a name. ‘Liberalism from the left’ was one idea; others were ‘positive liberalism’ or ‘social liberalism.’ But the term on which the participants actually agreed was ‘neoliberalism’ — Rüstow’s original recommendation.” page 19 According to this citation Rüstow is a proponent of neoliberalism and this is something completely different than "social liberalism". --Mr. Mustard (talk) 18:34, 23 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Wow, here I see history repeating. We had all that in the German version of Wikipedia two years before. With one side claiming that early German "neoliberalism" (today rather called Ordoliberalism) were basically a liberal project and the other side claiming it for Chicago style libertarians. The truth seems to be somewhere in between, as early Chicago economist such as Simons and Viner tended to draw on German Ordoliberals and 'sociological neoliberalism' (soziologischer Neoliberalismus), but Chicago School under the influence of Hayek, Friedman and Director later took a sharp turn at some point in the postwar-era as described by Rob Van Horn and Philip Mirowski. The same later happend to German neoliberalism / ordoliberalism. It is  rather futile to argue what neoliberalism is (and has "always" been): social liberal or neoconservative / libertarian, as long as those historical developments are not acknowledged. Of course politicized users of Wikipedia on both sides of the State-Market divide do not want to acknowledge these changes and the respective literature, as they fear that their clear-cut ideology will be challenged...--Olag (talk) 08:27, 17 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The Mont Pelerin Society brought together liberals of different opinions, including ordoliberals, Austrian economists and the Chicago School. Ordoliberalism shared similarities with social liberalism in the UK, such as support for a welfare state, but we would need a source linking the two to include it in the article.  Our current usage of the term "neoliberal" arose in the 1990s.  TFD (talk) 18:54, 17 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Here some sources for "similarities with social liberalism in the UK, such as support for a welfare state": --Mr. Mustard (talk) 12:39, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually the sources do not mention the United Kingdom at all. Also, the quotes are out of context.  Notice that Wilhelm Röpke's Political Economy says on page 131, "he was prepared to accept old-age pensions, unemployment relief and sickness insurance 'as parts of a sound system of provision in a free society'.  The question for Roepke was the degree, organization and spirit in which they operated."  That was the same approach taken by the Liberal Party (UK) in the 1906 reforms.  Note too that the terms used by both to describe themselves were "new liberal" and "neoliberal", both used to distinguish themselves from 19th century liberalism.  TFD (talk) 13:14, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree, TFD, but Mr. Mustard is also right in pointing out that the vision of the early "neoliberals" was different in that they mostly believed not in an extensive welfare state, but in the market as a promotor of social equality. However, their early, pre-1960s conceptions of the Market were fundamentally different from later Chicaco School positions (Hayek went back to Freiburg in 1962). Rather than in laissez-faire or deregulation, they strongly believed in the dismantling of corporate power and in clear rules set and enforced by a strong, but "lean" and impartial state. But as said, we, Mr. Mustard, some others and me, discussed these problems and developments so extensively and with so little result in the German Wikipedia, that I am not willing to continue about the same questions here. It comes to no good... Actually at the moment M. M. is blocked in the German Wikipedia, because he said that I were a "friend and protector of trolls and users committing citation fraud". And, I have a hard time to take such things seriously ;-)
 * Best regards,---Olag (talk) 11:23, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The Liberal Party (UK) did not believe in an extensive welfare state either, and in fact resisted its extension as supported by fellow Liberals Keynes and Beveridge and implemented by the Labour Party. TFD (talk) 19:17, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

What are the politicoeconomic factors of social liberalism?
It seems like theirs no satisfactory defined set of beliefs regarding social liberalism. Earlier revisions claimed that it was liberalism with social justice but many assigned as social liberals never talked about or hint social justice. What about proclaimed social liberals who are skeptical of social justice? Many thinks assigned to social liberalism like an expansive welfare state, "civil rights" (whatever that means), government regulation, and intervention should be more assigned to progressiveism. Many early social liberals seemed more like classical liberals who thought things like workers rights, economic democracy and a basic social insurance would be a good combination to political and economic freedom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.13.58.61 (talk) 04:26, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This seems a strange post. You start by saying earlier versions equated social liberalism with an "expansive" welfare state, but go on to say in your opinion social liberalism believes in "basic social insurance".  But surely these are two extremes of the same belief, that the government should have a safety net for the disadvantaged.  And asking what "civil rights" means just shows you were not alive in the 1960s, or you wouldn't have to ask.  Rick Norwood (talk) 12:00, 27 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Your post is incoherent. TFD (talk) 07:05, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Social liberalism and left liberalism: one and the same?
A user recently deleted (which I then brought back) a link to a liberal organisation which stated that social liberalism is also known as left liberalism. I'm not sure why that link was removed.

User:zictor23 (talk) 21:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Left-liberalism is not a common term, and there are more common terms used as a synonym for social liberalism. Also, left-liberalism is contextual.  Before the Second World War, left-liberals in Europe opposed the welfare state, which was a major policy for social liberals, while the right-wing National Liberals supported it. Mises and Hayek were prominent "left-liberals".  TFD (talk) 20:57, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Social liberalism in Germany
The text says that German social liberalism first culminated in Progress Party. Sorry, but that's nonsense! The Progressive Party opposed any social reform such as Bismarck's social legislation, which they denounced as state socialism ("Staatssozialismus"). This is probably a misinterpretation of the German term research left-liberalism ("Linksliberalismus") by British authors. In the German research literature, this term is generally used to separate some parties from national liberalism. The National-Social Association of Friedrich Naumann was the first liberal party in Germany, which established requirements for social reform. Then began other left-liberal parties to deal with the social question, especially the Free-minded Union. Both parties merged in 1903. 141.30.217.137 (talk) 03:28, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The text explains how social liberalism in Germany differed from that in England, it "included strong opposition to the welfare state, which they deemed state socialism.... The term "social liberal" contrasted these parties with the more conservative and classically liberal, such as the right-wing of the National Liberal Party...." TFD (talk) 09:58, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

But "social liberalism" isn't a common term in German historiography. To describe this ideological trend the term "left-liberalism" is almost used. That are two different research concepts! 141.30.217.137 (talk) 10:53, 9 January 2013 (UTC) Furthermore, the statement that the National Liberal Party would represent a classical liberalism does not apply. It was precisely the Progress Party, which advocated classical liberal values like the realization of the "legal state​​". In fact, the National Liberal Party prohibited the implementation of these values by their cooperation with the Conservatives. 141.30.217.137 (talk) 14:57, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I do not think you are reading the section properly because it does not make the claims you say. The existence of social liberalism in Germany is well documented in Guido De Ruggiero's The History of European Liberalism (1927), pp. 265-270, and Mises wrote about it in "A Critique of Interventionism" (1929).  Neither of those writers were English.  While the National Liberals co-operated with the Conservatives, they broke with them over protectionism.  In any case articles must be based on sources, not personal interpretatin.  TFD (talk) 15:58, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I read the section very thoroughly! I also do not deny that there was a social liberalism in Germany. But it did not exist as shown here. As already indicated above, German historiography almost uses the term "left-liberalism" or "liberal left" to describe the politics of Progressive Party. After the turn of the century Friedrich Naumann (National-Social Association) and Theodor Barth (Free-minded Union) were the first left-liberals who established requirements for social reform in their party programmes. Only then some historians use the term "social liberalism". My descriptions are not a personal interpretation! They rely on the two relevant general works on the history of liberalism in Germany: Dieter Langewiesche's Liberalismus in Deutschland (1988) and James J. Sheehan's Der deutsche Liberalismus (1983, translation of: German Liberalism in the Nineteenth Century). By the way, not the National Liberals broke with the conservatives, rather Bismarck broke with the National Liberals to establish an alliance with the catholic Centre Party ("Second Reichsgründung"). After that, the National Liberal Party moves to the right and a small group split off to found the Liberal Union. 141.30.217.137 (talk) 17:42, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry but I cannot access the relevant parts of the book. However I have Snell and Schmitt's The Democratic Movement in Germany, 1789-1914.  It says, "...according to left-liberalism, the empire must be democratized excluding socialism and inroads must be made on the SPD's labor constituency.... Throughout the imperial era they encouraged the growth of patriotic, procapitalist, Progressive unions to counter the socialist labor movement. This effort began in 1868 when the liberal economist Max Hirsch, and Franz Duncker... established the German Worker Associations (Deutsche Gewerkvereine)..... The Gewerkvereine pledged themselves to work for "the raising of the working class [through self-help] on the foundation of the existing social order," and they accepted the aims of "social justice" and "political freedom and [local and provincial] self government."" (p. 311)
 * This source appears to show that this approach was mainstream in left-liberalism. While Naumann's approach is closer to English social liberalism, De Ruggiero and subsequent writers identified the party's attempt to help the workers help themselves and not rely on the welfare state as social liberalism.  Do you agree they took this approach and if yes, then what do you call it?
 * TFD (talk) 21:20, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

What the author describes were not the aims of the liberal trade unions ("Hirsch-Dunckersche Gewerkvereine"). "Self-help" was the ideology of the ​​cooperatives, which were founded by Franz Hermann Schulze-Delitzsch in the 1840's. The social policy of Progressive Party (and its successor organisations: Free-minded Party and Free-minded People's Party) was also based on this concept: the workers should unite in cooperatives and help each other to improve their living conditions. Is this the answer of modern social liberalism on social question: "self-help" without any welfare state element? Naumann's National-Social Association took a different approach: legal protection of the freedom of association for workers, including their freedom to strike; introduction of unemployment insurance; expansion of the state poor relief etc. This corresponds more to the notion of the modern social liberalism. 141.30.217.137 (talk) 23:46, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That is how the sources, for example, Richardson's Contending Liberalisms, pp. 36-37, describe it, using De Ruggiero as a source. TFD (talk) 04:42, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Richardson is a political scientist and not a historian. I think this the reason why he misinterprets German "left-liberalism" as "social liberalism". Trade unions and cooperatives are not the same. First are (political) organizations of workers, which try to achieve their interests (safety requirements, reducing working hours, collective agreements etc.), while second are (economic) associations of people, in which they help each other to improve their social-economic situation. The liberal parties saw themselves as protector of common good and not as representative of special interests of certain social classes. Therefore, the liberal parties did not support the liberal trade unions of Hirsch and Duncker, because these organizations fought for the special interests of working people. They merely promoted the formation of cooperatives, because these associations based on the idea of self-help ... I'm going to correct the text in the next few days, today I don't have any time. 141.30.217.137 (talk) 14:34, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The chapter by Richardson was published in the peer-reviewed European Journal of International Relations (1997), has appeared in two academic books by him and is used as part of university political science courses. The section on Germany is supported by Guido De Ruggiero's The History of European Liberalism (1927) which even today is considered the foremost history of liberalism ever written.  De Ruggiero was a professor of the history of philosophy in the 1920s, a prominent Italian social liberal and later minister of education.  You cannot just dismiss this because you happen to disagree.  You need a source that supports you.  BTW according to the sources, the liberal unions did not fight "for the special interests of working people", which would be contary to liberal ideology.  TFD (talk) 15:08, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

As mentioned above, Richardson is political scientist and not a historian, he describes the evolution of political thoughts and not historical processes. I studied both disciplines and know the differences between them - but that is of secondary importance. The De Ruggiero's work is nearly 100 years old and a overview on European history; apropos it is not quoted by any leading German historian, neither Lothar Gall, Thomas Nipperdey nor Hans-Ulrich Wehler. (Note that Theodor Mommsen's  Römische Geschichte (A History of Rome) was even honoured with the Nobel Prize in Literature, but nowadays no one quotes it anymore.) Without doubting the reputation of both you cite I think that the works of Langewiesche and Sheehan are more reputable sources in this special case, because they are much more up to date and focused on German history. In Sheehan's German Liberalism in the Nineteenth Century please read chapter 10 (pp. 153-155, illustrates the resistance of leading liberals against the liberal trade unions of Hirsch and Duncker, and the ideas of "Socialists of the Chair" like Lujo Brentano), the other relevant sections are unfortunately not available. By the way Langewiesche's work was also translated into English: Liberalism in Germany. To your criticism: But you know that trade unions are organizations which are fighting for the interests of working people, no matter on which ideology (liberal, socialist or christian) they based? Therefore my descriptions are not contary to liberal ideology: The liberal trade unions ("Hirsch-Dunckersche Gewerkvereine") fougt for the special interests of working people on the foundation of the existing state order, and not in the in the spirit of socialist trade unions ("Freie Gewerkschaften") which wanted to eliminate the monarchy and establish a new regime. But the dicussion moving further away from the goals: I only want a clear distinction between "left-liberalism" and "social liberalism". I am preparing a revision of the section for discussion. Many greetings from Germany 141.30.217.137 (talk) 20:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I am having difficulty following your arguments. You say that Naumann's party (founded 1896) was the first social liberal party but then say the liberal trade unions, which existed from 1868-1933, were social liberal. Only they weren't because "self help" is not social liberalism.  I wish you would read the sources presented in the article and that I mentioned here.  Classical liberalism had not addressed the social issue,  which English social liberals addressed through the welfare state.  But in Germany it was addressed through encouraging self help.  You do not have to accept this narrative but that is what multiple sources say and you need to provide a source that says they are wrong.  TFD (talk) 23:24, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but you are ignorant! It is really amazing that you mean the 10 lines about Germany in Richardson's overview article which based on a five-page illustration in De Ruggiero's nearly 100 year old overview about history of European liberalism are more relevant than the two pertinent studies of Langewiesche and Sheehan on history of German liberalism! If both authors are such experts in German liberalism history, I am surprised that neither the German historians nor the American Sheehan quote them. I posted a source you can check: Please read German Liberalism in the Nineteenth Century, chapter 10 (espec. pp. 153-155). In German version there are also relevant chapter 11 ("Die liberale Wählerschaft und der Triumph der Interessenpolitik", espec. pp. 205-206, shows defiance attitude of liberals towards representation of special economic interests and reasons for resistance againt liberal trade unions in Progress Party) and chapter 14 ("Die liberale Linke und das harte Brot der Oppostion", espec. 241-243, shows the absence of socio-political demands in program of Progress Party). In Langewiesche's Liberalismus in Deutschland chapter IV/5 "Antisozialismus - Sozialpolitik - Liberale Gesellschaftsbilder" (pp. 187-200) summarizes the defiance attitude of imperial German liberals towards social policy. Please finally realise that liberal trade unions were not based on "self-help", but on organisation of employees into unions to fight for their rights. Trade unions of all persuasions, from liberal to socialist, are political oranizations and no private self-help groups! Meanwhile "self-help" was the idelogy of the ​​cooperatives. Neither liberal trade unions nor cooperatives were mainstream like Richardson implies, but they found relatively few supporters among the liberal politicians. Although these approaches had been, but they were no more than a marginal note in history of German liberalism without any mass foundation or fixation in programs of liberal parties. This is also evident in the fact that the liberal "Hirsch-Dunckersche Gewerkvereine" had about 100,000 members in 1910, while the socialist "Freie Gewerkschaften" organized more than 2.5 million people. And yes I really mean that was Naumann's National-Social Association was the first social liberal party in Germany, because they were the first who fixed social policy issues, such as expansion of the social state, legalization of freedom to strike or profit-sharing to employees, in their party program. 141.30.217.137 (talk) 06:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC) ________ Here are some relevant parts of the two German books which I mentioned above, Thomas Nipperdey's standard reference work on history of Imperial Germany, and a dissertation on Free-minded Union which also refers to the previous positions of German left-liberals. My English skills are not good enough to translate it adequately. Please use Google Translate or PROMT Translator and you will get a rough overview of the situation in 19th century Germany.

Edit: 141.30.217.137 (talk) 22:28, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Same question, I guess
I have pretty much the same question that has been asked several times on this page. I thought that "social liberalism" favored Same sex marriage, relaxed laws on activities between "consenting adults", drug usage; that sort of thing. I thought that "fiscally liberal" included (US) National Health Care, not caring whether the budget was balanced or not to achieve "more important" goals, etc. Howard Dean was often described as "socially liberal, fiscally conservative." As governor, he always balanced the budget, while favoring medical care bills that did not unbalance the budget as well as SSM. Student7 (talk) 16:56, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

This article, nor the above discussion, seems to indicate this. Student7 (talk) 16:56, 4 February 2013 (UTC)


 * To my understanding, there are two different meanings of 'social liberalism': 'Social liberalism' in the American sense refers to (American) liberal (Europeans would say: progressive) stances on social issues (e.g. abortion, gay marriage etc.), as opposed to social conservatism. 'Social liberalism' in the European sense means (European) liberalism with a social component (this can mean to advocate more welfare than classical liberals (who could be considered fiscal conservatives in the US)) European social liberals may (but must not necessarily) support fiscal policies that would be considered fiscally conservative in the US. I believe that you referred to 'social liberalism' in the American sense, while this article seems to be about 'social liberalism' in the Euopean sense. Should we add a note to avoid future misunderstandings? --RJFF (talk) 11:00, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * By the way, there are two different adjectives used, depending on the meaning of 'social liberalism': 'socially liberal' vs. 'social-liberal'.
 * ''See also: Modern liberalism in the United States --RJFF (talk) 11:00, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Good summary, Mr RJFF:in essence, social liberalism in the American sense is a synonym for social progressivism, and social liberalism in the European sense are liberals who support the social state and social market economy.--Autospark (talk) 15:16, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I would appreciate a note or (less desirable) as see also or something to distinguish between the two. For the record, we are talking England, Australia, Canada, NZ, etc. The fact that we interpret certain phrases in other languages to these terms gives us flexibility on how we treat them IMO. In other words, we are not forced to translate a term in German or French or Italian literally, if it is confusing/ambiguous in England, Australia, South Africa, etc. Student7 (talk) 21:10, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

"Active social liberal parties and organizations" section
This section contains a large amount of inaccurate party choices (parties that are centre-right liberal), and should be pared down significantly. Ideally a section called "Active parties and organizations with social liberal factions", or similar, containing broader liberal parties that are proven to have social-liberals in them. I've said this before, but there aren't, or weren't ever, many political parties that were wholly social-liberal parties. I'd struggle to cite a dozen legitimately, in all honesty.--Autospark (talk) 17:43, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

a sentence ought to have at least a little bit of content

 * Social liberalism is the belief that liberalism should include a social foundation.

Which is trivially true because liberalism, or any of its negations, is meaningless in the absence of society. Could this sentence be made to look less vacuous? —Tamfang (talk) 00:30, 26 January 2014 (UTC)


 * How about, "Social liberalism is the belief that liberalism should support the general welfare of society."? Rick Norwood (talk) 12:57, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Justice Party (South Korea)'s ideology: Social liberalism?
"정의당은 사회민주주의 지향과 진보자유주의 지향을 함께 담고 있다. 진보자유주의는 유럽식으로 표현하면 사회자유주의이다. — Source: Polinews, Date: 25/08/2013

(in Translation: The Justice Party is social democracy and progressive liberalism-oriented political party. The progressive liberalism is expressed in terms of social liberalism in Europe.)"

See the part of original source. Thanks. --Idh0854 (talk) 13:58, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You can't write on the Justice Party here unless they regard themselves as a socially liberal political party. For now, they regard themselves as a social democratic political party. --117.53.77.84 (talk) 07:08, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It is your private opinion. See the Social liberalism section. Thanks. --Idh0854 (talk) 08:34, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

First of all, I'm not a sock puppet of the above IP user who were involved in an edit warring. But I found his position is more reasonable, thus support his view.


 * 1) I don't think the cited Polinews article is a reliable source. Haven't heard about the newspaper, and when I visited their site it feels like a one man's news/blog media. And it's not clear which part of the cited article support User:Idh0854's argument. S/he need to provide at least one reliable source with proper translation (if the source is in Korean).
 * 2) Also, I've checked the linked Korean Wiki article for this topic. Here, they clearly listed NPAD(Ko: 새정치민주연합) as a Social liberal party of South Korea, not the Justice Party. (I understand that Ko Wiki isn't a reliable source, but wanted to proved that even in another wiki project no one support Idh0854's opinion. There had been no edit warring on Ko wiki project regarding this particular problem.)
 * 3) Moreover, User:Idh0854's edits even contradict with his/her own edit from 23/05/2013 on the Ko Wiki article. In this edit,User:Idh0854 didn't list Democratic Party (South Korea, 2011) as a social liberal party of SK, per se. Rather, s/he reverted another IP user's edit. But it is clear that Idh0854 had no problem with listing the Democratic party as the only social liberal party of SK at that time.
 * 4) New Politics Alliance for Democracy is the only successor Democratic Party (South Korea, 2011), and Justice Party (South Korea) was founded 21 October 2012.

As far as I'm concerned, it is User:Idh0854 who's been repeating unconstuctive edits. If we say that the Justice party positions itself on center-left, then the newly founded NPAD should be called a center or center-right party. Then how we gonna call the current ruling Saenuri Party? If we say the Justice party's ideology is social liberalism, then it would be difficult to portray SK's political landscape. --Seonsaengnim (talk) 23:41, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Saenuri Party is center-right party, sir. Thanks. --Idh0854 (talk) 15:53, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Is this social liberalism really?
When social liberalism is mentioned by critics it is used to mean being liberal towards social matters (drugs, prostitution, promiscuity, abortion, assisted suicide, etc). Why is this use strenuously avoided in the article? To do so looks like a deliberate attempt at obfuscation, given how much the term is used in this manner. LeapUK (talk) 14:35, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Liberalism is belief in freedom and equality. Economic liberalism, or classical liberalism, is a belief that economic freedom is more important than social equality.  Thus, some (nor all) economic liberals argue that the federal government had no right to abolish slavery, because the property rights of the slave owners trumped the right of the slave to be treated equally with the white man.  The big battles won by social liberals in the last 150 years include freedom for slaves, votes for former slaves, votes for women, the civil rights movement, the women's liberation movement, and the gay rights movement -- all examples of greater social equality.  The victories of economic liberals include lower tax rates for the rich, a cap on social security tax payments, the ruling that corporations are people, and a lifting of restrictions on the size of political contributions.  The issues you mention above combine personal freedom and economic freedom, and don't have much to do with equality, except for the right to abortion, which puts women in control of their bodies.  Some of this is already in the article.  If you think more should be included, just find a reliable source and include it. Rick Norwood (talk) 11:45, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * That isn't social liberalism. Please read and actually try to understand the article. Social liberalism is not the same thing as social progressivism or modern American liberalism.--Autospark (talk) 14:14, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I think you are right, though it leaves me without a word to describe the plain, garden-variety liberalism that I discuss above. But neither is social liberalism about drugs, prostitution, and promiscuity as LeapUK seems to think. Those issues involve freedom, not social justice. We have all these subsets of liberalism. Liberalism meaning economic freedom, which we call conservatism. Liberalism meaning equal rights. Liberalism meaning social justice, which I now agree is the primary meaning of social liberalism. And liberalism meaning the freedom do to as you please. Then, to add to the confusion, we have conservatism meaning a government that leaves you alone, and conservatism meaning a government that stops people from using drugs and having sex out of wedlock. Is puzzlement! In any case, thank you, Autospark, for setting me right about the difference between social liberalism and the kind of liberalism I was talking about. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:55, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Social or Radical?
Most of the content of this article describes European political movements that could be better described, and which described themselves, as "radical" or "radical liberal". Even England had an early "radical" tradition among its Liberals which included Charles James Fox, and the "New Liberals" of this article could be distinguished from the other Liberals in the same fashion. North America may only use the terms "liberal" and "conservative" in both their ideological and their non-ideological senses, while the other French revolutionary term- "radical" is used only in its non-ideological sense. But in Europe there is well-documented ideological usage of the term "radical" as a very general term for the centre-left, some of which is recorded in this article. Another well-known example would be the French Radicals, who later became the Radical-Socialists (moderate socialists). It seems to me that the terms "social liberal" - and "conservative liberal" - are value judgements by Wikipedia writers, rather than reports of historical fact. The cited list of political parties includes only two uses of "social liberal". One is the Social Liberal Party of Brazil, which is listed as a centre-right liberal party - the opposite of what is described in this article. The other is the Danish Social Liberal Party - a seemingly unique English translation. The original Danish name for the party is "Radikale Venstre", or 'Radical Left'... I rest my case, M'Lud. TrendBronco (talk) 03:17, 19 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but you're wrong. The ideology is called social liberalism. It does not matter what individual political parties title themselves.--Autospark (talk) 09:57, 19 September 2015 (UTC)


 * It is true that most social liberal parties are not actually named "Social Liberal" (btw, the Radikale Venstre presents itself as "Danish Social-Liberal Party" in its website) and I also happen to think that social liberalism is kind of a heir to (historical) radicalism, but I agree with Autospark. As a side note, I would add that the article should explain that "social liberalism" is both the opposite of "conservative liberalism" (mainly in Europe) and the opposite of "social conservatism" (mainly in the United States). Social liberalism is both the left-wing of the current liberal movement and a "left-wing" and "permissive" attitude on social/ethical issues as divorce, abortion, same-sex marriage, drugs, etc. (see also cultural liberalism). The article should reflect all that. --Checco (talk) 16:12, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you Checco for the explanation, and I agree with you on this issue. Apologies to TrendBronco for the brusque and unhelpful response: My point I was trying to make (and made badly) was that names of political often do not correspond to their ideological categorisation.--Autospark (talk) 18:31, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * If the names of parties don't matter, that seems to leave Wikipedia authors even more open to my criticism that they are making their own value judgements rather than making a record of established practices. I understand there is a need to distinguish right-liberalism from left-liberalism, but it seems to me that the decision on whether to say 'social liberal' or 'left liberal' was a completely arbitrary one when it was made by Wikipedia authors. Whereas, with Radicalism and National Liberalism, you have two real traditions to report on, that would also allow you to comment on the general but non-uniform tendency of liberalism to divide into left- and right-wing streams (as all philosophies tend to). TrendBronco (talk) 02:03, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * There aren't or haven't been many "National Liberal" parties around, for that matter. Your arguments look particularly weak to me this time. In fact, what are you arguing for? That the Social Democratic Party of Portugal is social-democratic only for its name or that the Liberal Democratic Party of Russia is liberal for the same reason? That would be nonsense. Moreover, it is true that in the 19th century in many European countries there were National Liberals on the right of the political spectrum and Radicals on the left, but then Christian democrats, socialists, social democrats and others came, and the liberal movement, which is no longer dominant in most countries, is now basically divided in conservative liberals and social liberals (of course there are also some centrist liberals). Why should we use 19th century terms instead of 21st century ones? --Checco (talk) 08:21, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I did not suggest that Party Names were proof, only that they were evidence, which is better than no evidence at all. I agree that liberalism divided into left and right streams, I repeat that the decision to use the terms "conservative-liberalism" and "social-liberalism", rather than any other, is entirely arbitrary. I repeat that it would be as well to merely mention this divide in the pages on National Liberalism and Radicalism, in the latter case in sub-section called "radical-liberalism" perhaps. Apparently, I am not the only one to think along these lines TrendBronco (talk) 14:18, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You may call it arbitrary, yet it is not at all done by Wikipedia users, but by political scientists (compare e.g. H. Slomp, European Politics Into the Twenty-first Century, 2000: "After the rise of social democracy, the liberals split into two trends: conservative liberals and social liberals."). As I have shown below, this distinction is very common in political science literature. Wikipedia has to follow reliable sources. Social liberalism and (historical) radicalism are not congruent even if a number of social-liberal parties come from a radical tradition. The link between national liberalism and conservative liberalism is even feebler. It is totally unusual in expert literature to label modern conservative-liberal parties as national-liberal ones. Neither the Dutch VVD nor the Danish Venstre (two major examples of active conservative-liberal parties) come from a national-liberal line of tradition (most Danish National Liberals joined Højre, not Venstre; while in the Netherlands, national liberalism did not play an important role). --RJFF (talk) 12:04, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * On looking at more of the citations, I have to admit that "social liberalism" is more widely used than I expected. I still insist that it is essentially a retronym, and an arbitrary retronym. But I am willing to concede that it is the consensus arbitrary retronym. I did not realise that John Rawls had been so widely described as a "social liberal" and not just an "American liberal", for example. The fact that hardly any of the citations are more than 20 years old shows that it is a retronym. Nothing in the article text, or the supporting citations, tells the reader that the leading figures of British New Liberalism, German Ordoliberalism, French Radicalism, or American Liberalism would have used the term themselves, or even been aware that they had been grouped with each other. To describe "social liberalism" as an "ideology" seems a bit much. As for your comment on conservative liberalism, I can only assume you haven't seen the page- which hangs on a comparison with national liberalism. To me this made the need for two pages seem redundant. TrendBronco (talk) 23:58, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Liberalism, the belief in freedom and equality, is the American mainstream, and the same is true throughout most of the West. The liberals in the sixties were as anti-communist as the conservatives. The Left, then, were the communists, and the Right were the people who opposed labor unions and integration. Then, the Right found political advantage in calling people who supported labor unions and the mixing of the races Leftists, a word they also applied to hippies (and, earlier Beatniks -- the "nik" suffix came from Sputnik).Rick Norwood (talk) 14:19, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Some political scientists do use the terms "radical", "radical liberal" or "liberal-radical" when speaking about the ideological variant described in this article, especially those who focus on continental Europe and Romance countries, e.g. Klaus von Beyme who is one of the most influential European scholars of comparative political science and main theorist of the concept of "party families" (cf. Political Parties in Western Democracies, 1985). He defined the "liberal and radical" party family within which he distinguishes more conservative "liberal" and more left-leaning "radical" parties (von Beyme (1985), pp. 31 et seqq.). In the 1988 volume "Liberal Parties in Western Europe" edited by Emil J. Kirchner, liberal parties were distinguished into a "liberal-conservative" and a "liberal-radical" current as proposed by Gordon Smith (Between left and right: the ambivalence of European liberalism, in: Kirchner ed. (1988), pp. 21 et seqq.). Younger scholars use "social(-)liberal" and "radical" or "liberal-radical" as synonyms (Almeida, The Impact of European Integration on Political Parties, 2012, pp. 97–98 (citing von Beyme); Hloušek and Kopecek, Origin, Ideology and Transformation of Political Parties, 2013, p. 108 (citing G. Smith)), but seem to prefer the term "social(-)liberal" (either with or without hyphen). I propose therefore to include Liberal radicalism as a synonym in the opening sentence and to create a redirect from Liberal radicalism to this article. --RJFF (talk) 12:18, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Moreover, a hatnote should inform about the two meanings of "social liberalism": (1) a more social (-democratic) oriented variant of liberalism, as opposed to classical or conservative liberalism (the subject of this article) and (2) liberal stances on "social issues" like abortion, same-sex marriage etc., as opposed to Social conservatism in the United States. Especially in the US discourse "social(ly) liberal" is more often used in the second sense – this article may therefore be surprising or confusing to some readers. --RJFF (talk) 12:27, 21 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I do not agree that this article is more about conservative liberalism, since conservative liberalism in the US rejects government solutions to social problems, while conservative liberalism in the EU supports government solutions to social problems, but stresses that these solutions should be limited to benefiting the members of the dominant culture, not foreigners. This article is more about solving social problems such as education, hunger, and health care.  I don't think that in the EU this would be considered liberal at all, but would be called socialist, a word people in the US avoid because of a long-standing fear of "godless communism".  I do agree that this article needs to be absolutely clear, in the introduction, about the different ways "social liberalism" is used in different countries. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:25, 21 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I think you got me wrong. I meant that this article is about "a more social (-democratic) oriented variant of liberalism" – as opposed to classical or conservative liberalism. It is not about conservative liberalism, quite the contrary. And yes, I think this is also considered liberal in Europe (at least some countries including Germany, Britain, Scandinavia and the Low Countries), just a more left-leaning variant of liberalism that exists alongside the more right-leaning ones of classical and conservative liberalism (this is what I tried to get across in my above post). However, many parties of the socialist/social-democratic party family have incorporated elements of social liberalism. The modern, moderate outfit of democratic socialism/social democracy ("Third Way") and (social-)liberalism may blend into each other and socialism and liberalism are no longer antagonisms. --RJFF (talk) 15:19, 21 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I frankly do not understand most of Rick Norwood's remarks (they seem to me a little bit out of context here), while I totaly agree with RJFF, espcially on adding "liberal radicalism" to the intro (I would add "radical liberalism" to) and explaining the two meanings of "social liberalism" (on this I am very happy that RJFF has agreed on my earlier proposal). --Checco (talk) 11:43, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Do you agree with adding "Liberal radicalism" as a synonym in the opening sentence based on the prevalence of the terms "liberal-radical", "radical" or "radical liberal" to describe this variant of liberalism in earlier (1980s, 1990s) political science literature, the affinity of many modern social liberal parties to the tradition of (historical) radicalism, and Hloušek and Kopecek's assertion that "social-liberal" and "liberal-radical" are synonyms ("The terminology labeling these two groups [i.e. classical liberals and social-liberals] varies, of course. For example Gordon Smith speaks of liberal-conservative and liberal-radical parties, which reflects the historical affinity of most parties in the second group [i.e. social-liberals] to the radical branch of the family.") ; while keeping the article title as it is, given that "social liberalism" is much more common in current English-language literature? --RJFF (talk) 11:39, 22 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree. I would add both "liberal radicalism" and "radical liberalism"—and the two meanings of "social liberalism". --Checco (talk) 11:54, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Not a bad idea, so I also agree on this one. I prefer the term "radical liberalism" to "liberal radicalism" (and I've encountered the former more often), but both should be included in the explanation.--Autospark (talk) 12:06, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I also prefer "radical liberalism" over "liberal radicalism". --Checco (talk) 12:12, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I was unsure about "radical liberalism" because in Germany it is usually used in the sense of radical neo-liberalism or libertarianism (the term "libertarian" is rather unknown in Germany, only experts and adherents use it, while texts for a general public might use "radically liberal"). But if you assure that it's used synonymously with social liberalism in English, I agree. --RJFF (talk) 12:16, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * At the risk of sounding awkward, I actually prefer "liberal radicalism" or "radicalism" now that I think about it. I was a bit hasty in suggesting "radical liberalism" in my comment above. I think it's necessary to show the link to the term "radicalism" as it was conceived at the time of the French revolution, in common with "liberalism" and "conservatism", and it allows for some citations referring to the French Radical Party and others. I also think it would be better to describe it as a "family of ideologies" or a "branch of political philosophy" or something similar, rather than "a political ideology", which seems a stretch. I would agree with a change of that sort. TrendBronco (talk) 23:58, 25 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Checco: My comment was in response to this parenthetical remark by RJFF: "conservative liberalism (the subject of this article)" I now see that the antecedent of the parenthetical is ambiguous.


 * The discussion of politics becomes impossible when writers use the same words with different meanings and different words with the same meaning. If it is generally accepted that "social liberalism" and "radical liberalism" are synonyms, a major authoritative source needs to be supplied.  If, on the other hand, "social liberalism" is sometimes called "radical liberalism" but is not a synonym, then it does not belong in the first sentence. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:01, 22 September 2015 (UTC)


 * On the usage "radicalism" for a belief in social justice, I have heard enemies of social justice call such programs "radical" as when the pope was recently called a "radical environmentalist" for believing in global warming, but I've never heard "ism" added to that. For "radicalism" to be added to the article, it would need serious references to show it is a common usage. Rick Norwood (talk) 11:54, 26 September 2015 (UTC)


 * There is no doubt that "social liberalism" is sometimes referred to as "radical liberalism", but, of course, we need at least an authoritative source (on this I quite agree with Rick Norwood). Anyway, I have to say that I feel very satisfied with the current version of the article. I really appreciated RJFF's additions on the usage of "social liberalism" in the United States and the social-liberal character of some European social-democratic parties. And, yes, "liberal radicalism" is very awkward if compared with "radical liberalism" (on this I quite disagree with TrendBronco). --Checco (talk) 13:36, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

We should be using the term "Egalitarianism"... not Social Liberalism.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Social liberalism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090115064405/http://diarioeconomico.sapo.pt:80/edicion/diarioeconomico/opinion/columnistas/pt/desarrollo/1123500.html to http://diarioeconomico.sapo.pt/edicion/diarioeconomico/opinion/columnistas/pt/desarrollo/1123500.html

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 02:45, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Category talk:Radical liberal parties in Italy
I started a discussion at Category talk:Radical liberal parties in Italy: is that category appropriate? I don't think so, but other user might have something to say about it. Moreover, the discussion is part of a general problem: the categorization of "radical liberalism" or "liberal radicalism". Currently, Liberal radicalism is a disambiguation mentioning Radicalism (historical), Social liberalism and Libertarianism, but, unfortunately in my view, neither this article nor Libertarianism mentions either "liberal radicalism" or "radical liberalism" in its lead, while mentioning "reform liberalism". I think this is a shortcoming. Finally, it would be important and interesting to decide which term is more appropriate as a synonym for "social liberalism": "liberal radicalism" or "radical liberalism"? --Checco (talk) 09:55, 21 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I moved the aforementioned category to Category:Radical parties in Italy and changed its content (see Category talk:Radical parties in Italy).
 * I take this opportunity to express once again the need to mention either "radical liberalism" or "liberal radicalism" in this article's lead. In my view, it is also important to connect "social liberalism" with historical "radicalism" (see Radicalism (historical). --Checco (talk) 07:08, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Wrong Article Name - Should be Egalitarianism.
This entire article does not describe social liberalism.... it describes Egalitarianism or Radicalism. The entire thing is wrong if you want to relate to the idea of "social liberalism". SOCIAL liberalism specifically relates to SOCIAL issue; it under no circumstances has anything to do with equal outcomes or anything with economics. Social liberalism is more correctly affiliated with Libertarianism.


 * You need a source. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:14, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Name fix / History background
I came here from the German Wikipedia and this article needs to get some fixes. Because it is misleading hard! Especially for the German part in comparison to the current introduction, but also for the strongly related US and British part.
 * Social-liberalism allowed the Volk (which was not the people aka plebs, not the military and not the nobility) but the weaponized people of the local or state-wide community (you can call it higher middle class, people who built the state) the plain possibility to increase social standards.
 * Then you have to differ:
 * 1) Left-liberals used the market capitalism, which was "laissez faire" at that time, to get to this goal and strictly went against any government intervention. They heavily favored Free Trade (with also no government intervention in it) to higher the standards of living of the people in general.
 * 2) Social-liberals however wanted to create, they never accomplished anything politically, a system which includes Protestant Christian values, markets, anti-socialism in a "populist" manner building associations and unions for the common people. You can say it was a brainstorm.
 * 3) Conservatives stood for the unified German state out of a liberal, free confederacy of Volk states (some of them free) and the military integrity, especially against egalitarian and centrist France at that time.
 * 4) Germany after 1945 has nothing to do with social liberalism in an egalitarianist way or social(ist) democratic setting until the 1970's. It was instead neoliberal liberalism, post-fascism and Christian conservatism, nearly the same what Germany did in the 19th's century. Liberal Socialism is something different.
 * 5) I never read that Roosevelt was a left-liberal, but a particular socialist reformer using state power.
 * 6) Libertarianism, a term used in the United States, is strongly connected to left-liberalism when used in the sense of historic left-liberalism and republicanism. Mostly it is right-libertarianism. E.g. when interventionism harms individual freedom of associations, when activists push changing property rights already given. Because the social base or deal compared to an ethnic state isn't there. When it comes to truely aimed social balance, the US don't have institutions who can manage change and also keepeverything non interventionist and fair.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.83.155.121 (talk) 07:58, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Some of what you say may be true but a lot of it looks like your own political opinion. I have no doubt that the rule on de.wiki is the same as here: statements must be supported by evidence. So I suggest that you create a subsection here for each of your six points in turn and produce the evidence. Although your English is excellent, you might find it easier to use the de.wiki talk page to explain what you think needs to be changed to the material about Germany that is here and return with an wp:NPOV text that represents the consensus of German wikipedians.
 * (There is an additional problem in that different cultures have different associations with words that appear to mean the same thing. Even among english speakers, the British concept of social liberalism - meaning liberalism with a social responsibility - is different to the American concept, that it is only that what people do in their private lives is of no legitimate interest to anyone else. And Americans have broadened that to mean essentially anything at odds with what they call Conservativism (which is not the same as UK Conservative Party or DE Christian Democrat!). But that is one of the reasons that Americans invented the word Libertarianism (and Europeans invented Neo-liberalism) because they didn't like the "soft-left" meaning that had become attached to Liberalism. I believe! [No evidence!]). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:15, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Unclear sentence
Currently the last sentence of the opening paragraph of the lead is


 * It does so in allowing autonomy of the individual and products of the market economy unrestricted access with the goal to increase wellbeing for all.[2][3][4]

I can’t understand what this is intended to mean. Could someone more familiar with the topic rewrite the sentence? Thanks. Loraof (talk) 19:05, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Globalize
The article, despite mentioning several non-Western social liberal parties and movements, revolves around its history in the West. Rupert Loup (talk) 07:06, 2 November 2019 (UTC)


 * In complete agreement to this. Moreover it deviates into American-specific definitions saying "in America..." but doesn't do that for any other country. I find it odd that the article is very American-focused. America should probably have it's own section instead, with more citations. Since I find the citations for this artical very lacking 92.7.176.44 (talk) 21:00, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

About the “Social Liberalism Flag”


The "" (see also: right, above) I posted earlier is my redesign (vectorized, squared and Latin logotype), but this is not my original.

 (see also: right, below) uploaded by Mr./Ms. .

And perhaps the most original source is on this (below) site.



It says: "With a group of 40 Social liberals we made this flag for the movement."

This is also almost certainly a post by. Looking at the profile on this site, he or she seems to live in Curacaví, Chile.

And it seems that various kinds ofgoods such as T-shirts using this design are being manufactured and sold.



The flag is described at Wikimedia Commons as: "This flag represents social liberalism around the world."

At first, I believed this explanation, and the goods were on sale, I thought the flag was some kind of official or widely used symbol of social liberalism. However, it turns out that it was actually designed and published just a few months ago by a group of only 40 Chilean social liberals.

So I ask everyone for your opinions:


 * 1) Post it again with the annotation: "This flag is an unofficial and unapproved symbol, recently designed by few Chilean groups of social liberals as represents social liberalism world wide."
 * 2) Not post again.

I would appreciate your feedback.--Obendorf (talk) 04:50, 2 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you for inviting comment. WP:Self-published applies to flags as much as text so please not post again unless and until multiple wp:reliable sources give it recognition. For the record, Reddit is not a reliable source. (Anybody can upload any image to Commons and call it what they like. The file name has no status.)--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:47, 2 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Mr. John Maynard Friedman: Thank you for your reply. I repeat, this flag is not my original, therefore, it may not applicable to "Self-published". I "just" re-edited the existing flag. At least, it is probably true that this flag is used by some people of social liberals. And at present, there is no other worldwide symbol that represents social liberalism. Therefore, this is a valuable symbol of the social liberalism. If you don't mind, please see my tentative post, then try removing " " and publish it. I apologize for causing you trouble. I pray for the development of this page.--Obendorf (talk) 21:57, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * No need whatever to apologise. This is exactly how Wikipedia editing is supposed to work. Your question was a very reasonable one and I am just another editor like you, I just happen to have been editing for many years and have come across this sort of thing before. Again, thank you for having invited comment at the article talk page before making a potentially controversial change. You could of course have been bold and just done it, provided you accept the risk that another editor might have reverted, invoking bold, revert, discuss. That is also how Wikipedia is supposed to work.--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:03, 3 October 2021 (UTC)